Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts: Methodological Issues 9027218722, 9789027218728

Table of contents :
Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts
Editorial page
Title page
LCC data
Table of contents
Acknowledgements
Notes on contributors
Introduction
1. Pragmatic variation: Aims and scope of the volume
2. Variation in linguistics research
3. Overview of the chapters in the volume
References
Chapter 1. Pragmatic variation by gender in market service encounters in Mexico
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Levels of pragmatic analysis and variation in commercial settings
2.2 Previous research on service encounters in commercial settings
3. Method
3.1 The market
3.2 Procedures for data collection and analysis
4. Results
4.1 Actional level: Making a request for service
4.2 Interactional level
4.3 Stylistic level
5. Discussion
5.1 Variation at the actional level
5.2 Variation at the interactional level
5.3 Variation at the stylistic level
5.4 Methodological issues
6. Conclusion
References
Appendix
Chapter 2 Cross-cultural stances in online discussions
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1 Defining stance
2.2 Approaches to stance
3. Method
3.1 Procedures for data collection
3.2 Procedures for data analysis
3.3 Participants
4. Results
4.1 Cultural analysis
4.2 Grammatical analysis
4.3 Interactional analysis
5. Discussion
5.1 Cultural analysis
5.2 Grammatical analysis
5.3 Interactional analysis
5.4 Methodological issues
6. Conclusion
References
Appendix: Fall 2009 MIT/Brest Forum
Chapter 3 Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse
1. Introduction
2. Review of literature and theoretical considerations
2.1 Some theoretical considerations about the therapeutic session
2.2 Conflict talk and its relevance to this study
2.3 Mitigation
2.4 Pragmatic variation (PV)
3. Data and methods
3.1 The participants
3.2 Data
3.3 Data analysis
4. Results
4.1 Qualitative analysis
4.1.1 Hedges/Bushes
4.1.2 Parenthetical verbs
4.1.3 Shields
4.1.4 Epistemic disclaimers
4.1.5 Tag questions
4.1.6 Diminutives
4.1.7 Proverbs and proverbial sayings: Other mitigating strategies
4.1.8 Other indirect devices: Guardar las apariencias (‘to keep up appearances’) (Placencia 1996)
4.2 Results: Quantitative analysis
5. Discussion
5.1 Methodological issues
6. Conclusion
References
Chapter 4. Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables
1. Introduction
2. English in China
3. Theoretical framework
3.1 Disagreement
3.2 Sociolinguistic variables and disagreement
3.3 Sociolinguistic variables and ELFP
3.4 The context
4. Method
5. Results
6. Discussion
7. Methodological issues
8. Pedagogical implications
9. Conclusions
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Chapter 5 Variation in the pragmatic use of conventional expressions
1. Introduction
1.1 What are conventional expressions?
2. Framework
3. Methodology
3.1 Instrument
3.2 Participants
3.3 Analysis
4. Results
4.1 Variation at the speech act and strategy levels: same context, different speech acts, or pragmatic strategies
4.2 Variation at the actional level: Same speech act, different words
4.2.1 Variation across expressions
4.2.1.1 A case of high NS variation. Four scenarios resulted in 30% or greater difference between NS teachers and peers: Office, Get a ride, Puddle, and Movie. The greatest difference between NS teachers and undergraduates appears in Movie in which teenag
4.2.2 Variation within expressions
4.2.2.1 Lexical core. An extreme case of variation within an expression is the recurrence of a single word in the absence of a conventional expression. Although no single expression reaches the 50% mark in I6, the word mess is strongly associated with the
5. Discussion
5.1 Methodological issues
6. Conclusion
References
Appendix: Oral production task
Part A instructions: Initiating utterances
Part B instructions: Responding utterances
Chapter 6. Variation in NS-learner interactions
1. Introduction
1.1 Frames and cognition
1.2 Frames and interaction
1.3 Frames and expectations
1.4 Changes in frames
1.5 Goals of the study and organization
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Communication, common ground, and frames of talk
2.2 The frame of institutional talk
2.3 The frame of personal talk
2.4 Expectations
2.5 Research questions
3. Method
4. Results
4.1 Interview dialogues: NS is initiator
4.2 Interview dialogues: Learner is initiator
4.3 Informal conversations
5. Discussion
5.1 Overall results
5.2 Methodological issues
6. Conclusions
References
Appendix 1: Notations used in the transcriptions (based in part on Atkinson & Heritage 1984)
Chapter 7. Pragmatic variation in learner perception
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Retrospective verbal reports in ILP research
2.2 The speech act of requests
3. Method
3.1 Participants
3.2 Instrument and procedures for data collection
3.3 Data analysis
4. Results
4.1 Noticed or attended features of the situation (cognition)
4.1.1 Grammar and vocabulary
4.1.2 Sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge
4.2 Development of pragmatic knowledge
4.3 Linguistic difficulties
5. Discussion
6. Implications for RVR methodology in ILP research
7. Conclusion
References
Appendix A
Role Plays
Extension
Notes
Appendix B
Chapter 8. Variationist sociolinguistics, L2 sociopragmatic competence
1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1 Variationist sociolinguistics
2.2 Where indeed does the sociolinguistic variable stop?
2.3 Classroom-based synchronous computer-mediated discourse
2.4 French tu and vous
2.5 Summary of van Compernolle et al. (2011)
3. Data and method for the present study
4. Results
4.1 Distributional analysis
4.2 VARBRUL analysis of interrogatives
4.3 Partition analysis of interrogatives
4.4 Beyond statistics: Interactional patterns of (socio)pragmatic variation
5. Discussion
5.1 Methodological issues
6. Conclusion
References
Chapter 9. Research methods for describing variation in intercultural pragmatics
1. Taking a multi-method approach to research on L2 pragmatics
2. Defining pragmatics
2.1 Cross-cultural pragmatics
2.2 Intercultural pragmatics
3. Options for investigating intercultural pragmatics
3.1 Basic research design issues
3.1.1 Sampling
3.1.2 Range of pragmatics features sampled
3.1.3 Number of measures
3.2 Naturalistic data
3.2.1 Corpus data
3.2.2 Specially collected data
3.3 Elicited data
3.3.1 Role-play tasks
3.3.2 Discourse completion tasks
3.3.3 Judgment tasks
4. Data analysis
4.1 Issues of general concern
4.2 Data analysis in the language ability areas
5. Discussion and conclusions
References
Chapter 10 Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics
1. Pragmatic variation: Between scylla and charybdis?
1.1 The variationist sociolinguistic view
1.2 The variational pragmatics view
2. Sailing toward calmer waters
2.1 Operationalizing pragmatic notions for pragmatic variation research
2.2 Operationalizing macro-social factors for pragmatic variation research
3. Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
Chapter 11. Conclusions
1. Introduction
2. Methodological issues highlighted in the studies
2.1 Methodological issues of data collection
2.1.1 Quantitative studies
2.1.2 Qualitative studies
2.1.3 Quantitative/qualitative studies
2.1.4 Methodological issues of data representation
2.2 Methodological issues of data analysis
2.2.1 Quantitative studies
2.2.2 Qualitative studies
2.2.3 Quantitative/qualitative studies
3. Future studies and conclusions
References
Index

Citation preview

Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts

IMPACT: Studies in Language and Society IMPACT publishes monographs, collective volumes, and text books on topics in sociolinguistics. The scope of the series is broad, with special emphasis on areas such as language planning and language policies; language conflict and language death; language standards and language change; dialectology; diglossia; discourse studies; language and social identity (gender, ethnicity, class, ideology); and history and methods of sociolinguistics. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/impact

General Editor Ana Deumert

University of Cape Town

Advisory Board Peter Auer

Marlis Hellinger

Jan Blommaert

Elizabeth Lanza

Annick De Houwer

William Labov

J. Joseph Errington

Peter L. Patrick

Anna Maria Escobar

Jeanine Treffers-Daller

Guus Extra

Victor Webb

University of Freiburg Ghent University University of Erfurt Yale University

University of Illinois at Urbana Tilburg University

University of Frankfurt am Main University of Oslo University of Pennsylvania University of Essex University of the West of England University of Pretoria

Volume 31 Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts. Methodological issues Edited by J. César Félix-Brasdefer and Dale April Koike

Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts Methodological issues Edited by

J. César Félix-Brasdefer Indiana University, USA

Dale April Koike University of Texas at Austin, USA

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts : methodological issues / edited by J. César Félix-Brasdefer, Dale April Koike. p. cm. (IMPACT: Studies in Language and Society, issn 1385-7908 ; v. 31) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Language and languages--Variation. 2. Linguistic change. 3. Pragmatics. I. FélixBrasdefer, J. César. II. Koike, Dale April. P99.4.P72P73368 2012 417’.7--dc23 2012025278 isbn 978 90 272 1872 8 (Hb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 7327 7 (Eb)

© 2012 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents Acknowledgements Notes on contributors Introduction: Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Dale A. Koike chapter 1 Pragmatic variation by gender in market service encounters in Mexico J. César Félix-Brasdefer chapter 2 Cross-cultural stances in online discussions: Pragmatic variation in French and American ways of expressing opinions Carl Blyth chapter 3 Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse: An examination of mitigating devices employed by Dominican female clients and a Cuban American therapist Nydia Flores-Ferrán chapter 4 Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables: English as a Lingua Franca of Practice in China Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer chapter 5 Variation in the pragmatic use of conventional expressions Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig chapter 6 Variation in NS-learner interactions: Frames and expectations in pragmatic co-construction Dale A. Koike chapter 7 Pragmatic variation in learner perception: The role of retrospective verbal report in L2 speech act research Helen Woodfield

vii ix 1

17

49

81

113

141

175

209

 Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts

chapter 8 Variationist sociolinguistics, L2 sociopragmatic competence, and corpus analysis of classroom-based synchronous computer-mediated discourse Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams chapter 9 Research methods for describing variation in intercultural pragmatics for cultures in contact and conflict Andrew D. Cohen chapter 10 Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics: Where does pragmatic variation fit in?  Marina Terkourafi

239

271

295

chapter 11 Conclusions: Methodological issues in pragmatic variation Dale A. Koike & J. César Félix-Brasdefer

319

Index

337

Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge all those who have offered their help in this ­project. We especially thank the  authors of the volume, whose outstanding work has ­contributed much to linguistics and many other fields.  This volume would not have been possible without the professional advice and encouragement from the following people: first, we would like to thank Ana Deumert, the series e­ ditor of IMPACT, and Kees Vaes, the managing editor at John Benjamins, for their belief in the project and their professional and editorial advice.  We would like to express our gratitude to the external reviewers who provided such ­excellent, detailed ­feedback that is reflected in the final versions of the chapters of this ­volume, ­including Anne Barron, Adriana Bolívar, Carl Blyth, Diana Boxer, Laura ­Callahan, Holly ­Cashman, Andrew Cohen, Robert Englebretson, Ana María Escobar, Tim Hassall, Wei Hong, Susan Hunston, Carol Klee, Claire Kramsch, Salla Kurhila, Manel Lacorte, Rosina Márquez Reiter, Maria Elena Placencia, and Richard Young. Last but not least, we thank our families for their patience and ­encouragement throughout the ­conceptualization and realization of this volume.

Notes on contributors Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig is Professor and Chair in the Dept. of Second Language Studies at Indiana University. Her research focuses on second language acquisition, second language temporality and tense-mood-aspect systems, and i­nterlanguage pragmatics. She has published various books and numerous articles in well-known venues. 〈http://www.indiana.edu/~dsls/faculty/kathleen.shtml〉 Carl Blyth is Associate Professor of French at the University of Texas at Austin. He researches sociocultural approaches to language acquisition as well as the dynamics of face-to-face interaction in French-speaking societies. He is also involved in various research projects concerning the social and psychological factors in ­computer-mediated language learning. 〈http://www.utexas.edu/opa/experts/profile.php?id=41〉 Diana Boxer is Professor of Linguistics at University of Florida. Prof. ­Boxer’s research and teaching focus on sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and ­pragmatics, the ethnography of communication, gender and language, second language acquisition, and general applied linguistics. 〈http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dboxer/〉 Andrew D. Cohen is a Professor in the Second Language Studies Program, which is affiliated with the Department of Writing Studies at the University of ­Minnesota. He served as the Director of the Language Resource Center at the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) from 1993–2004 and has been active with numerous projects within CARLA. 〈http://www.carla.umn.edu/about/profiles/Cohen.html〉 Rémi A. van Compernolle is Assistant Professor of Second Language Acquisition and French and Francophone Studies at Carnegie Mellon University. His research interests include second language acquisition and pedagogy, pragmatics and sociolinguistics, and computer-mediated discourse and interaction. 〈http://www.facebook.com/ravancompernolle〉 César Félix-Brasdefer is Associate Professor of Spanish and Linguistics at I­ ndiana University. His research interests include pragmatics, interlanguage and cross-­ cultural pragmatics, pragmatic variation, and institutional discourse. 〈http://www.indiana.edu/~spanport/people/felix.shtml〉



Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts

Nydia Flores-Ferrán is Associate Professor of Linguistics at Rutgers ­University, Graduate School of Education/Language Education & School of Arts and S­ ciences/ Spanish and Portuguese. Her research interests include U.S. ­Spanish, ­bilingualism, second language acquisition, and sociolinguistics: language in s­ ociety and l­ anguage education. 〈http://gse.rutgers.edu/nydia_flores〉 Dale Koike is Professor of Spanish and Portuguese Linguistics at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research addresses Spanish and Portuguese ­pragmatics, second language acquisition, third language acquisition, discourse analysis, ­ ­dialogue/interaction studies, and language assessment. 〈http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/spanish/faculty/koikeda〉 Marina Terkourafi is Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of ­Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, specializing in post-Gricean pragmatics, theories of im/politeness, socio-historical linguistics, and construction grammar(s). Her work has appeared in journals such as Cognition & Emotion, Diachronica, ­Journal of Pragmatics, Journal of Historical Pragmatics, Journal of Politeness Research, ­Language in Society, Journal of Greek Linguistics, and Constructions and Frames. Currently, she is working on a monograph ‘From politeness to impoliteness: The frame-based approach’ (to appear from Cambridge University Press). 〈http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/mt217/〉 Lawrence Williams is Associate Professor of Foreign Languages and Literatures (French) at the University of North Texas. He is interested in corpus-based and corpus-driven analysis of sociolinguistic and pragmatic variation, computermediated communication, second/foreign language learning and education. 〈http://www.forl.unt.edu/~lfw/research.htm〉 Helen Woodfield is Senior Lecturer in TEFL/Applied Linguistics at University of Bristol, UK. Her research interests focus on comparative and developmental aspects of interlanguage pragmatics and in the contribution of verbal report to methodology in researching cognitive processes and metalinguistic knowledge in speech act production. She has published in various journals such as Multilingua, Studies in Applied Linguistics, and Evaluation and Research in Education, among others. 〈http://www.bristol.ac.uk/education/people/person.html?personKey=tvOK42Vd Kjo6pANyY5VLjD7XWv18yO〉 Weihua Zhu is a Faculty Associate of the Department of East Asian Languages and Literature at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA. Her research and teaching focus on discourse ­analysis, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, World English, second language acquisition and pedagogy. 〈http://eall.wisc.edu/?9=node/252〉

Introduction Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Dale A. Koike

Indiana University, USA / University of Texas at Austin, USA

1.  Pragmatic variation: Aims and scope of the volume This volume aims to examine variation in pragmatics with particular attention to the methods utilized to collect and analyze data in a variety of first (L1) and second (L2) language contexts. Specifically, this collection of papers looks at p ­ ragmatic variation in topics related to speech act sequences, the perception of speech acts, mitigation, deixis (T/V pronominal form alternation), conventional expressions, frame in L2 discourse, and stance-taking, in different language ­varieties, such as U.S. and British English, Mexican, Cuban, and Dominican Spanish, French (from various regions in France), and English as a lingua franca of practice in China. The theoretical frameworks adopted in the volume vary from variationist ­sociolinguistics, systemic functional linguistics, and interactional sociolinguistics, to variational pragmatics. The chapters represent three major types of methodological approaches, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods, using natural and experimental data. Within these types of analysis is an array of variations, ­ ­illustrating the difficulty of capturing through a single method or approach the nature of pragmatics, which is not tied to formal properties of language, but rather to the interplay of contextual variables, the influence of the context where the data are collected, the various pragmatic meanings (or functions) expressed by a particular form, personal viewpoints and experiences, and the dynamicity of meaning construction. And since the selection of the method(s) used to collect and analyze pragmatic variation in L1 and L2 contexts influences the interpretation of the results, a central goal of the present volume is to address methodological issues commonly encountered in sociolinguistics and cross-cultural pragmatics research in the analysis of variation in pragmatics and discourse. This volume on variation in pragmatics takes an interdisciplinary perspective in both its units of analysis and its methodological focus, as it explores the interface of sociolinguistics and



J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Dale A. Koike

pragmatics, as well as methodological issues relevant to the fieldwork and methods employed in these studies. Pragmatics can be broadly defined as the study of language use in context from the point of view of speakers who use utterances (and non-verbal signals) to express communicative action at the discourse level, and how these utterances are interpreted by hearers. The field of pragmatics can be approached from at least two perspectives; namely, the Anglo-American and the (European) Continental traditions (Huang 2009: 341). The first one is referred as the ‘component view’ that examines the “systematic study of meaning by virtue of, or dependent on, the use of language” (p. 341). It is mainly concerned with central topics such as implicature, presupposition, speech acts, deixis, and reference. The second, the ‘European Continental tradition,’ is considered the functional perspective and interfaces with disciplines such as sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, discourse analysis, variational pragmatics (e.g. Schneider & Barron 2008), and other social sciences. This functional perspective is also referred as ‘empirical pragmatics.’ For this volume, pragmatics is viewed as language use in context, with actions that are accomplished and negotiated during the course of social interaction. We note that variation in pragmatics is particularly difficult to study given the non-formal nature of this area of linguistics. That is, it entails an understanding of language that is not explicitly expressed in forms, making categorization difficult because it is dependent on the judgment of the investigator, the force of the utterance produced, the relationship between the interlocutors, and the context in which the utterances are produced and interpreted, among other factors. The first eight chapters of the present volume fall under the functional view of pragmatics, as they employ empirical data to explain various aspects of ­variation in pragmatics. The topics examined address different aspects of variation in p ­ ragmatics in L1 and L2 contexts that correlate with macro-sociolinguistic (e.g. gender, social class) and micro-social factors (e.g. social power, situation, ­distance). The volume includes the following chapters: Chapter 1: Pragmatic variation by gender in market service encounters in Mexico (J. César Félix-Brasdefer); Chapter 2: Cross-cultural stances in online discussions: Pragmatic variation in French and American ways of expressing opinions (Carl Blyth); Chapter 3: Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse: An examination of mitigating devices employed by Dominican female clients and a Cuban-American therapist (Nydia Flores-Ferrán); Chapter 4: Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables: English as a Lingua Franca of Practice in China (Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer); Chapter 5: Variation in the pragmatic use of conventional expressions (­ Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig);

Introduction

Chapter 6: Variation in NS-learner interactions: Frames and expectations in pragmatic co-construction (Dale Koike); Chapter 7: Pragmatic variation in learner perception: The role of retrospective verbal report in L2 speech act research (Helen Woodfield); Chapter 8: Variationist sociolinguistics, L2 sociopragmatic competence, and corpus analysis of classroom-based synchronous computer-mediated discourse (Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams). The last two chapters address various methodological and theoretical issues in pragmatic variation: Chapter 9: Research methods for describing variation in intercultural pragmatics for cultures in contact and conflict (Andrew D. Cohen); Chapter 10: Between Pragmatics and Sociolinguistics: Where does pragmatic variation fit in? (Marina Terkourafi). The last chapter of the volume, Chapter 11 (Dale A. Koike & J. César FélixBrasdefer), presents the conclusions and highlights methodological issues of each of the 10 chapters. 2.  Variation in linguistics research While variation at the phonological domain and, to a lesser degree, at the morphological and syntactic domains, has been widely attested using variationist sociolinguistic research (e.g. Labov 1972a, 1972b, 1994, 2006; Sankoff 1973; SilvaCorvalán 2001; Tsiplakou, Karyolemou & Pavlou 2009), variation at the discourse/ pragmatic domain has not received the same attention, and research methods used for conducting research in pragmatic variation still need to be refined. In her study of syntactic variation and beyond, Cheshire (2005) noted that “sociolinguistic variation is not usually taken into account in pragmatic analyses” (p. 500). While she emphasized the need to analyze syntactic variation with the interplay of the discourse and pragmatic domains, her analysis is oriented to variation in syntax, which invokes notions of discourse/pragmatics such as information structure (Lambrecht 1994) and the given-new information distinction (Prince 1981). Specifically, Cheshire takes a functional approach that aims at speakers using “syntactic forms to construct discourse,” since it is through discourse that they “perform different kinds of social activities and construct many different kinds of social meanings” (2005: 503). And in a recent study that aims at extending the analysis of the linguistic variable to the analysis of pragmatics – namely, the pragmatic variable –Terkourafi (2011) convincingly argued that instead of using the ­truth-conditional equivalence that characterizes the linguistic variable (i.e. two ways of saying the same thing), variation in the pragmatic domain should consider the notion of functional equivalence; that is, using a procedural ­interpretation for





J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Dale A. Koike

the ­analysis of social meaning (pp. 358–366). Further, in their book of A ­ merican English Dialects and Variation, Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (2006) devoted nine pages to a significant section on “language use and pragmatics” (2006: 93–101). In this ­section the authors explain the relevance of variation at the pragmatic level across dialects of American English. For example, they explain pragmatic ­variation in conventions of language use (form and function), such as greetings and closings, address forms, small talk, and variation at the thematic and organizational levels that occur across different regional and social groups. It is clear from the aforementioned studies that variation in pragmatics is grounded in the variationist linguistic tradition (Labov 1972a; Terkourafi 2011). And unlike phonological variation that emphasizes representational sameness, variation in the pragmatic domain is more complex, as it must consider the notion of functional meanings that may derive from one form. Pragmatic variation also focuses on the construction of social meaning, it has interactional consequences, and it must consider the correlation with sociolinguistic variables such as gender, social class, age, and ethnicity, among others. Topics in pragmatic variation have been examined with regard to regional ­differences in one or more varieties of a language. Initial attempts to examine speech act variation at the regional level began with the work of Schlieben-Lange and Weydt (1978) who described variation in speech act realization (e.g. promises, compliment responses) and sequential actions (openings and closings) in different varieties of German. However, as noted in Schneider and Barron (2008: 8), their analysis was mainly anecdotal and observational, lacking empirical analysis. Other work carried out from a cross-cultural pragmatic perspective ­(Wierzbicka 1985, 2003), showed that speech act realization varies in different cultures in both form and function. Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989), who adopted c­ oncepts of speech act theory (Austin 1962; Searle 1969) and Brown and ­Levinson’s (1987) model of linguistic politeness, applied them in a contrastive perspective and described speech-act realization among native and non-native speakers, focusing on requests and apologies with data that were collected through a written questionnaire (simulated data). Finally, Márquez Reiter and Placencia (2005) examined sociopragmatic variation mainly in cross-cultural contexts in Spanish and other languages (pp. 191–212). They define sociopragmatic variation as “the way in which speakers vary their use of language in similar situational contexts with similar communicative purposes and thus exhibit different interactional features/ patterns” (2005: 192–193). Variation in pragmatics is also investigated under the field of Variational ­Pragmatics, which includes broader pragmatic targets, two or more v­ arieties of the same language, and with an integrative foundation in theory and ­methodology (Barron & Schneider 2009; Schneider 2010; Schneider & Barron 2008). It lies at

Introduction

the intersection of pragmatics with sociolinguistics (or modern dialectology). Variational pragmatics investigates “intra-lingual d ­ ifferences, i.e. pragmatic variation between and across L1 varieties of the same language” ­(Barron & ­Schneider 2009: 426). Its framework consists of two main c­ omponents; namely, social factors and levels of pragmatic analysis. With regard to social factors, variational pragmatics distinguishes five social variables or macro-social factors that influence communicative language use (e.g. region, social class, ethnicity, gender). It should be noted that the last four factors are influenced by the variationist sociolinguistic tradition, in the form of ‘social variation’. Regional variation has received the most attention (cf. ­García & Placencia 2011; Márquez Reiter & ­Placencia 2005 [Chapter 5]; ­Placencia 1994; Schneider & Barron 2008). Unlike these five macro-social factors, the micro-social refer to variation with regard to social power, social distance, and other situational factors. The second component of variational p ­ ragmatics d ­ istinguishes five levels of pragmatic analysis: ‘formal’ (e.g. determining the various pragmatic meanings of one linguistic form, such as discourse markers ‘well’ or ‘you know’), ‘actional’ (i.e. focus on speech acts and internal modification), ‘interactional’ (i.e. sequential analysis of speech acts, such as request sequences), ‘topic’ (i.e. topic selection and topic management), and ‘organizational’ (e.g. turn-taking, interruption, silence in discourse). Overall, under the framework of variational pragmatics, ‘pragmatic variation’ is defined as variation with regard to pragmatic meanings expressed by a single form; that is, form-function mappings (­ Schneider & ­Barron 2008:  10). Some of the chapters in this volume examine variation at various levels of pragmatic analysis and their correlation with various macro-/micro social ­factors. Although the focus of variational pragmatics is on intra-lingual differences (i.e. pragmatic variation between and across L1 varieties of the same language [our emphasis]), some chapters in this volume adopted a modified version of the framework of variational pragmatics to examine variation within one variety of a ­language in L1 or L2 contexts (for an extended version of variational pragmatics, see Terkourafi [Chapter 10, this volume]). In this volume, variation is also examined at the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic levels. Following Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983), ‘pragmalinguistics’ refers to knowledge about and performance of the conventions of language use or the linguistic resources available in a given language that convey “particular illocutions” in contextually appropriate ­situations (Leech 1983: 11), while ‘sociopragmatics’ concerns knowledge about and performance consistent with social norms in specific situations in a given society, as well as familiarity with variables of social power and social distance. Other types of variation examined in this volume include individual variation and variation at the micro-social level, such as situational variation or variation in social power or





J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Dale A. Koike

distance, and variation at the macro level, illustrated in s­ tance-taking and frames, for example. With regard to methodological issues, methods used in the analysis of ­pragmatic variation range from natural discourse, interviews, and introspective methodology, to experimental data collected under comparable conditions. Márquez Reiter and Placencia (2005: 213–230) outlined the methodology commonly used in sociopragmatic variation, which mainly describes the principal techniques used in investigations of sociopragmatic variation with particular attention to Spanish. Proponents of variational pragmatics (Barron & Schneider 2009; Schneider & Barron 2008; Schneider 2010) described their methodological framework that includes natural data taken from natural corpora, interactions in service encounters, and experimental data elicited through role plays and production questionnaires. Félix-Brasdefer (2010) reviews the methods commonly used in speech-act research, including various types of role plays and production questionnaires, introspective methodology such as verbal reports, and natural data, as well as ethical considerations in pragmatics research. And Geluykens (2008) takes a mixed-research approach to the analysis of cross-cultural pragmatics in institutional discourse. His methodology includes controlled elicitation taken from experimental (production questionnaires) and quasi-experimental methodology as well as natural data in social interaction. However, he emphasizes that crosscultural pragmatics research “takes verbal interaction seriously” and it should incorporate “authentic production material” (2008: 77), as well as data triangulation by combining qualitative and quantitative analysis. While important contributions have been made to analyze pragmatic variation largely in cross-cultural and intercultural contexts, little attention has been given to the analysis of variation in pragmatics that is determined by external, non-linguistic/contextual factors such as gender, social class, and individual variables, mainly in one or more varieties of a language. A recent volume by García and Placencia (2011) examines pragmatic variation in different varieties of S­ panish with regard to the effects of macro-social factors – age, social class, and region – on communicative language use. The present volume investigates pragmatic variation and the impact of macro- and micro-social factors (e.g. social power and distance, situational and individual variation) on language use in different languages, different topics in pragmatics and discourse, and with varied theoretical and methodological approaches. Finally, similarly there are few studies that examine variation in pragmatics among learners in foreign and second language contexts. Further, although there is some research in second language pragmatics that analyzes how l­ earners of s­ econd languages use utterances to express social action (e.g. speech act/­discourse and politeness research; Bardovi-Harlig, Félix-Brasdefer & Omar 2006; Kasper & Rose

Introduction

2002; Koike 2010), little is known of variation in second language learner production and comprehension; in particular, in relation to factors such as gender or individual variation (cf. Regan & Chasaide 2009). Likewise, exploration of pragmatic variation at the cognitive level is relatively new, and the work on stancetaking and framing in relation to pragmatic variation presented in this volume will contribute to establishing a new interface with cognitive studies. Moreover, since the field of pragmatic variation is advancing and many of the studies in this area are based on empirical data, there is a pressing need to develop sound techniques for the collection of data and for the analysis of action in social interaction. It is also essential at this time to refine techniques and develop alternatives for coding and data analysis and to examine issues related to validity and reliability in first and second language contexts. 3.  Overview of the chapters in the volume The present volume comprises 11 chapters organized across the following three areas: (i) Pragmatic variation in L1 contexts (Chapters 1–4); (ii) Pragmatic variation in L2 contexts (Chapters 5–8); and (iii) Methodological issues in pragmatic variation (Chapters 9–10). Chapter 11 presents a summary of the chapter conclusions and also an overview of the types of methodological issues raised in the quantitative and qualitative studies. It also offers some suggestions for areas of future study in pragmatic variation. The motivation for the present volume emerged from a workshop on L1 and L2 pragmatic variation that took place at the Hispanic Linguistics Symposium held at Indiana University in 2010. Marina Terkourafi, who served as the discussant of this workshop (also an author in this volume), raised important theoretical and methodological issues regarding various aspects of pragmatic variation, ­followed by additional remarks by the audience who further confirmed the need for a volume on pragmatic variation with a methodological focus. With regard to pragmatic variation in L1 contexts, the first three ­chapters examine variation in pragmatics and discourse in one or more varieties of a ­language (Spanish, English, and French), while the fourth examines pragmatic variation among Mandarin Chinese speakers of English as a lingua franca of practice in China. These chapters investigate pragmatic variation in natural s­ poken interactions in public service market encounters, institutional ­discourse in ­doctor-patient interactions, and in ordinary face-to-face conversations (­Félix-Brasdefer, ­Flores-Ferrán, and Zhu & Boxer), while Blyth (Chapter 2) ­analyzes messages taken from English and French online fora. The next four ­chapters examine ­variation in pragmatics exclusively in L2 contexts using varieties from L2 U.S. learners and





J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Dale A. Koike

native Spanish speakers from various places (Koike, Chapter 6), L2 U.S. English (Bardovi-Harlig, Chapter 5), L2 British English (Woodfield, Chapter 7), and L2 French learners (Compernolle & Williams, Chapter 8). These chapters utilized data from learner-native speaker interviews (Koike), experimental conditions (Bardovi-Harlig and Woodfield), and online chats (Compernolle & Williams); two of these chapters triangulated data from two or more data sources (Koike and Woodfield). The next two chapters critically examine theoretical and methodological issues related to variation in sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and intercultural pragmatics (Cohen [Chapter 9] and Terkourafi [Chapter 10]), while the last chapter (Chapter 11) provides the conclusions regarding methodological issues presented herein and directions of future research in pragmatic variation in L1 and L2 contexts (Koike & Félix-Brasdefer). Overall, although these chapters employ different theoretical frameworks to analyze the data, taken together they analyze variation in central topics of pragmatics. In addition, each of the eight empirical chapters focuses on methodological issues; namely, coding, data triangulation, validity and reliability, ethical issues for data collection, or the use of experimental and natural data in pragmatic variation research. The first four chapters examine variation in topics related to discourse pragmatics (e.g. speech act sequences, mitigation, and stance-taking in online fora) in different natural L1 contexts correlated with sociolinguistic variables. ­Félix-Brasdefer (Chapter 1) examines the role of gender on speech act sequences using natural data from service encounters collected in market transactions in Southern Mexico (Yucatán peninsula). The request data are examined according to three levels of pragmatic analysis; i.e. actional (request types), interactional (request-response sequences), and stylistic levels (variation in T/V address forms and according to the gender of the client). Results show that the gender of both the speaker and interlocutor influenced the selection of request type, the alternation of T/V pronominal and address forms, and the speech act sequence. With regard to strategy type, direct requests are the preferred strategy when negotiating a service for food in public market transactions (e.g. “give me bread please”) (imperatives used in male-male interactions), followed by elliptical (verbless requests) and implicit requests, respectively. The most frequent strategy utilized by female customers addressing a male vendor was the elliptical form. Gender variation was also noted in both the openings and closings of the interactions and in the T/V alternation: the T form is more frequent in male-male interactions, while the V form predominates in female-male interactions. The study addresses methodological and ethical issues in pragmatics research for the analysis and collection of natural interactional data in commercial settings. Unlike this chapter, which uses data from a spoken corpus in face-to-face interactions at the pragmatic level, Blyth (Chapter 2) examines variation at the

Introduction

discourse level using written messages taken from online fora in the analysis of stance-taking among NSs from universities in two countries: two universities in the United States and four in France (contrastive pragmatics). The results are ­presented for variation with regard to their understanding of individualism (e.g. cultural scripts), variation in the lexico-grammatical resources to construct stance, and how these groups negotiate their stance with each other in the forum p ­ ostings. From a methodological perspective, Blyth uses a mixed-method approach to examine the online data quantitatively and qualitatively. Blyth shows that variation between these groups is found with regard to the notion of ‘individualism’ that American students perceive as positive, while the French are seen as negative. Variation is also found in cultural and grammatical orientations: the French ­students frame their assertions as true and certain by means of impersonal constructions, while the Americans rely on epistemic mitigators to express their stance virtually (e.g. ‘I think that..’) and by means of direct questions. These differences in orientation also reflect variation in the alignment and positioning when expressing their views on the concept of individualism. This chapter presents important methodological challenges for the analysis of cultural scripts, online fora, mixedmethod approaches, and the repertoire of the grammatical resources analyzed in an online fora. The third chapter of this section (Flores-Ferrán) examines pragmatic variation in the use of mitigating devices produced by four Dominican female patients and a Cuban male therapist in a U.S. institutional setting. The face-to-face interactions were conducted entirely in Spanish, the native language of these speakers residing in the United States. This chapter adopts a mixed-method approach (quantitative and qualitative data) in the analysis of motivational interviews to show how forms such as como ‘like’, como que ‘as though/as if ’, and me siento como ‘I feel as though’ operate as attenuators and signal ways in which the speakers reject advice or express conflict. Other forms used to downgrade the negative effect of the message expressed include the overt and null subject pronouns, the impersonal form uno ‘one,’ the parenthetical expression me imagino ‘I imagine,’ the diminutive, epistemic disclaimers ‘I hate to tell you, but I can’t lend you the money,’ tag questions, and proverbs. In addition to pragmalinguistic variation, Flores-Ferrán noted that variation of these forms was influenced by the type of institutional discursive interaction (i.e. conflict talk as opposed to non-conflict) and speaker role (i.e. client-therapist), two micro social variables (i.e. power and solidarity), and individual speaker variation in the frequency of use of these forms. Given the unique nature of the final study of the first section of the volume, Chapter 4 (Zhu & Boxer) serves as a bridge to examine pragmatic variation in L2 contexts, since this chapter represents an instance of sociolinguistic variation in the speakers’ L1 context in a natural, uninstructed setting. Using data from



 J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Dale A. Koike

v­ ideo-taped natural conversations, Zhu and Boxer examine co-variation of seven sociolinguistic variables (i.e. sex, age, education, socioeconomic status/income, years of studying English, experience in English-speaking countries, and social distance) using disagreement data from native speakers of Mandarin Chinese speaking English as the lingua franca of practice in China. ‘English Corners’ are typically located in colleges or parks in a city where NS Chinese learners of E ­ nglish meet to practice English in natural conversations and in an informal context. These are speakers who share the same first language and culture for the purposes of language ­practice. Results show that strong disagreements are more frequent than weak disagreements in the present context. In this study, strong disagreements are realized in three ways; namely, issue-oriented negation, which was the most frequent type of disagreement (i.e. issues under discussion), followed by ­self-oriented negation (i.e. disagreement oriented towards oneself), and Otheroriented ­negation (i.e. orienting disagreement towards the addressee). Of the variables examined, age was marginally correlated with the frequency of strong disagreements. In terms of methodology, this study used interactional sociolinguistics to examine both the qualitative and quantitative data in this particular context where ­Chinese learners of English meet in natural settings (not organized by the school or professors) to practice English. The authors in this chapter advocate for collecting natural interactions for the analysis of extended speech act events in their natural context of occurrence. The previous chapters, with a focus on variation in pragmatics in L1 or L1/L2 contexts, set the background for the analysis of variation in L2 pragmatic contexts. The next four chapters of this volume examine variation at the pragmatic/ discourse level with data taken from learners in L2 academic contexts. Topics analyzed in this area include conventional expressions, variation of frame and interactional learner styles, perception of requests, and alternation of pronominal forms. This section begins with a chapter by Bardovi-Harlig (Chapter 5) that investigates variation in the use and nonuse of conventional expressions (e.g. ‘No thanks, I’m just looking’) among native and non-native speakers. These expressions represent a variety of speech acts that are appropriate in specific situations. The author used an oral-aural computer-delivered production task to gather the data in 32 scenarios. Variation was found at the level of the speech act performed and the strategies used, both across and within conventional expressions among learners and NSs of English. For example, multiple expressions were used by NSs and fewer expressions by learners. Bardovi-Harlig concludes with important methodological issues in interlanguage pragmatics with regard to the validity and design of the instrument, the construction of scenarios, the modality of the instrument (oral vs. written), the inclusion of contextual variables in experimental research, and inclusion of NS data from one variety of a language.

Introduction

Unlike the previous chapter that examined pragmatic variation from a contrastive perspective (i.e. comparing data from learners and NSs), Koike (Chapter  6) focuses on variation with regard to the pragmatic adjustments that non-native language learners make in their talk in the context of informal interviews and personal conversations. The variation occurs according to the contributions by the native speaker in order to achieve intersubjectivity (i.e. in this context, requiring adjustments involving intercultural pragmatics). The author uses the concepts of ‘primary’ frame (e.g. a conversation) and ‘transformational’ frame (e.g. a move from conversation toward, for example, an interview) (Ensink & Sauer 2003) to capture the dynamic variation that occurs in learner-native speaker talk. The expectations that such frames evoke in the speakers and listeners play an important role in the variation that occurs. Interview data as well as data from conversations are compared to reveal the differences in the frames and the corresponding pragmatic variation. The functions of the pragmatic expressions found in the data include (1) displaying interest and emotion, (2) recovering from an error or other linguistic difficulty, and (3) presenting pragmatic uptake and continuation from the preceding sequence. These are achieved by means of expansions, humor, sequencing, feedback, intonation, discourse markers, and levels of directness, but vary according to the type of frame to which the talk is oriented. The resources used could also signal changes or transitions in the frames, supporting Goffman (1974). While Koike examined pragmatic/discursive variation in learner-NS interactions, Woodfield (Chapter 7) analyzes L2 pragmatic variation at the perception level in ­learner-NS interactions through role plays (production of requests), supplemented by retrospective verbal reports. Introspective methodology (here, retrospective verbal reports [RVRs]) allowed the researcher to focus on the learners’ reflections immediately after producing the role-play task; thus increasing the validity of the data. This chapter carefully examines pragmatic variation in the perceptions of the learners in relation to noticed/ attended features of the situation with respect to their uncertainties concerning the selection of appropriate forms, evidence of individual variation in the different degrees of awareness of non-target forms in the role-play data, as well as a focus on sociocontextual aspects of the discourse situation. The results are presented in view of three criteria: noticed or attended features of the situation, development of pragmatic knowledge, and linguistic difficulties. Individual learner variation was observed with regard to the following during the roleplay task: some learners reported focusing their attention to certain aspects of their grammar and vocabulary, others on the sociocontextual aspects of the role play and the need to select appropriate pragmalinguistic forms in the service of politeness, while still other learners focused their attention on the degree



 J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Dale A. Koike

of appropriateness in equal and unequal situations with regard to pragmalinguistic forms used in formal and informal situations over time. This chapter problematizes methodological issues concerning the use of introspective methodology in pragmatic variation research; especially the timing of the RVRs in relation to the task, the nature of the elicitation procedure, and the selected language of RVRs. To complete the area of L2 pragmatic variation, van Compernolle and ­Williams (Chapter 8) analyze alternation of use of the second-person pronouns tu (T) and vous (V) among U.S. university learners of French at different instructional levels (first-, second-, and third-semester) who engaged in six small-group synchronous computer-mediated tasks over one semester. The authors examine pragmatic variation in learner-learner online interactions in classroom-based Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Discourse (ACMD), while Blyth (Chapter 2) examined L1 pragmatic/discourse variation in synchronous CMD in French and English online fora. Van Compernolle and Williams have two goals: (1) to explore whether, and to what extent, selected external (social) and internal (linguistic) factors influence learners’ use of tu and vous; and (2) to problematize the methodological and theoretical ­assumptions of the application of variationist sociolinguistics to L2 sociopragmatics and (­classroom-based) SCMD. This study is a replication of van Compernolle et al. (2011); thus it adds a methodological component to the analysis of variation in replication studies. The authors found that although 84% of all singular address T forms and 76% of all plural address V forms were coded as appropriate, learners have still difficulty with both functions and forms of second-­person pronouns, a similar finding noted in van Compernolle et al. (2011). Using a VARBRUL test, the authors found that the variable of instructional level was found to have a statistically significant relationship associated with appropriate pronoun use in interrogative sentences. The study also provides a qualitative analysis examining the interactional patterns of sociopragmatic variation. This chapter concludes with methodological issues related to variationist m ­ ethodology in the analysis of L2 sociopragmatic learner variation, such as refining the task design for research in asynchronous CMD, triangulating data of learner pragmatic variation, and the need to expand the variationist methodology to examine pragmatic variation. To complete this volume, a section on methodology includes two state-ofthe-art chapters that examine research methods and methodological issues that are central to research on variation in pragmatics from different perspectives in L1 and L2 contexts. In the first methodological chapter, Cohen (Chapter 9) explores research methods for investigating the dynamics of cultures in contact in intercultural pragmatic contexts, with a focus on the pragmatic variation resulting from this contact. It contrasts cross-cultural and intercultural

Introduction 

­ ragmatics to call attention to issues that are often overlooked or ignored altop gether, such as variation in the role that both L1 or L2 pragmatic norms play in the given contact situation; e.g. a given speech act interaction. Other methodological issues such as how to deal with regional variation, gender, and age differences are also addressed. This chapter critically analyzes research design issues to investigate pragmatic variation in this sphere of interculturality. As noted by the author, “the purpose is to problematize just what the study of intercultural pragmatics involves when looking at speech communities in flux and taking into account individual variation.” Cohen concludes with a methodological research agenda that examines the various methodological options for analyzing intercultural pragmatic variation such as sampling, range of pragmatics features sampled, number of measures, the use of naturalistic vis-a-vis experimental data and the methods used to elicit pragmatic data, and general issues of data analysis. Cohen emphasizes the need to focus on multiple methods for the analysis of L1 and L2 pragmatic variation, as well as the factors that come into play in the interaction. The last chapter of this section addresses both theoretical and methodological issues of sociolinguistic variation and pragmatics. Terkourafi (Chapter 10) critically reviews pragmatic variation from two methodological research traditions; namely, variationist methodology and variational pragmatics. Following Cameron and Schwenter (forthcoming), the author presents the theoretical tenets of the variationist sociolinguistic view that focuses on pragmatic variation and morphosyntactic forms. Key methodological concepts in this sociolinguistic view include the variable and variants, the variable context, coding, statistical analysis, and intepretation of the results (the pragmatics side of variation in this view). The second view, variational pragmatics, initially proposed by Schneider and Barron (2008) (see also Barron & Schneider 2009; Schneider 2010), examine pragmatic variation of the social conventions of language. Under this view, two factors condition pragmatic variation; namely, macro-social (e.g. region, gender, ethnicity, age, social class) and micro-social factors (e.g. social power and social distance). After a rigorous analysis of these views, Terkourafi proposes an alternative to examine variation in pragmatics by means of a revised notion of context and a bottom-up methodology. Finally, in Chapter 11 Koike and Félix-Brasdefer present the conclusions of the volume by analyzing various methodological issues presented in both the empirical (Chapters 1–8) and the methodological chapters (Chapters 9 & 10). In the concluding chapter we present a summary of the methodological issues presented in the studies according to their quantitative, qualitative, or m ­ ixed-­methods approach to an analysis of pragmatic variation, as well as some suggestions for future research.

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Dale A. Koike

References Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: OUP. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. & Omar, A. (eds). 2006. Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11. Manoa HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center University of Hawai’i. Barron, A. & Schneider, K. 2009. Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(4): 425–442. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. Cameron, R. & Schwenter, S. Forthcoming. Pragmatics and variationist sociolinguistics. In The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics, R. Bayley, R. Cameron & C. Lucas (eds). Oxford: OUP. Cheshire, J. 2005. Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(4): 479–508. Ensink, T. & Sauer, C. (eds.). 2003. Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2010. Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays, and verbal reports. In Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical, and Methodological Issues [Language Learning & Language Teaching 26], E. Usó Juán & A. Martínez-Flor (eds), 41–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. García, C. & Placencia, M.E. 2011. Estudios de variación pragmática en español (Studies of pragmatic variation in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Dunken. Geluyken, R. 2008. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Definition and methodology. In Institutional Discourse in Cross-Cultural Contexts, R. Geluykens & B. Kraft (eds), 49–84. Munich: Lincom. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge MA: CUP. Huang, Y. 2009. Pragmatics. In The Pragmatics Encyclopedia, L. Cummings (ed.), 342–345. New York NY: Routledge. Kasper, G. & Rose, S. (eds). 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Malden MA: Blackwell. Koike, D. 2010. Behind L2 pragmatics: The role of expectations. In Dialogue in Spanish: Studies in Functions and Contexts, D. Koike & L. Rodríguez-Alfano (eds), 257–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Labov, W. 1972a. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. 1972b. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Labov, W. 2006. The Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, Phonology, and Sound Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse. Cambridge: CUP. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. New York NY: Longman. Márquez Reiter, R. & Placencia, M.E. (eds). 2005. Spanish Pragmatics. New York NY: Palgrave, Macmillan. Placencia, M.E. 1994. Pragmatics across varieties. Donaire 2: 65–77. Prince, E. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), 223–256. New York NY: Academic Press.

Introduction  Regan, V. & Chasaide, C. (eds). 2009. Language Practices and Identity Construction by Multilingual Speakers of French L2: The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Variation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Sankoff, G. 1973. Above and beyond phonology in variable rules. In New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, C.-J.N. Bailey & R.W. Shuy (eds), 46–62. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Schlieben-Lange, B. & Weydt, H. 1978. Für eine Pragmatisierung der Dialektologie. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 6(3): 257–282. Schneider, K. 2010. Variational pragmatics. In Variation and Change: Pragmatic Perspectives [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 6], M. Fried (ed.), 239–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schneider, K.P. & Barron, A. (eds). 2008. Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 178]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts. London: CUP. Silva-Corvalán, C. 2001. Sociolingüística y pragmática del español. (Sociolinguistics and pragmatics of Spanish) [Georgetown Studies in Spanish Linguistics]. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Terkourafi, M. 2011. The pragmatic variable: Toward a procedural interpretation. Language in Society 40(4): 343–372. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4: 91–112. Tsiplakou, S., Karyolemou, M. & Plavlou, P. (eds). 2009. Language Variation – European Perspectives II [Studies in Language Variation 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. van Compernolle, R.A., Williams, L. & McCourt, C. 2011. A corpus-driven study of secondperson pronoun variation in L2 French synchronous computer-mediated communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 8: 67–91. Wierzbicka, A. 1985. Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 145–178. Wierzbicka, A. 2003. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human. Interaction, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wolfram, W. & Schilling-Estes, N. 2006. American English: Dialect and Variation [Language in Society 25], 2nd edn. Malden MA: Blackwell.

chapter 1

Pragmatic variation by gender in market service encounters in Mexico J. César Félix-Brasdefer Indiana University, USA

This chapter examines pragmatic variation by gender in market service encounters in Southern Mexico. Following previous research in service encounters (Aston 1988a; Kerbrat-Orecchioni & Traverso 2008b; Merritt 1976; Placencia 2008), this study examined 244 food-related transactions (122 male customers and 122 female customers) that were analyzed according to three levels of analysis: actional (customer-initiated requests), interactional (openings and closings, and request sequences), and stylistic (choice of address forms). The data were examined in light of speech accommodation theory, polite (or expected) behaviour, and pragmalinguistic variation. The study addresses methodological and ethical issues in pragmatics research for the analysis and collection of natural interactional data in commercial settings.

1.  Introduction Research on the pragmatics of service encounters examines interactions in commercial and non-commercial settings where transactions are negotiated and accomplished between a service seeker (e.g. customer) and a service provider (e.g. vendor, clerk). Service encounters are generally defined as “everyday interactions between the customer and the server whereby some c­ ommodity (information or goods) will be exchanged” (Ventola 2005: 19). The genre of service encounters represents one type of non-formal ­institutional ­discourse that is considered ‘quasi-conversational’ (Hutchby & Wooffitt 2008: 151), or discourse with a ‘semi-institutional character’ (Kerbrat-Orecchioni & Traverso 2008b: 8). Aston (1988b: 42) conceptualized public service encounters (PSEs) (mainly based on bookshop encounters) according to the following elements: the institutionalized nature of the situational features (setting, goals, roles, and topic), an initial schema

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

of presuppositions and expectations, and the negotiation of discourse patterns to complete the transaction. Although service encounters have been mainly investigated in small shops in traditional settings (e.g. ­Kerbrat-­Orecchioni & ­Traverso 2008a; Merritt 1976; Placencia 2005, 2008), this chapter focuses on sales transactions in open-air market stands. In this singular setting ‘without walls’ (Lindenfeld 1990), sociolinguistic and pragmatic variation play a significant role in the negotiation of the transaction. The aim of this chapter is to examine the structure of interactions in ­market service encounters with regard to three levels of analysis: actional (­customer-­initiated requests), interactional (openings and closings, and request sequences), and ­stylistic (choice of address forms). These results are analyzed in light of the variation observed in the data and the role of gender in the context of market transactions in Southern Mexico. This chapter is organized as follows. First, I provide a review of the theoretical framework for the analysis of service encounters in commercial settings ­(Section  2). Then, I describe the methodology used in this study (Section 3), ­followed by the results (Section 4). Finally, I discuss the results in light of existing literature on service encounters as well as methodological issues (Section 5), ­followed by the conclusions of the study (Section 6).

2.  Theoretical framework 2.1  Levels of pragmatic analysis and variation in commercial settings Service encounters have been investigated from different theoretical and methodological perspectives. For example, Kerbrat-Orecchioni and Traverso (2008b: 15–23) identified five levels of analysis in commercial settings. The first level includes the global organization, encompassing three types: (a) the generic structure of interactions (macro-level); (b) the sequential analysis of the interactions (e.g. openings, closings, requests); and, (c) a micro-analysis of local sequential exchanges or speech act sequences. The second level includes the transactional dimension, which examines requests as constitutive actions of a transaction. The third level (the praxique dimension) adopts a multi-modal approach for the analysis of verbal, non-verbal, spatial, and temporal elements of the interaction (e.g. Traverso 2008). The fourth level takes into account the participants’ roles during the negotiation of service (e.g. Gavioli 1997; Traverso 2006). Finally, the relational level focuses on the presence of interactional speech, small talk, joking, laughter, conflict, etc. Previous researchers that utilized these levels focused on the transactional (i.e. business talk; e.g. Merritt 1976) or relational ­dimension (i.e. interactional speech or phatic exchanges;



Pragmatic variation by gender 

e.g. Aston 1988c; McCarthy 2000; Placencia & Mancera Rueda 2011), while others examined both dimensions (­Placencia 2005). The present study focuses on the transactional dimension of market service encounters, with attention to the first level (sequential analysis of interactions) and the second level (transactional dimension of requests as constitutive actions). Variation in commercial settings is often examined according to the level, as explained above, the setting, and gender. From a pragmatic variation and discourse perspective, interactions in commercial settings have been analyzed according to the following levels: actional (e.g. speech act type), interactional (e.g.  speech act sequence; Schneider & Barron 2008: 20–21; Placencia 2008), and stylistic (e.g. tone of the interaction or choice of address forms such as T/V; Placencia 2008; ­Spencer-Oatey 2000). Further, variation in the setting includes the type of establishment (e.g. small store, covered, open-air market), the products sold, and the spatial and temporal characteristics of the setting (KerbratOrecchioni & ­Traverso 2008b). Other variables such as gender, age, and social class are sensitive to variation across varieties of a language (e.g. Cheshire 2005; Holmes 1995; Lakoff 2010; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes 2006, Chapters 3 & 8). These variables play an important role in our understanding of the sequential organization of commercial ­encounters because the verbal and non-verbal elements we use to negotiate service (e.g. openings, closings, requests, address forms) may vary according to the type of setting, the participants’ roles, and the types of products purchased. Since the analysis of the present chapter is restricted to three levels of pragmatic analysis – namely, actional (request type), interactional (request sequence, openings and closings), and stylistic (mainly, choice of address forms) – the following section reviews studies in commercial settings that focus on one or all three of these levels and/or on the role of gender in service encounters. 2.2  Previous research on service encounters in commercial settings Service encounters are mainly characterized by transactional exchanges, such as openings, closings, offers, remedial work, and a variety of requests for information, service, or confirmation. With regard to the actional level, Anderson et al. (1988) examined the structural elements of customer-initiated requests in English (e.g. have…, looking for…, where…, and zero and request extensions following the core (unmodified) request. With respect to S­ panish, Placencia (2005) explored contrasts in customer-initiated requests in corner-store interactions in Quito and Spain from a cross-cultural ­(variationist) perspective. Of the various request types (tacit, direct, and conventionally indirect) observed in Placencia’s data, direct requests predominated in both groups. With regard to internal modification of the request,

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Quiteños produced a higher frequency of internal modifiers such as diminutives and politeness f­ormulas. Similar results were obtained in small shop transactions in two regions of Ecuador; namely, Quito and Manta. That is, internal modifiers and direct forms (i.e. imperatives, quasi-imperatives or verbless requests, want statements, and assertions [e.g. me da una de sal ‘give me one [bag] of salt’]) predominated in both groups (Placencia 2008: 315). And, in small store interactions in Puerto Rican Spanish, Vélez (1987) found a preference for elliptical (or verb-less) requests, while ‘need statements’ predominated in the US data. In a different setting, Hmed (2008) examined customer-initiated requests and address forms used in butcher shops in three locations: one in France, one in Tunisia, and a third in a bilingual setting in France (Lyons). The results of this study showed a preference for indirect requests among the French, direct requests among T ­ unisians, and the bilingual speakers mainly used elliptical and imperative forms. In addition, two studies focused on the structure of the request type and the role of gender and politeness in commercial service encounters. Using field-note data from a small newspaper stand in Greece, Antonopoulou (2001) examined variation in customer-initiated requests and the role of gender and politeness among Greeks (180 women and 200 men). Of the two most frequent requesttypes, fully verbalized requests (e.g. imperatives, interrogatives, and declaratives) were frequent in female-female interactions, while elliptical (or verbless) requests predominated in male-male interactions. Also, greetings, leave-takings, and expressions of gratitude were more frequent in f­emale-female interactions. However, no significant differences in strategy use between males and females were obtained when “indicating tentativeness or concern for ­no-imposition” (2001: 260). The author examined the Greek data in light of accommodation theory by which “speech can be regarded as an attempt on the part of a speaker to modify or disguise his persona in order to make it more acceptable to the person addressed” (Giles & Powesland 1997: 233). Similarly, Ruzickova (2007) analyzed the role of gender and politeness in ­customer-initiated requests in a variety of commercial and non-commercial settings in Cuba (La Habana) (54 male and 70 female requests). Although R ­ uzickova’s results revealed a preference for conventional indirectness among these speakers, men were more indirect than women, showing an orientation toward negative politeness. However, in the realization of the request head act, female speakers used more positive politeness strategies (e.g. claiming common ground and using ­in-group markers) than male speakers. With regard to the sequential and transactional levels, Merritt (1976) analyzed different formats of the request-response sequence in a small convenience store, with particular attention to the vendor’s response. Specifically, she focused on the pragmatic interpretation of ellipticals in questions following questions (e.g. A: Do



Pragmatic variation by gender 

you have coffee to go?; B: Cream and sugar? [starts pouring coffee]) (1976: 325). In these cases the direct request is interpreted as a request for service by the interlocutor (not as a request for information). Filliettaz (2008) examined the ­co-­construction of requests in French in three department stores (sports, electronics, gardening) in Geneva. The main conclusion of this study is that the realization of requests is the product of a collaborative process between the customer and the clerk. And, Brodine (1991) examined the sequential structure of request-response sequences in bookshop encounters (e.g. category request sequences, clarification sequences), which differ with regard to how the customer-initiated request is interpreted by the clerk assistant in English (as requests for information) and in Italian (as pre-requests with laborious preliminaries). The studies mentioned here focused on the sequential level with regard to the request-response sequence and how requests are collaboratively constructed by both parties. The stylistic level has received little attention in the literature on service encounters and in other contexts; in particular, the analysis of pronouns of address T (Spanish: tú ‘you-informal’) and V (Spanish: usted ‘you-formal’), and address terms to express formality, solidarity, or politeness. Hmed (2008) found that the French used address forms (e.g. V forms, madame, monsieur) to express formality and respect, whereas Tunisians showed a preference for solidarity including T forms and informality. In Ecuadorian service encounters, Placencia (2008) found a preference for the formal address form V (usted) and respectful address terms such as señor/a ‘sir/madam’, as well as formal greetings and politeness forms. In Puerto Rican store encounters, Vélez (1987) found an inclination toward solidarity by means of T and diminutive forms. And in other studies not related to service encounters, the preference for pronominal address forms in different regions of Mexico (e.g. Guadalara, Mexico City; Veracruz) shows that the T and V forms are conditioned by various factors, namely, age, level of education, and social level (Vázquez Laslop & Orozco 2010). Overall, research shows that in the Mexican regions examined there is an increasing preference for T (to express solidarity and confianza ‘trust’) over V (used to signal deference, social distance, and social power). Specifically, the reciprocal use of the T form is spreading in a wide range of situations, and especially among the younger generations in situations of solidarity, while the V form is often employed in formal and asymmetric situations and with older generations (Covarrubias 2002; Lastra de Suárez 1972; Orozco 2006; Schwenter 1993). The T form is also more commonly used when addressing women than men (Schwenter 1993). In work relations the T form seems to compete with the V form. In these cases, as noted by Orozco (2006), when the T form is utilized with a person of unequal status the speaker may select nominal forms to express deference politeness, such as señor ‘sir’, maestro ‘teacher’, profesor ‘professor’, doctor ‘doctor’, or ingeniero ‘engineer’, etc.

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Research conducted in marketplaces, the setting of the current study, is less common than in small shops (covered settings). Markets can be defined as ­“customary centers of exchange with their aggregates of buyers and sellers, a ­calendar of market days, and other features giving exchanges regularity and predictable form” (S. Mintz 1959: 20 [cited in Lindenfeld 1990: 23]). M ­ itchell (1957/1975) represents one of the early studies that examined the sequential organization of open-air market interactions with field note data collected in situ in the early 1950’s. In his study, the author identified the following phases of the interaction: (1) salutation; (2) inquiry as to the object of sale; (3) investigation of the object of sale; (4) bargaining; and (5) conclusion. Two more recent studies examined market transactions in France: Lindenfeld (1978) examined two interactions (one from Normandy and one from Paris) with respect to the verbal and non-verbal aspects (e.g. sarcasm) of the negotiation of the transaction and also (1990) analyzed the language and social function of market places in three regions in France (Paris, Grenoble, and Rouen). In the latter study, the data included semistructured interviews, audio-taped recorded interactions, and field notes. ­Market transactions, according to this author, are further characterized by speech that is essential for carrying out the transaction and gratuitous speech, such as the ­presence of politeness formulas, small talk, jokes, and playful insults. Lindenfeld investigated the elements (or moves) of commercial transactions in marketplaces, which may include both verbal and non-verbal elements: (1) ­vendor’s offer of service, (2) customer’s request for goods, (3) vendor’s compliance with the customer’s request for goods, (4) customer’s acceptance of goods, (5)  vendor’s request for payment, (6) customer’s compliance with the vendor’s request for payment, (7) vendor’s acceptance of payment, and, (8) customer’s acceptance of overpayment (optional) (1990: 92–93). With regard to the request types, most included imperative (e.g. donnez-mois ‘give me’) and elliptical forms (deux francs ‘two francs’), or the conditional form (je voudrais ‘I’d like’) (1990: 93–95). In general, this body of research used predominantly audio-taped natural interactions that were recorded at the research site, although a few studies have utilized videotaped data to capture non-verbal actions in commercial settings (e.g. Traverso 2008). Although not explicitly mentioned, some of these studies took their data from communities of practice – mainly small stores – where a group of people meet to carry out a variety of social practices (Mills 2003). In addition, most studies in this area employ an integrative model, including notions of speech act theory (e.g. Austin 1962; Searle 1969), conversation analysis ­(Schegloff 2007), politeness, and discourse analysis (see Aston 1988b; ­Kerbrat-Orecchioni & ­Traverso 2008a). However, the majority of studies used relatively small samples, with little attempt made to examine variation according to the pragmalinguistic elements used to produce systematic variants of the



Pragmatic variation by gender 

request for service, variation of the setting and gender (with the exception of ­Antonopoulou 2001), and the characteristics of the service providers. An analysis of linguistic variation based on the gender of the interlocutor can provide a better understanding of the sequential structure and the role of gender in service encounters in marketplaces. Finally, from a methodological perspective, data analysis and ethical issues involved in data collection should be discussed. That is, specific information on how the data were collected, problems encountered during the data collection phase, and issues of coding and transcription are important for determining the limitations of particular studies and also for refining techniques for future data collection and analysis. This chapter aims to examine pragmatic variation by ­gender in public markets in one variety of Mexican Spanish that has received little attention to date: Yucatecan Spanish (Southern Mexico).

3.  Method 3.1  The market The data for the present study were audio-recorded in 2009 at a public market in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico (with a population of over 800,000). According to Lipski (1994), the state of Yucatan represents the Central American dialect where the Mayan language is spoken mainly in rural areas, while the Spanish spoken in Mexico City (central Mexico) is influenced by the Nahuatl language. The market is the place where vendors and customers meet to buy and sell food and nonfood products. Vendors come from either rural areas or from the city of Merida to sell their products, mainly through retail food transactions, although wholesale transactions are also common early in the day. The market, located south of the zocalo (‘central plaza’), consists of a great number of vendors who sell their products at a large (covered) warehouse, mainly in small stands; some vendors display their merchandise on the floor, while others set up (uncovered) small stands or stands that are half-covered. At all of these stands, most merchandise is displayed at the front and can be accessed directly by the customers, who serve themselves. The merchandise includes products that range from prepared food that can be consumed at the market, to fresh produce, fruit, meat, poultry, fish, etc. The market also includes small stores that sell live animals as well as those that offer ­handicrafts and souvenirs from the region, jewellery, shoes, clothes, etc. Many of the food products offered for sale in the market are prepared by the vendors, such as the many types of the traditional recado ‘seasoning spice’, while other products are cultivated by the vendors at their homes.

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Due to the open-air nature of the market and the close proximity of the stands to each other (no walls and all under the same roof), getting from one place to another within the market may be difficult at certain times of the day. Food items can be accessed directly by customers or can be requested from the vendor by the customer. Also, due to the informal nature of the public market, it is common to see multiple transactions taking place at the same time, with two or more customers standing in front of one stand and making purchases from one vendor. Indeed, multiple and simultaneous transactions are characteristic of the market setting under consideration. It is also common for vendors to announce their products aloud in order to attract the attention of potential buyers. In this marketplace, all transactions are negotiated on-site and purchases are paid for in cash. Although two (of the eight) vendors came from Mayan-speaking rural areas to the city of Merida to sell their products, these bilingual speakers carry out the sales transactions entirely in Spanish (predominant language), especially since the majority of the buyers who reside in Merida are non-Mayan-speaking.1 Further, all transactions observed were between the vendor and a client (regular buyer) or a vendor and a customer (occasional buyer), which likely affects the degree of familiarity and distance between the interlocutors; hence the selection of forms of address. In the former case, the degree of familiarity (due to frequency of interaction) was often characterized by the familiar form T (tú) by both interlocutors, while in the latter (distant relationship), transactions were often realized by means of the formal form V (usted) by both vendor and customer, but mainly by the vendor. 3.2  Procedures for data collection and analysis A quasi-ethnographic approach was adopted to collect the market data in Merida, Yucatan for one week during the summer of 2009. Before data collection, observation of and familiarization with the market took place: what products were

1.  In this Yucatecan market, Spanish is mainly used as a lingua franca among vendors who are bilingual in Spanish and Yucatec Maya (Lastra 2006). In my conversations with the vendors they reported that they use Spanish in their everyday interactions at the market. ­Although  they sometimes speak in Maya at home with their parents and grandparents, vendors said that Spanish was the language they used most of the time. Thus, in the present study, the interactions were between vendors (two of these were bilingual, but proficient in Spanish) and monolingual speakers of Spanish (customers). As noted by one reviewer, some of the interactions in the present study may be considered inter-ethnic between bilingual Spanish-Maya-speakers and monolingual speakers. As a result, it is possible that some of the Maya speakers in the market under investigation may have a somewhat low command of Spanish when negotiating the transaction.



Pragmatic variation by gender 

sold, position of the customers and vendors during the transactions, informal conversation with the vendors at their stands, method of payment, openings and closings, etc. On the first day I became familiar with the many stands located throughout the market. In addition, I spoke with the owners of the market and was told that most stands opened at about 3:00 a.m., especially since most of the transactions between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. were with customers who come early to the market to buy food products for their small businesses. Although many owners refused to allow the interactions at their stands to be recorded, I was given permission from eight different stands in different locations of the market selling food products of everyday necessity, such as fresh produce, fruit, spices and seasonings, and groceries, as well as household products such as soap and other cleaning products. I conducted recordings during a one-week period and at different times during the day: from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., and from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (mainly involving housewives). Recording times lasted from 30 minutes to two hours at each stand. All owners who granted permission to record at their stands were very supportive of the project and showed a positive attitude during the recording times. Most of the stands were run by family members. Since most stands at the market do not have counters, the recording device and the microphone were placed on top of the food products (e.g. tomatoes, fruit) and as close as possible to the place where transactions between the vendor and the clients were carried out. And, although I managed to record over 60 hours of data in 10 different stores, some of the recordings were inaudible due to background noise that occurred all day in different areas of the market and close to the stands where recording was taking place. There were small live (ambulatory) bands in various sites of the market, loud music from personal radios or noise in many of the stands, along with frequent casual conversations between the vendors and the clients, and children crying. Overall, a total of 35 hours of audible transactions from 8 different stands was used for the current study, resulting in a total of 395 transactions from eight different stands (122 male customer interactions and 273 female customer interactions). To make the data comparable, in the present study I used all 122 male customer interactions and selected 122 female customer interactions at random. Thus the data for the present study are based on 244 interactions between customers and both male and female vendors. The data were transcribed in their entirety by five native speakers of Mexican Spanish2 of the same variety of Merida, Yucatan using the transcription notations

2.  The transcribers were undergraduate students (1 male and four females) at a public ­university in the city of Merida. Their majors included education and social arts.

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

by Jefferson (2004) (Appendix). All transcribed interactions were then reviewed by the author. The data were analyzed according to the three levels of pragmatic analysis: actional (i.e. speech act realization and internal modification), interactional (i.e. speech act sequences; Schneider & Barron 2008: 20), and stylistic (or discourse domain; Spencer-Oatey 2000: 20). In this chapter I adopt an integrative approach to spoken discourse for the analysis of market transactions, using concepts from speech act theory (Searle 1969), conversation analysis (Schegloff 2007), and variational pragmatics (Schneider & Barron 2008: 19–21). The actional level is examined through an analysis of the request types following Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper (1989) and Placencia (2008) to fit the Spanish data in service encounters. The seven request strategy types identified in the data of market transactions were as follows: Table 1.  Actional level: Request strategies identified in this study Request strategy type

Adopted from

Example

Imperative (or mood derivable)

Blum-Kulka et al. (1989)

Give me half a pound of ham

Elliptical (or verbless requests)

Blum-Kulka et al. (1989: 279) calls them elliptical sequences. Placencia (2008: 314) calls them quasi-imperatives.

Half a pound of ham, please

Want statement

Blum-Kulka et al. (1989)

I want half a pound of ham

Direct question

Merritt (1976:  352) (a direct question that is interpreted as a request for service on the part of the interlocutor). These are questions following questions.

Customer: Do you have olives? Vendor: How much do you want?

Assertion of the hearer’s course of action (me da[s] ‘you (T/V) give me’)

Placencia (2008: 314) (Spanish data)

Me da un kilo de jitomate ‘You-formal give me a kilo of tomato’

Implicit requests

Placencia calls them ‘tacit requests’ (2005: 586–587) & Antonopoulou calls them ‘silent requests’ (2001: 246–247).

C: How much is the lettuce? V: Twenty four pesos C: Here you have (customer picks up the product and pays) Vendor: Thanks.

Conventional indirectness

Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) (mainly the query preparatory type)

Can you give me a pound of ham?



Pragmatic variation by gender 

All customer-initiated requests were analyzed according to request type and according to the gender of the customer and vendor using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 18.0) software. In addition, the following elements of internal modification of the request were analyzed: the use of diminutives (Placencia 2008: 316), negation preceding the pre-sequence or the main request (request head act), the politeness form por favor ‘please’ (Blum-Kulka et al. (1989: 281–283), and final rising intonation (↑) (in assertions) used as a prosodic downgrader (Félix-Brasdefer 2011; Placencia 2008: 315). The interactional level included an analysis of the request-response sequence with regard to the pragmalinguistic means for constructing said sequence. Finally, the stylistic level analysis included how the request-response sequence was realized with regard to the selection of the forms of address expressed during the negotiation of the request (e.g. pronouns T [tú ‘you’- informal] and V [usted ‘you’formal], names, titles, family names, hierarchy, forms of endearment). Finally, to ensure inter-coder reliability, the 244 interactions analyzed in this chapter were coded independently by the researcher and a native speaker of ­Mexican Spanish in accordance with the request strategies mentioned in Table 1. All discrepancies were discussed by both coders until an agreement was reached.

4.  Results Of the 244 interactions (122 male customers and 122 female customers) analyzed for this study, 14 were refusals to a request for availability (pre-sequence) and did not contain a request for service. As a result, the present analysis is based on 230 interactions; namely, 117 male customer interactions and 113 female customer interactions. Each of these interactions included at least one customer-initiated request for service followed by the vendor’s response. 4.1  Actional level: Making a request for service Figure 1 shows the distribution of the 230 customer-initiated requests when asking for service in market transactions (117 males and 113 females). Figure 1 shows variation with regard to the frequency and forms used to realize a request for service. Of the seven request strategies identified in the data, the first four, of which three are direct requests (i.e. imperative, elliptical, assertion), were most common, but with different degrees of frequency. The imperative (e.g. dame/déme ‘give me’ [T/V]) (31.7%; 73/230 interactions) and the elliptical form (or verbless requests; e.g. un kilo de jitomate ‘a kilo of tomatoes’) (30%; 69/230) represent the most frequent forms for making a request for service in market

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

places in Yucatán (Merida), México. Implicit (or non-verbal requests) represent the third most frequent request strategy for service (20.4%; 47/230). The fourth most ­frequent strategy was in the form of an assertion of the hearer’s course of action with a final high (↑) or a low intonation at the end of the utterance (14.8%; 34/230). The last three strategies – namely, a direct question (followed by another question) interpreted as a request for service, a want statement (e.g. Knor suiza quería ‘Knorr Swiss chicken bullion I wanted’), and a conventionally indirect request (one case; e.g. Me puedes dar dos de a cuarto?↑ ‘can you give me two of a quarter each?↑’) – were almost absent in the corpus. 35%

31.7%

30%

30% 25%

20.4%

20%

14.8%

15% 10% 5%

1.7%

io st ue

0.4%

W an ts

tq re c Di

1%

ta Co te m nv en en t tio na l in di re ct

n

n tio er

ici

t As s

pl Im

al tic lip El

Im

pe

ra tiv e

0%

Figure 1.  Distribution of customer-initiated requests by males and females in market ­transactions in Yucatan, Mexico (230 interactions)

Of the aforementioned seven strategies, three are worth noting in the context of market transactions. In the case of implicit requests, while looking at the merchandise, a customer picked up the desired product, asked for the price, paid, and left. Or, while looking at the merchandise, a customer asked the vendor for a bag and then the customer put the selected product in the bag and paid for it. In these cases, there is no explicit or verbal request. Instead, the request is realized ­implicitly (or non-verbally) by means of face-to-face gestures, mutual agreement, and the expectation on the part of the customer that the request will be satisfied by the vendor. The second strategy worth mentioning here are assertions. These are fully verbalized requests that can end with either a final rise (↑) or a falling intonation (↓). Of these, assertions with a low final intonation are statements with a neutral inflection, while a final rising intonation may convey an interpersonal meaning (see example [1] below). Finally, a direct question functions as a request when it is understood by the vendor as a request for service (or action), not as a



Pragmatic variation by gender 

request for information. In this case, the vendor’s interpretation is crucial for the realization of direct requests. The following examples are instances of an implicit request (1, line 03), an assertion (2, line 01), and a direct question (3, lines 01–02) (C = Customer; V= Vendor): (1) Implicit request (#175; female customer and male vendor) 01 C: (a cómo está) el habanero? ↑ ‘how much are the habaneros?↑’ 02 V:

de 15 y de 24 pesos ‘15 and 24 pesos’

03 C: → ((customer picks product and pays)) (Implicit request) 04 V:

cinco ‘five’

05 06 C:

((gives change to customer)) gracias. ‘thanks’

(2) Assertion (#21, female customer and male vendor) 01 C: → Me da 3 kilos de frijol negro ↑ ‘you-formal give me 3 kilos of black beans↑’ 02

dos de blanco – dos de arroz ‘two of the white – two of rice’

03 V:

tres de negro, dos de blanco y dos de arroz ‘three black, two white and two of rice’.

(3) Direct request (#235; female customer and male vendor) 01 C: → recado rojo ↑ ‘red mixed spice↑ 02 V: → cuánto mamita? ↑ ‘how much honey (diminutive form of ‘mother’)’ 03 C:

cinco pesos ‘five pesos’

Table 2 shows the gender distribution of male and female customer-initiated requests with regard to the gender of the vendor. The table includes the four most frequent request strategies presented in Figure 1. This table shows that the type of customer-initiated requests was influenced not only by the gender of the customer who performed the request, but also by the gender of the vendor to whom the request was addressed. In male-male interactions, the imperative is the most frequent strategy (27%; 32/117 initial requests), followed by the elliptical (19.7%; 23/117) and the implicit forms (12.8%; 15/117).

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Table 2.  Most frequent request strategies by gender (Customer → Vendor) (117 male [M] interactions/113 female [F] interactions) Gender

Imperative

Assertion

Elliptical

Implicit

M→M

27.3% (32/117)

6% (7/117)

19.7% (23/117)

12.8% (15/117)

M→F

9.4% (11/117)

2.6% (3/117)

12% (14/117)

6.8% (8/117)

F→F

8% (9/113)

5.3% (6/113)

5.3% (6/113)

10.6% (12/113)

F→M

18.6% (21/113)

15.9% (18/ 113)

23% (26/113)

10.6% (12/113)

Assertions represent the least frequent form among male customers addressing a male (6%; 7/117) or female vendor (2.6%; 3/117). On the contrary, and unlike the overall distribution presented in Figure 1, requests for service dominated in female-male interactions. The most frequent strategy utilized by female customers addressing a male vendor was the elliptical form (23%; 26/113), followed by the imperative (18.6%; 21/113) and assertions (15.9% or 18 of 113). Implicit requests were the least frequent of the four strategies used by women addressing a male or a female vendor (10.6% or12/113). It seems that imperative forms are conditioned by the gender of the interlocutor; namely, a male vendor (first column in Table 2, M → M [27%] and F → M [18.6%]). And, implicit requests appear to be used equally by male and female customers addressing either a male or female vendor (see last column in Table 2). Thus, despite the variants used by male and female customers to express a request for service, pragmatic variation is evident both at the pragmalinguistic level with regard to the forms used to carry out a request and based on the gender of both the customer and the vendor. Gender variation was also evident in the preferred request types. Specifically, the i­mperative form was preferred by male customers (36.7% 43/117) while the elliptical form was the top choice of female customers (28.3%; 32/113). Although internal modification of the request was rather infrequent in ­customer-initiated requests, gender variation was noted here as well. Two main forms were identified in the data; namely, the diminutive and the politeness term por favor ‘please’ or the variant por fa ‘please’. These forms were used frequently by female customers (79%; 15/19 modifiers) and less frequently by males (21%; 4/19 modifiers). Of these, the diminutive was the form selected by female customers (14 of 19 modifiers), followed by one case of por favor ‘please’, whereas among males, the diminutive was the only form used to modify a request in four interactions. In addition to these linguistic modifiers, assertions (me das/da ‘you



Pragmatic variation by gender 

give me’ [T/V]), more frequently used by female customers, were often internally modified by a prosodic downgrader in the form of a final rising intonation (↑). Since assertions are declarative statements (not interrogatives) that end with a low final intonation (↓), the presence of final rising intonation may serve an interpersonal or interactional function to express politeness or to project more information to come; namely, compliance with the request on the part of the vendor, as in Example 4, line 01. Although it is impossible to measure with a spectrogram due to background noise in the market, both the researcher and the Mexican assistant who transcribed and coded the data agreed that there is a clear final rising intonation. Thus, based on our judgment, the melodic curve of this assertion could be represented as in (4), with the last word stressed in the second syllable (négro) and slightly elongated upward (↑) with a rising intonation:

(4) Assertion (#21, female customer, male vendor)

01 C: → Me da tres kilos de frijol NEgro ↑ ‘(You-formal) give-formal me three kilos of black beans ↑)’ 02 V:

tres de negro, qué más? ‘three of black beans, what else?’

Assertions with final rising intonation were commonly employed by both male and female customers. These were followed by the vendor’s compliance with the request. This final rising intonation often occurred even though the customers had already seen the product and were certain that their request would be satisfied by the vendor. 4.2  Interactional level Figure 2 shows the distribution of pre-sequences, greetings, and closings in the data. Of the 244 interactions, 52% (128 of 244) included a pre-sequence in the form of request for availability or information, followed by the request for service. Pre-sequences were infrequently modified by internal modifiers such as n ­ egation (in 11 of 144 interactions) or the diminutive form (8 of 244 interactions) (e.g. no tiene una bolsita que me venda? ‘don’t you have a little bag that you can sell me?’). Of these, 44% pre-sequences were produced by male customers (54/122 ­interactions) and 61% by female customers (74 of 122 interactions). Opening and closing the interactions by means of greetings and farewells, respectively, were infrequent in the data. In fact, greetings were almost absent from i­nteractions ­initiated by both males and females (3.3% or 8 of 244 interactions), whereas closings were slightly

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer 80

74

70 60

54

50 40 30

23

28

Males Females

20 10 0

4 Pre-sequence

4

Greeting

Closings

Figure 2.  Distribution of optional elements for opening and closing a market transaction

more ­frequent-in 21% of the data (51 of 244 interactions). Similar to p ­ re-sequences, closings were more frequent among female customers in 23% of the data (28 of 122 interactions) and less common among male customers, ­appearing in only 19% of the data (23 of 122 interactions). Variation was observed in the format of the request-response sequences across the interactions. Example (5) below shows a complete interaction: (the transaction is carried out between a female customer and a female vendor). (5) Complete transaction, #137 (female customer and female vendor) 01 C: buenos días ‘good morning’ 02 tienes estén::: recado para: para pipián ↑ ‘do you-informal have ummm:: mixed spice for pipián (­pumpkin seed sauce)’ ↑’ 03 V:

sí ‘yes’

04 C:

la pepita que le dicen↑ ‘the pumpkin seeds, as they call them’

05 C:

¿qué vale medio kilo? ‘how much is half a kilo?’

06 V:

veinte pesos ‘twenty pesos’

07 C: → =dame medio ‘give me half ’ 08 V:

¿cuánto?↑ ‘how much?’



09 C:

Pragmatic variation by gender 

dame medio ‘give me half ’

10 V: medio ↑ (17.35) ‘half ↑’ 11 C: medio ↓((…)) ‘half ’↓ ((…)) 12 C: la pepita de pipián: ¿de eso, es solo así? ¿No lleva nada más? ‘pumpkin seeds for pipián: for that, it’s just this? It doesn’t need anything else?’ 13 V: no, solo se remoja y se le echa al caldo, ‘no, you just soak them and add them to the broth’ 14 C: ah::: ‘o:h’ 15 V: pero hay que remojarlo ‘but you have to soak it’ 16 ((customer and vendor continue talking about the procedure for using the product to prepare a dish)) 17 V: ((delivers product)) 18 C: gracias ‘thanks’ 19 V: ándele ‘that’s alright’

This interaction opens with a greeting initiated by the customer (line 01). The request-response sequence is negotiated across various turns (lines 02–11). There is a pre-sequence (i.e. request for availability) realized in two ­Turn-Constructional Units (TCUs) (lines 02, 04) and the vendor’s response (line 03), followed by a request for information and response (lines 05–06). The request for service is co-constructed across five turns (lines 07–11) as follows: the request for service (line 07), followed by a repair sequence due to the vendor’s failure to understand the amount of the product desired by the customer (lines 08–09), is accomplished in lines 10–11 with the vendor’s clarification request (with final rising intonation) and the customer’s confirmation. Next, there is a side sequence featuring relational talk with the vendor’s explanation of how to prepare the spice mix for pipián (lines 12–16). Then, the interlocutors return to the transaction and end it (lines 17–19). This interaction illustrates that the request is the result of a collaborative process between the customer and the vendor, who engage in a dynamic interaction. Here, relational talk is embedded in the transactional talk and reinforces the social relations between the customer and the vendor.

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

In the following interaction (6) the request is negotiated and accomplished in line 07. (6) Co-construction of the request (#152, female customer and male vendor) 01 V: diga ↑ ‘Can I help you?↑’ 02 C: → recado para - papa::d ‘spiced-mix for papa:’ 03 C: (no) papadzules ((laughs)), para polcanes ‘(no) not papadzules ((laughs)), for polcanes ((a kind of crepe))’ 04 V:

cuánto? ‘how much?’

05 C:

a cómo está el kilo de pepita? ‘how much is a kilo of dried pumpkin seeds’

06 V:

a cuarenta = ‘forty’

07 C: → =déme medio ‘you-formal give me half ’

After the vendor-initiated offer for service (line 01), the request for service is introduced in line 02 and self-repaired in the same turn by the customer (­speaker-initiated repair) (lines 02–03). The request is further negotiated over the next three turns (lines 04–06), and finally accomplished in line 07 by means of an imperative form. Again, this interaction shows that the realization of this request is the result of a collaborative process between the customer and the vendor who negotiate the request according to mutual expectations. The sequential structure of the co-construction of the request shows variation with regard to who opens the interaction (vendor or customer), the type of remedial work realized, reformulation of the request, requests for availability and requests for information (­pre-sequences) and, finally, where in the sequence (sequential placement) the request is accomplished. 4.3  Stylistic level This section presents the results for the distribution of pronouns of address and address terms identified in the customers’ and vendors’ request-response sequence. Speakers of Spanish in Mérida, Yucatán, distinguish between a formal (V) and an informal pronoun of address (T). These forms can be present in the request or implicit in the morphology of the verb reflecting distance or closeness between the interlocutors. Table 3 shows the distribution of pronouns of address present in 164 interactions (83 with T [tú ‘you-informal] and 81 with



Pragmatic variation by gender 

V [usted ‘you-formal’]). Table 3 includes the selection of pronominal forms in customer-initiated requests only:3 Table 3.  Distribution of pronouns of address (T [tú] and V [usted]) in customer-initiated requests by gender (Customer → Vendor) (83 male [M] interactions with T/81 female [F] interactions with V) Gender

T [tú] (83 interactions)

V [usted] (81 interactions)

M→M

43.4% (36/83)

27.2% (22/81)

M→F

14.5% (12/83)

12.3% (10/81)

F→F

12% (10/83)

11.1% (9/81)

F→M

30.1% (25/83)

49.4% (40/81)

Table 3 shows variation in the selection of pronouns of address that is influenced by the gender of the interlocutor. In customer-initiated requests the informal pronoun of address T predominates in male-male interactions in 36 of 83 interactions (43.4%) (that is, male customers addressing male vendors), whereas this form was infrequent in female-female interactions (12% or in 10 of 83 interactions). Also, the T pronoun was less frequent among women addressing a male vendor (30.1% or in 25 of 83 interactions). By contrast, the formal pronoun of address, V, was used more frequently by female customers addressing a male ­vendor (49.4% or in 40 of 81 interactions). In this Mexican market, almost 50% of female customers selected the formal pronoun V (usted) to address a male vendor. The V pronoun was less-preferred form in male-male interactions. ­Further variation with respect to these forms of address is noted (although with low frequencies) in male-female and female-female interactions where both forms were selected with similar low percentages. In the interaction in (5), the female ­customer uses the informal pronoun of address T (tú) implicit in the verb (line 07) (e.g. dame medio ‘give me half ’), and in example (6) both the vendor (line 01) and the customer (line 07) use the formal pronoun V (usted) during the ­negotiation of the ­transaction. Thus, variation in address forms is evident in male-female ­interactions as well as in male-male interactions. 3.  Although no numeric analysis was conducted regarding the pronominal choice used by the vendor when addressing the customer, a qualitative analysis of the data shows that in most interactions the vendors used the formal pronoun of address usted (V), followed by either the customer’s formal V or informal T form, especially when the customer was not know by the vendor. However, with frequent customers the selection of the pronominal form was reciprocal by means of the informal T form. A detailed analysis of the selection of these forms from the perspective of the vendor is needed in future analyses.

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Furthermore, variation was observed in the wide selection of terms of address used by both customers and vendors. Table 4 shows the selection of terms of address used by customers and vendors by gender: Table 4.  Frequent terms of address (used by customer and vendor) used in market ­transactions in Yucatán, México Names

Titles

Family names

Forms of endearment

Male customer

Isidro

seño ‘ma’am’ don (‘Mr.’ [with respect])

compadre (‘buddy’ [used as friend, brother])

mi amor ‘my darling’; jefe ‘boss’; reina ‘queen’

Female customer

Isidro, Pablito (little Paul)

doña, don (‘Mrs.’ or ‘Mr.’ [with respect), señor ‘Mr.’, marchanta ‘merchant’

morena ‘darkskinned [female]; flaco ‘skinny’; rey ‘king’; reina ‘queen’

Male Vendor

caballero ‘gentleman’; don ‘Mr. (with respect’)

mamá ‘mother’;* compadre ‘buddy’; papacito ‘daddy’; nené ‘baby’

flaco ‘skinny’, chula ‘beautiful’, chuli ‘cutie; mi amor ‘my darling’; reina ‘queen’; reinita ‘little queen’

Female vendor

doña, don ‘Mrs./ Mr.’ (with respect)

papá ‘dad’;** mami; nené ‘dear’

reina ‘queen’

*  This form literally means ‘mother’. It was used as a form of address by male vendors with female customers. Variants of this form included mami and diminutive forms such as mamita, madrecita, mamicita, and mamacita. These expressions were used as forms of endearment and can be loosely translated as ‘honey’, ‘sweetie’, or ‘hon’. **  This form literally means ‘father’. It was often used as a form of address by female customers when addressing a male vendor. Variants of this form included papacito. Similar to mamá, the use of papá (and its variants) expresses affection and can be loosely translated as ‘dear’.

Male and female customers and vendors employed a wide selection of terms of address when addressing the vendor. These included names (e.g. Isidro) (first column), titles including señor ‘mister’, señora ‘madam’, marchanta ‘merchant’ to refer to a vendor (second column), and don (‘sir’) or doña ‘(madam with respect’) (e.g. don Pablito). There is a wide variety of names related to family members that are used to address the vendor or the customer, and many of these occur in the diminutive (e.g. mamacita; papacito) or with terms such as compadre (buddy; here used as ‘brother’ or ‘friend’) to address a male vendor (third column). There was also a variety of terms of endearment in the data that were used to express ­solidarity or involvement with the interlocutor, such as flaco ‘slim’, chula ‘beautiful’, morena ‘dark-skinned woman’, or mi amor ‘my love’. Most of the family names and terms of endearment were used by both male and female vendors to address the



Pragmatic variation by gender 

customer, and most of these terms were also employed by vendors to address the customers. Other forms of endearment that were used equally by customers and vendors to express affection included jefe ‘boss’, rey ‘king,’ reina ‘queen’ or its diminutive form reinita ‘little queen’, utilized mainly by the customer. Thus these forms of address were mostly used reciprocally to reinforce the links of affiliation or solidarity between customers and vendors. The following interaction (7) shows the presence of pronouns of address (T & V) and a variety of terms of address between the male vendor and the female customer (both in their 50’s). Pronouns of address (also implicit in the verb) and terms of address are shown in bold.

(7) Pronouns of address and address terms in a market transaction. (#217, male vendor and female customer) 01 V mamicita linda, buenos día:::s ‘honey, good morning’ 02 C: (…) papacito lindo, buenos días. ¿Cómo ha estado? bien?↑= ‘dear, good morning, how’ve you been?, good↑’ 03 V: =maso maso ‘so so’ 04 C: pimienta↑ ‘pepper’↑ 05 V: pimienta↑ cinco, dos y un peso ((points to product)) ‘pepper↑ five, two and one peso’ 06 C: ese es de peso↑ ((points to product)) ‘that one costs one peso↑’ 07 V: sí mamá, un pesito, p’al caldito ↑ ‘yes, honey, one little peso, for broth↑ 08 C: p’al caldito, sí - ahí esta, papá ‘for broth, yes – here it is, dear’ 09

((customer picks up product and pays – noise of coins))

10 V: gracias, mamá, un peso’ ‘thanks, honey, a peso’ 11

((receives payment – noise of coins))

12 V: gracias, que Dios te bendiga, mamita ‘thanks, God bless you, sweetie’ 13 C: igualmente, papacito, igualmente, igualmente ‘likewise, dear, likewise, likewise 14 V: feliz fin de semana ‘have a great weekend’ 15 C: así es↓ ‘I will’

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

In this interaction, the female customer uses the formal form of address V implicit in the verb (cómo ha estado? ‘how have you-formal been?’, line 02), whereas the male vendor uses the informal pronoun T, as shown in the blessing sequence that ends the interaction (e.g. gracias, que Dios te bendiga ‘thanks, God bless ­you-informal’, line 12). In addition to the unequal use of pronoun of address (T used by male vendor and V used by female customer), the participants in this exchange employed a variety of family names using the diminutive (e.g. lines 01–02; lines 12–13) to express solidarity with the interlocutor, as well as other family terms such as mamá ‘honey’, papá ‘dear’ (lines 07, 08, 10). In general, the presence of the formal and informal pronouns (T & V) and the various terms related to family names serve to reinforce the interpersonal relations between the interlocutors throughout the interaction.

5.  Discussion Unlike previous studies that examined gender in terms of male and female dichotomies in which women’s speech is characterized by polite behavior, tentativeness, indirectness, powerlessness, or by cooperative conversational style (e.g. Holmes 1995), in this chapter I examined gender as associated with social practices observed in one Mexican community of practice where an aggregate of male and female vendors from the same region meet to carry out sales transactions. My view of gender is in line with those of Mills (2003) and Wolfram and ­Schilling-Estes (2006, Chapters 3, 5 and 8) who consider a series of factors such as the customer’s and the vendor’s speech, the topic of the interaction – in this case, the transaction – and the setting in which the interaction takes place. The results of the present study lend support to Antonopoulou’s findings in her study on Greek service encounters that “it is the gender of the addressee rather than that of the speaker which emerges as a decisive factor” (2001: 252). Based on the intra-gender and cross-gender analysis of the request for service, the present section explains the results obtained in light of accommodation ­theory (Giles & P ­ owesland 1997). 5.1  Variation at the actional level The results showed that customers’ requests for service in markets can be ­realized by means of at least seven request variants. Of these, four main ­strategies were used by male and female customers to make a request for service (i.e. i­ mperative, ­elliptical, implicit, and assertion). The other three variants (namely, direct ­question, want statement, and conventional indirectness) were almost absent from the data. The



Pragmatic variation by gender 

two most frequent strategy types – imperative and elliptical – coincide with previous studies that examined service encounters in other contexts such as corner stores in Ecuador (Placencia 2008) and Spain (Placencia 2005), in Tunisian butcher shops (Hmed 2008), in Puerto Rican store encounters where elliptical requests predominate (Vélez 1987), and in French markets where requests for service are also expressed in the imperative (Lindenfeld 1990: 93). And, unlike the findings of previous studies, for example, Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2006), which showed that conventionally-indirect requests are the most frequent strategy in small shops in France, and Antonopoulou (2001), who found that the use of imperatives is infrequent in Greek newspaper stands, indirect requests represented the least frequent request strategy in the Mexican market in this study. With regard to internal modification of the request, requests for service in the current study showed infrequent modification. This result contrasts with previous research that shows that requests for service in small shops in France (Lyons) (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 2006) and ­markets (Lindenfeld 1990: 93–94) are internally modified, generally by means of the conditional, and with the politeness marker por favor ‘please’ and the diminutive in Quiteño Spanish (Placencia 2008: 316). Direct (unmitigated) requests for service in this Mexican region do not reflect a lack of politeness; rather direct or elliptical requests represent the appropriate way of expressing a request in the context of these market transactions. Likewise, direct requests do not represent a threat to the vendor’s negative face (Brown & Levinson 1987). On the contrary, I would argue, a direct or elliptical request is the appropriate (or expected) behavior for male and female customers negotiating service in the Mexican community under investigation. As shown previously, intra-gender and cross-gender variation was noted in the Mexican data. The results of this study show that the gender of the interlocutor influences the preference for imperative forms. For example, imperatives are the preferred form in both male-male and female-male interactions. The fact that the imperative represents the second most frequent strategy among female ­customers in this Mexican region does not mean that they use direct requests to express dominance or impoliteness. Instead, following speech accommodation theory (e.g. Coupland 2010; Giles & Powesland 1997), it seems that Mexican women are using the imperative form with male vendors to follow the male speech pattern of a direct (unmitigated) request. Similarly, male customers interacting with male vendors are using the most common (or expected) strategy type employed in female-male interactions in the form of elliptical requests. A similar speech pattern was noted in the expression of assertion (me da… ‘you give me’), a strategy mainly selected by women interacting with male vendors. However, this strategy was also used in male-male interactions. Further, in the Mexican market setting under investigation, the most

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

frequent requests for service are those that occur in male-male interactions or in female-male interactions. The Mexican women of this community of practice accommodate their request types based on male speech behavior. A similar analysis of gender variation in Greek service encounters (newspaper stands) was observed by Antonopoulou (2001). In that study, the author found that while the preferred requesting style in male-male interactions is elliptical requests, when males address female shop owners, these customers use fully verbalized requests (mainly interrogatives and declaratives), which is the predominant female requesting style. And while in female-female interactions women prefer fully verbalized requests, when they address a male owner they tend to use the male requesting pattern; namely, an elliptical form. In light of these results, speech accommodation theory seems a more viable framework for explaining requesting speech behavior in the context of service encounters where “decisions about what is appropriate or not are decided upon strategically within the parameters of the community of practice and within the course of the interaction rather than being decided upon by each individual once and for all” (Mills 2003: 235). 5.2  Variation at the interactional level The exchange of openings and closings commonly falls under the rubric of politeness routines, as they reinforce the relational (or phatic) dimension of the interaction (Brown & Levinson 1987; Lindenfeld 1990). Previous research that examined service encounters in small shops showed a relatively high frequency of openings and closings in corner stores in Quito, Ecuador (Placencia 2008), store encounters in Puerto Rico (Vélez 1987), in Greek service encounters at newspaper stands (Antonopoulou 2001), and in at least two contexts in France: one in small (covered) shops (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 2006) and one in French urban marketplaces (­ Lindenfeld 1990). In these contexts, routines serve an interpersonal or politeness function by means of opening the interaction with a greeting or a greeting exchange, followed by the terminal exchange in the form of a farewell or expression of thanks. In French service encounters, there is a preference for deference politeness that is expressed through formal forms. In contrast to the data in the present study, in Quiteño Spanish almost 93% of the transactions analyzed start with a greeting or a greeting exchange (2008: 319); however, in the same study, regional variation was noted in Manteño (Coastal) Spanish, as greetings are infrequent, occurring in approximately 18% of the data. Similarly, in commercial encounters at Greek newspaper stands, females (mainly, in female-female interactions) include greetings, partings, and expressions of gratitude more frequently than males. Unlike these studies, the data from the Mexican market transactions show that greetings (or greeting exchanges) are almost absent in the interactions of both



Pragmatic variation by gender 

male and female customers. And while closings are more ­frequent than openings, they are present in only approximately 20% of the male and female data, with female ­customers showing a slightly higher preference for closings or ­thank-you exchanges than male customers. Again, the absence of these politeness r­ outines in the Mexican market data does not represent a lack of ­politeness. Instead, opening the interaction with a pre-sequence or immediately with the request for service or ending the interaction without a thanking exchange represents appropriate and expected behavior in the Mexican community of practice under investigation, which is the market. The results of the current study also show the importance of analyzing the customer’s request along with the vendor’s response until both arrive at a mutual agreement and the transaction is completed. Filliettaz’s (2008) study in Geneva French highlights the complexity of the dialogic co-construction of requests in department stores. His analysis showed that request-response sequences are the product of “travail de co-élaboration qu’implique parfois la formulation de la requěte par le client, et l’effort d’étayage que fournit le vendeur dans ce processus” “the work of coelaboration that at times involves the formulation of the request by the customer, and the scaffolding work provided by the seller during this process” (2008: 85, my translation). The data of the current study lend further support to Filliettaz’s work in that most of the request transactions carried out by male and female customers were the result of a collaborative process in which both the customer and the vendor negotiate the request across multiple turns. In the current study the request was often accomplished at the end of the request-response sequence. Thus the present analysis underscores the importance of analyzing interactions in commercial settings across sequences and acknowledging that they are accomplished through a dynamic process of co-construction to which both the customer and the vendor contribute according to the sociocultural rules and expectations of a specific community of practice. As noted by Filliettaz (2008: 100), the analysis of request sequences goes beyond Searle’s (1969, 2010) tradition of speech acts, as most analyses of cross-cultural pragmatics focus on the speaker’s action, leaving out the interlocutor’s contribution that feeds the co-construction and shapes the accomplishment of the transaction. 5.3  Variation at the stylistic level Previous research has shown that in Ecuadorian (Placencia 2008) and French service encounters (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 2006; Lindenfeld 1990), the formal pronoun of address V predominates in commercial transactions. In a different study at a butcher shop in Villefranche (Hmed 2008), however, it was shown that bilingual customers residing in France used the formal pronoun and formal forms of

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

address in French-French interactions (Villefranche) and the informal T with Tunisians. Placencia’s comparative study of service encounters in Quito and Manta also found regional variation in that Ecuadorians from the coast (Manta) expressed less deference in their choice of address forms (similar to Spaniards [Placencia 2005]) than Quiteño customers who selected both deferential address forms and a variety of terms of endearment and rapport-building strategies to express interpersonal concerns to the interlocutor. However, with the exception of Lindenfeld (1990), the aforementioned studies focused on the selection of forms of address exclusively from the customer’s perspective. The results of the present study illustrate that it is the gender of the interlocutor – namely, that of the vendor – that influences the selection, form, and function of address forms in Mexican market transactions. The finding that the informal form of address, T (tú ‘you-informal’), predominates in male-male interactions suggests that this is the result of solidarity politeness (positive politeness), whereas the formal form, V (usted ‘you-formal’), reflects deference politeness (Scollon & Scollon 2001) in female-male interactions and is a means of expressing respect to a male vendor. As shown in previous research on pronominal and nominal address forms in Mexico (Lastra 1972; Orozco 2006; Schwenter 1993; Vázquez Laslop & Orozco 2010), the T form is used among the younger generation in situations of solidarity, and its use is spreading to other contexts. The V form seems to be restricted to interlocutors of older generations to express respect and deference. With respect to the present study, the selection of one pronoun over another may also depend on the gender of the interlocutor, the degree of familiarity between the customer and the vendor or their frequency of interaction inside and outside the market. With regard to the preference of T forms in male-customer speech, one reviewer asked whether the preference for the informal T form would be due to inequality between some of the customers (monolingual speakers of Spanish) interacting with some Maya-speaking vendors (from rural areas), suggesting a situation similar to that observed in La Paz, Bolivia between institutional representatives addressing indigenous people with derogatory remarks and informal T form to express inequality (Placencia 2001). In the present Mexican context, this does not seem to be the case, since most Mexican male speakers using T forms also used other positive politeness strategies such as the name of the vendor (­showing f­amiliarity) and forms of address such as compadre (‘buddy’ [used as friend, brother]), reina ‘queen’, or madrecita (‘mother’ (diminutive form)) (by a male vendor), among other forms expressing affiliation with the interlocutor. And, in interactions where no familiarity was noted between the interlocutors, both interlocutors tended to use the formal form V (usted) to express respect, or the T form accompanied by nominal address terms to express affiliation with the interlocutor. Thus, the possibility of whether male customers chose the familiar



Pragmatic variation by gender 

T form to express condescension when addressing the vendor appears to be ruled out in the current Mexican context of public market service encounters, although this situation needs further investigation.4 Finally, although both customers and vendors used various forms of address (e.g. names, titles, family names, terms of endearment, and terms of hierarchy), there seems to be a higher degree of involvement or solidarity politeness (Scollon & Scollon 2001) on the part of the vendors, who used a higher frequency and a wider variety of these forms with male and female customers. Here, the selection of these forms is mostly reciprocal, especially in interactions with frequent customers. Solidarity politeness in this Mexican market appears to be at least part of a vendor’s interpersonal strategy for attracting the customer’s attention and ensuring a successful interaction. Overall, Mexicans of this Southern region seem to invest in high levels of solidarity politeness to maintain their interpersonal relationships. 5.4  Methodological issues Due to ethical considerations, researchers collecting data in public service encounters need approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at their institutions along with the owners’ consent to record data in their place of business. Given the observational nature of service encounter research, the data are considered public, and participants’ personal information, if obtained, cannot be revealed. However, the final decision with respect to collecting data in public settings rests upon the owner of the commercial location. If permission is granted, the owner of the business may require that a sign be placed near the recording device to alert the participants that their transactions are being recorded, granting them the option to delete the customer’s transaction if necessary. Further, because of the background noise that characterizes market service encounters, it may be difficult to conduct a prosodic analysis of phonetic characteristics of the data using software programs such as Praat, which allows the researcher to examine the exact pitch, stress, or duration of requests. In the current study, the presence of (at times extreme) background noise greatly interfered with the quality of the recording, which prevented an accurate phonetic analysis. Researchers should also be aware of methodological issues regarding the ­coding and analysis of the data (see Cohen [this volume]). In addition to the researcher’s own analysis, a second, trained person should code the data ­independently to 4.  Since two of the vendors were bilingual speakers (with Spanish used in most transactions), it is also possible that the T forms used by these vendors may reflect their imperfect command of Spanish, as observed by the same reviewer.

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

increase the reliability of the coding of the request types or forms of internal or external modification. And, for the cross- and inter-gender analysis, a statistical program (e.g. SPSS) can be used to examine the data with accuracy through the use of descriptive statistics and an analysis of independent (e.g. gender) and dependent variables of the study (e.g. request type, stylistic forms). As always, a representative sample, with balanced gender distribution, is important for the analysis of social practices as well as for determining the general speech patterns of a given speech community. Likewise, since the aim of research on service encounters is to examine social action in its natural habitat, data should be collected in natural settings, and experimental data (e.g. production questionnaires or role plays) should be avoided in this type of research. Further, gathering verbal report data (see Cohen [this volume]; Félix-Brasdefer 2010) can be instrumental for observing the customer’s and vendor’s insights with regard to their interaction during the transaction. Thus, triangulating data from two or more sources would enhance the credibility of the results and offer a broader analysis of the data from different perspectives. Finally, the notion of the pragmatic variable (and its variants) needs to be further analyzed using a function-based approach and an extended version of the variationist sociolinguistic methodology (see Terkourafi [this volume]). 6.  Conclusion The present study examined pragmatic variation by gender in the context of ­service encounters in markets in Yucatán, Mexico. The variable of gender was analyzed with regard to the type of request strategy and the elements used to internally modify the request (actional level), the sequential structure of the sales t­ ransaction (­interactional level), and the forms of address used to negotiate the request (­stylistic level). Although the field of pragmatic variation is not new (e.g. Placencia 1994, 2005; Schneider & Barron 2008 [Chapter 1]), this chapter focused on variation by gender in the context of market transactions with regard to the presence and ­contributions of both the customer and the vendor. The present study points to the analysis of request sequences that are not the result of a single-turn p ­ roduction in isolated ­contexts (speaker-oriented). Instead, it is important to understand that requests for service in commercial (and non-commercial) settings are c­ o-constructed and are the result of a collaborative process between the buyer and seller to conduct ­transactions and to achieve meaning in social interaction. While the current study focused on the transactional dimension of service encounters (i.e. business talk), future work should examine the relational aspect of sales transactions in marketplaces according to the gender of both the customer and the vendor (i.e. small talk, laughter, irony).



Pragmatic variation by gender 

References Anderson, L., Aston, G. & Tucker, G. 1988. The joint production of requests in service encounters. In Negotiating Discourse: Studies in the Discourse of Bookshop Encounters, A. Guy (ed.), 136–151. Bologna: Editrice. Antonopoulou, E. 2001. Brief service encounters: Gender and politeness. In Linguistics ­Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish [Pragmatics & Beyond New  Series 88], A. Bayraktaroğlu & M. Sifianou (eds), 241–269. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Aston, G. (ed.). 1988a. Negotiating Service: Studies in the Discourse of Bookshop Encounters. Bologna: Editrice. Aston, G. 1988b. What’s a public service encounter anyway? In Negotiating Discourse: Studies in the Discourse of Bookshop Encounters, G. Aston (ed.), 25–42. Bologna: Editrice. Aston, G. 1988c. Interactional speech in service encounters. In Negotiating Discourse: Studies in the Discourse of Bookshop Encounters, G. Aston (ed.), 73–97. Bologna: Editrice. Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: OUP. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (eds). 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Brodine, R. 1991. Requesting and responding in Italian and English service encounters. In Dialoganalyse III, Teil 1, S. Stati, E. Weigand & F. Hundsnurscher (eds), 293–305. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. Cheshire, J. 2005. Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(4): 479–508. Coupland, N. 2010. Accommodation theory. In Society and Language Use. [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 7], J. Jaspers, J.-O. Östman & J.Verschueren (eds), 21–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Covarrubias, P.O. 2002. Culture, Communication, and Cooperation: Interpersonal Relations and Pronominal Address in a Mexican Organization. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2010. Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays, and verbal reports. In Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical, and Methodological Issues [Language Learning & Language Teaching 26], E. Usó Juán & A. Martínez-Flor (eds), 41–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2011. Cortesía, prosodia y variación pragmática en las peticiones de estudiantes universitarios mexicanos y dominicanos (Politeness, prosody, and pragmatic variation in requests among Mexican and Dominican university students). In Estudios de variación pragmática en español (Studies of pragmatic variation in Spanish), C. García & M.E. Placencia (eds), 57–86. Buenos Aires: Dunken. Filliettaz, L. 2008. La co-construction de requêtes. Le cas du service à la clientèle dans les grandes surfaces (The co-construction of requests. The case of service to the clientele in department stores). In Les Interaction en Site Commercial: Invariants et Variations (Interactions in commercial setting: Invariants and variations), C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni & V. Traverso (eds), 77–103. Lyon: Ens Éditions. Gavioli, L. 1997. Bookshop service encounters in English and Italian: Notes on the achievements of information and advice. In The Language of Business, F. Bargiela-Chiappini & S. Harris (eds), 136–158. Edinburgh: EUP.

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer Giles, H. & Powesland, P. 1997. Accommodation theory. In Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook, N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (eds), 232–239. New York NY: St. Martin’s Press. Hmed, N. 2008. Analyse comparative d’interactions dans des petits commerces français, tunisien et franco-maghrébin (Comparative analysis of interactions in French small shops). In Les Interaction en Site commercial: Invariants et Variations (Interactions in commercial setting: Invariants and variations), C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni & V. Traverso (eds), 254–276. Lyon: Ens Éditions. Holmes, J. 1995. Women, Men, and Politeness. New York NY: Longman. Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. 2008. Conversation Analysis, 2nd edn. Malden MA: Polity. Jefferson, G. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 125], G. Lerner (ed.), 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 2006. Politeness in small shops in France. Journal of Politeness Research 2: 79–103. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. & Traverso, V. 2008a. Presentation. In Les Interactions en Site Commercial: Invariants et Variations (Interactions in commercial setting: Invariants and variations), C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni & V. Traverso (eds), 7–42. Lyon: Ens Éditions. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. & Traverso V. (eds). 2008b. Les Interaction en Site Commercial. Invariants et Variations (Interactions in commercial setting: Invariants and variations). Lyon: Ens Éditions. Lakoff, R.T. 2010. Gender. In Society and language Use [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 7], J. Jaspers, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (eds), 152–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lastra de Suárez, Y. 1972. Los pronombres de tratamiento en la Ciudad de México (Pronouns of address in Mexico City). Anuario de Letras 10: 213–217. Lastra de Suárez, Y. 2006. México and Central America. In Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, Vol. 3, U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. Mattheier & P. Trudgill (eds), 2073–2081. Berlin: de Gruyter. Lindenfeld, J. 1978. Communicative patterns at French marketplaces. Semiotica 23(3–4): 279–289. Lindenfeld, J. 1990. Speech and Sociability [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lipski, J. 1994. Latin American Spanish. New York NY: Longman. McCarthy, M. 2000. Mutually captive audiences: Small talk and the genre of close-contact service encounters. In Small Talk, J. Coupland (ed.), 84–109. Harlow: Pearson Education. Merritt, M. 1976. On questions following questions in service encounters. Language in Society 5: 315–357. Mills, S. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. Mintz, S. 1959. Internal market systems as mechanisms of social articulation. In Intermediate Societies, Social Mobility and Communication, V. Ray (ed.), Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, 20–28. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Mitchell, T.F. 1957/1975. The language of buying and selling in Cyrenaica. Hesperis 44: 31–71. Reprinted as The language of buying and selling in Cyrenaica: A situational statement, in Principles of Firthian Linguistics, T.F. Mitchell (ed.), 167–200. London: Longman. Orozco, L. 2006. No me hable de TÚ despectivo. Hábleme de TÚ correcto (Don’t speak to me in disrespectful TÚ. Speak to me in correct TÚ). In Líderes Lingüísticos: Estudios de Variación y Cambio (Linguistic leaders: Studies of variation and change), P. Martín Butragueño (ed.), 131–158. México DF: El Colegio de México.



Pragmatic variation by gender 

Placencia, M.E. 1994. Pragmatics across varieties. Donaire 2: 65–77. Placencia, M.E. 2001. Inequality in address behavior at public institutions in La Paz, Bolivia. Anthropological Linguistics 43(2): 198–217. Placencia, M.E. 2005. Pragmatic variation in corner store interactions in Quito and Madrid. Hispania 88(3): 583–598. Placencia, M.E. 2008. Requests in corner shop transactions in Ecuadorian Andean and Coastal Spanish. In Schneider & Barron (eds), 307–332. Placencia, M.E. & Mancera Rueda, A. 2011. Vaya, qué chungo! Rapport-building talk in service encounters: The case of bars in Seville at breakfast time. In Spanish at Work: Analyzing Institutional Discourse across the Spanish-Speaking World, N. Lorenzo-Dus (ed.), 192–207. New York NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Ruzickova, E. 2007. Customer requests in Cuban Spanish: Realization patterns and politeness strategies in service encounters. In Research on Politeness in the Spanish-Speaking World, M.E. Placencia & C. García (eds), 213–244. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Schegloff, E. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: CUP. Schneider, K. & Barron, A. (eds). 2008. Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 178]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schwenter, S. 1993. Diferenciación dialectal por medio de pronombres: una comparación del uso de tú y usted en España y México (Dialectal difference through pronouns: A comparison of T and V in Spain and Mexico). Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 41(1): 127–149. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. 2001. Intercultural Communication, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts. London: CUP. Searle, J.R. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: OUP. Spencer-Oatey, H. 2000. Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 11–46. ­London: Continuum. Traverso, V. 2006. Aspects of polite behavior in French and Syrian service encounters: A ­data-based comparative study. Journal of Politeness Research 2: 105–122. Traverso, V. 2008. Cadres, espaces, objects et multimodalité (Settings, spaces, objects, and ­multi-modality). In Les Interaction en Site Commercial: Invariants et Variations (Interactions in commercial setting: Invariants and variants), C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni & V. Traverso (eds), 45–76. Lyon: Ens Éditions. Vázquez Laslop, M.E. & Orozco, L. 2010. Formas de tratamiento en el español de México (Forms of address in Mexican Spanish). In Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico (Forms and formulas of address in the hispanic world), M. Hummel, B. Kluge, & M.E. Vázquez Laslop (eds), 249–269. México DF: El Colegio de México. Vélez, J.A. 1987. Contrasts in Language Use: A Conversational and Ethnographic Analysis of Service Encounters in Austin and San Juan. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. Ventola, E. 2005. Revisiting service encounters genre – some reflections. Folia Linguistica 39(1–2): 19–43. Wolfram, W. & Schilling-Estes, N. 2006. American English: Dialect and Variation [Language in Society 25], 2nd edn. Malden MA: Blackwell.

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Appendix Transcription conventions. (Adapted from Jefferson 2004) These are the convention transcriptions that are used in the examples. A. Contiguous utterances. = Equal signs indicate no break up or gap. They are placed when there is no interval between adjacent utterances and the second utterance is linked immediately to the first. B. Overlaps. [ A left bracket indicates the point of overlap onset. ] A right bracket indicates the point at which two overlapping utterances end, if they end simultaneously, or the point at which one of them ends in the course of the other. It is also used to parse out segments of overlapping utterances. C. Intervals. () Parentheses indicating the time in seconds and placed within an utterance mark intervals or pauses in the stream of talk. - A dash marks a short untimed pause within an utterance. D.

Characteristics of speech delivery. ↑↓ The up and down arrows mark sharp rises or falls in pitch. : A colon marks a lengthened syllable or an extension of a sound. ::: More colons prolong a sound or syllable. word Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis, either by increased loudness or higher pitch. . A period marks fall in tone. , A comma marks continuing intonation. ? A question mark signals rising intonation.

E. Other markings. (( )) Double parentheses are used to mark the transcriber’s descriptions of events.

chapter 2

Cross-cultural stances in online discussions Pragmatic variation in French and American ways of expressing opinions Carl Blyth

University of Texas at Austin, USA “One of the most important things we do with words is take a stance.”  John Du Bois (2007: 139) This study examines the cultural, grammatical, and interactional features of the opinions expressed by French and American college students during telecollaborative discussions of individualism. Research on telecollaboration suggests that L1 pragmatic differences in stancetaking prove problematic for cross-cultural communication. This study adopts a mixed methods approach that includes quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the disparate phenomena associated with stancetaking. Lexical associations and word frequency data indicate different French and American cultural models of the discussion topic. Concordance data confirm the cultural models by uncovering divergent L1 patterns of first-person singular reference. Finally, a qualitative analysis of a single discussion demonstrates how the French and American students negotiate their mismatched L1 stances during online interaction.

1.  Introduction Once dominated by English, the Internet has become a multilingual space. Today, more than two-thirds of Internet users are non-English speakers (Danet & Herring 2007). As a result, there are many new social contexts for multilingual and multicultural communication. And yet, while the Internet has made it easier to contact ‘the cultural other’, computer-mediated communication poses serious obstacles to the establishment of cross-cultural intersubjectivity. One of those obstacles is what linguists refer to as stance, the way an interlocutor expresses an opinion in interaction (Jaffe 2009).

 Carl Blyth

Recent research in foreign language telecollaboration has demonstrated that expressing an opinion in a style that violates another culture’s norms may lead to misunderstanding (Belz 2003; Chun 2008; O’Dowd & Ritter 2006; Ware & Kramsch 2005). Belz (2003) defines telecollaboration as “the use of Internet communication tools by internationally dispersed students of language in institutionalized settings in order to promote the development of (a) foreign language (FL) ­linguistic competence and (b) intercultural competence” (p. 68). In a study of an ­American-German email exchange, Belz (2003) concluded that miscommunication was due to an inadequate knowledge of “culture-specific patterns of interaction in the partner’s language” (p. 90). With the aid of Appraisal Theory, a systemic functional approach to evaluative language (Martin 2000; Martin & White 2005), Belz demonstrated that her American and German students used different linguistic resources for constructing their stances. The German students produced many negative appraisals and categorical assertions, whereas the American student tended to produce more positive comments. In addition, the American student limited his few negative comments to self-deprecating judgments. Belz argued that the results of her study corroborated claims in the literature about contrasting stance scripts among Germans and Americans; i.e. Germans tend to express themselves in more direct and explicit ways than Americans (Byrnes 1986). Telecollaboration has become an increasingly popular method among foreign language educators given the recent emphasis on intercultural communicative competence (Byram 1997; van Compernolle & Williams [this volume]) and the expansion of Internet communication technologies (Belz & Thorne 2005). The impetus for this study of French and American ‘stance scripts’ comes from my own experience teaching French courses using Cultura, an innovative telecollaborative approach to foreign language and culture learning (Furstenberg 2003; ­Furstenberg et al. 2001). In essence, Cultura allows teachers and students to create an ­international partnership between two foreign language classes that commit to learning about the other through a series of communicative activities. C ­ entral to Cultura is an online forum where the French and American participants post their opinions on a variety of topics for both classes to read. An important feature of the forum is the exclusive use of the native language; the Americans write only in English and the French write only in French. The result is a unique bilingual/­ bicultural d ­ ialogue in which both sides read and respond to the other groups’ native discourse. This chapter demonstrates how I sought to explore in a systematic fashion the L1 (native speaker) pragmatic variation that I observed between the French and American stances in the Cultura forum. The goal of this kind of cross-­cultural pragmatics is to identify culture-specific ‘scripts’; that is, linguistic complexes that index cultural ways of thinking and performing (Wierzbicka 1991, 1992, 1996, 1997). In such an approach to L1 pragmatic variation, linguists attend not



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions 

only to differences in linguistic patterning but also to differences in underlying ­cultural values that guide language production. Wierzbicka (1997: 17) describes her method for examining the language/culture interface as akin to unraveling a tangled ball of wool: “…we may be able to unravel a whole tangled ball of attitudes, values, and expectations, embodied not only in words, but also in common collocations, in set phrases, in grammatical constructions, in proverbs, and so on” (Wierzbicka 1997: 17). Unfortunately, describing the study of pragmatic variation in such metaphorical terms conflates different levels of pragmatic phenomena – lexicon, grammar and discourse – and thus obscures important methodological issues. For example, which methods are most appropriate for examining the different types of L1 pragmatic variation implicated in stancetaking? The goal of this study is to demonstrate how a mixed methods approach first specifies different types of L1 pragmatic variation – cultural, grammatical and interactional – and then attempts to integrate the different types of variation into a coherent whole. The chapter begins by defining the concept of stance and by reviewing the multiple lines of stance research. Next, the three analyses and their methods for examining L1 pragmatic variation in cross-cultural discourse are described: cultural models analysis that relies on lexical associations, concordance analysis that examines selected grammatical patterns in aggregated data, and interactional analysis that focuses on the actual process of negotiating the two divergent stance scripts. The findings are reported in terms of these three separate yet related analyses. Due to the relative newness of the field, stance researchers have yet to integrate their findings into a larger framework. It is argued that systemic functional linguistics, because of its conception of language as a culturally-embedded system of meaning potential, appears to be the most promising theory of language in this regard ­(Halliday & Matthiessen 1999, 2004; Martin & Rose 2007, 2008; ­Matthiessen 2009).

2.  Literature review 2.1  Defining stance Du Bois (2007) defines stance as “a public act by a social actor, achieved dialogically through overt communicative means, of simultaneously evalu­ ating objects, positioning subjects (self and others), and aligning with other ­subjects, with respect to any salient dimension of the sociocultural field” (p. 163). Stance has recently become the focus of much research interest as evidenced by monographs (­ Bednarek 2008a; Englebretson 2007a; Hunston 2011; Hunston & Thompson 2000; Jaffe 2009; Martin & White 2005) and special editions of journals (Berman 2005). Even though stance research is on the rise, the field is ­hampered by ­terminological ­confusion. For example, stance researchers employ

 Carl Blyth

different terms to refer to similar phenomena: affect, appraisal, attitude, emotion, ­evaluation, evidentiality, f­ ooting, modality, modalization, perspective, point of view, positionality, subjectivity. In an effort to clarify some of the confusion, Englebretson conducted a ­concordance analysis of the word stance using two large corpora of English (e.g. the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English and the British National Corpus). Based on a qualitative analysis of 1,838 tokens, Englebretson (2007a) argues that the everyday usage of the term stance entails five different conceptual principles: (1) stancetaking occurs on three (often overlapping) levels – stance is physical action, stance is personal attitude/belief/evaluation, and stance is social morality; (2) stance is public, and is perceivable, interpretable, and available for inspection by others; (3) stance is interactional in nature – it is collaboratively constructed among participants, and with respect to other stances; (4) stance is indexical, evoking aspects of the broader sociocultural framework or physical contexts in which it occurs; (5) stance is consequential – i.e. taking a stance leads to real consequences for the persons or institutions involved.  (Englebretson 2007b: 5)

It is common for researchers to distinguish three basic types of stances: epistemic stance (e.g. how certain an interlocutor is about her opinions), affective stance (e.g. how the speaker represents her feelings and moods), and interpersonal stance (e.g. how an interlocutor represents her relationship to other participants). Kiesling (2009) points out that these types of stance are usually closely related in actual discourse: Someone who is being patronizing (interpersonal stance) is usually expressing that they are also very certain (epistemic stance) about what they are saying, but they are also expressing something about that knowledge with respect to their interlocutor, namely that the interlocutor does not have the same knowledge.  (Kiesling 2009: 172–3)

2.2  Approaches to stance Englebretson (2007b) argues that stance is not a ‘monolithic concept’ and calls for a diversity of approaches to examine its complex phenomena. Within the field of linguistics, the study of stance cuts across many subdisciplines: cognitive ­linguistics (Bednarek 2009a; Palmer 1996; Sharifian 2011), computational linguistics (­ Pennebacker 2011), corpus linguistics (Bednarek 2008a; Biber & ­Finegan 1989; Channell 2000; Conrad & Biber 2000; Hunston 2007, 2011; ­Hunston & Thompson 2000; Precht 2003, 2008), discourse-functional linguistics ­(Englebretson 2007c; Karkkainen 2007; Keisanen 2007; Jisa & Viguié 2005; Reilly et al. 2005; Scheibman



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions 

2007), sociolinguistics (Bucholtz 2009; Jaffe 2009; Johnstone 2007, 2009; Kiesling 2009) and systemic functional linguistics (Bednarek 2008b, 2008c; 2009b; M ­ artin 2000; Martin & White 2005; Martin & Rose 2007). One of the most nuanced efforts to define and describe stance phenomena comes from Appraisal Theory, a systemic functional approach to evaluative language (Martin  & White 2005). ­According to Martin and Rose (2007), “the SFL [systemic functional linguistics] model of l­anguage in context recognizes three general social functions that we use language for: (i) to enact our social relationships; (ii) to represent our experience to each other; and (iii) to organize our enactments and representations as meaningful text” (p. 7). In SFL, these three social functions are referred to as metafunctions: –– interpersonal metafunction (enactment of social relationships); –– ideational metafunction (construal of experience); –– textual metafunction (organization of discourse). Within SFL, appraisal (written in small caps) refers to the linguistic resources for conveying different types of attitudes and is conceptualized as belonging primarily to the interpersonal metafunction. appraisal is further subdivided into three systems for making meaning: attitude (resources for constructing evaluation: e.g. affect, judgment or appreciation); engagement (resources for specifying the source of an attitude); graduation (resources for amplifying or mitigating an attitude). Another influential approach for conceptualizing discourse stance comes from the cross-linguistic work of Berman (2005) and her associates (Jisa & Viguié 2005; Reilly et al. 2005). Berman’s (2005) notion of discourse stance comprises three related dimensions of pragmatic variation: Orientation (Sender, Text, R ­ ecipient), Attitude (Epistemic, Deontic, Affective), and Generality (Reference and ­Quantification). She states: Orientation concerns the relation between the three participating elements in text production and interpretation: sender (speaker or writer), text (narration or exposition), and recipient (hearer or reader). […] The notion of Attitude is treated as threefold: an epistemic attitude expresses a relation between a cognizing speaker-writer and the possibility, certainty, or evidence for the individual’s belief about the truth of a given state of affairs; a deontic attitude entails a judgmental or evaluative viewpoint; while an affective attitude concerns the speaker-writer’s emotions (desire, anger, grief, etc.) with respect to a given state of affairs… Generality concerns how relatively general or specific reference is to people, places, and times mentioned in the text. (Berman 2005: 107)

 Carl Blyth

Not surprisingly, different approaches to stance tend to emphasize different kinds of pragmatic variation – cultural, grammatical or interactional. In general, ­cultural approaches to stance view culture as accumulated knowledge based on prior experiences with an emphasis on abstract models taken from cognitive anthropology and cognitive linguistics (D’Andrade 1995; Palmer 1996; ­Scharifian 2011; Strauss  & Quinn 1997; Quinn 2005a, 2005b). These abstract cognitive constructs are referred to variably as domains, frames, models, prototypes, schemas, and scripts. In brief, cultural models posit that linguistic expression is associated with general ways of conceptualizing or construing lived experience. Cultural models analysis supports the Bakhtinian notion that current discourse is in dialogue with prior discourse (Bakhtin 1981; Paveau 2006). Therefore, cultural models may be used to predict cultural expectations for the discussion of a given topic. Linguists interested in cultural models have recently ventured into ­cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics and have sought to describe culturespecific scripts for interaction (Sharifian & Palmer 2007). For example, Peeters (2000) ­demonstrates how the French cultural value of engagement (glossed as ­‘commitment’ in English) and the Anglo cultural value of restraint result in ­different conversational styles among French and English speakers. To achieve descriptive clarity, Peeters adopts Wierzbicka’s natural semantic metalanguage (Goddard 2009; Goddard & Wierzbicka 2004, 2007; Wierzbicka 1997), “a descriptive apparatus that has proven to be eminently suited for work in cross-cultural pragmatics” (Peeters 2000: 195).1 In brief, the cultural scripts articulated by Peeters in (1) and (2) predict a clash between French and American expectations concerning epistemic stancetaking. (1) Cultural script for the French value of ‘engagement’ It is good for people to say what they think Because of this, I say what I think I say it like a thing that I know I say it like a thing that is true When I do this, I want people to know what I feel If I do not do this, people will think something bad about me.  (Peeters 2000: 198)

1.  Advocates of natural semantic metalanguage claim that descriptions found in the ­politeness literature rely on culture-specific terminology such as face-threatening act (Brown & Levinson 1987). To avoid ethnocentrism, cultural scripts are expressed entirely in so-called semantic primitives or primes (e.g. I, YOU, SOMETHING, PEOPLE, etc.), which are claimed to be lexical universals (Wierzbicka 1996).



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions 

(2) Cultural script for the Anglo value of ‘restraint’ It is not good for people always to say what they think Because of this, I do not always say what I think There are things that I do not want to say When I say what I think, I cannot say it like a thing that I know I cannot say it like a thing that is true If I do, people will think something bad about me. 

(Peeters 2000: 204)

Cultural scripts are meant to capture general interactional reflexes regardless of the topic of conversation. However, according to Strauss (2004), the ‘cultural standing’ of a given topic within the relevant opinion community is an i­ mportant pragmatic constraint on the linguistic expression of an opinion. In other words, in addition to following general cultural scripts, speakers are expected to mark linguistically how their opinions align with the belief system of their ­community. Strauss (2004: 164) conceptualizes this universal constraint as a continuum: ­“Cultural standing is my label for location of a view on a continuum that ranges from highly controversial to completely taken for granted in the relevant o ­ pinion community”. Strauss’ model is based on Bourdieu’s distinction between dogma (the “universe of ­discourse [or argument]”) and doxa (the “universe of the u ­ndiscussed [­undisputed]” (1977: 168). Bourdieu further subdivides dogma into orthodoxy (dominant ideology) and heterodoxy (alternative ideologies). In ­Bourdieu’s ­framework, dogma (both ­heterodoxy and orthodoxy) belongs to the realm of social ­discourse that is openly discussed and debated. By contrast, doxa is never articulated because it is taken for granted. Modifying Bourdieu’s binary framework, Strauss c­ onceptualizes opinions as falling on a continuum of how widely shared the opinion is in the community. She identifies four major opinion categories: controversial opinions of a few, ­debatable opinions of a group, ­commonly accepted opinions within the community at large, and opinions that are universally shared and thus taken for granted (p. 170). Another approach to stance comes from corpus linguistics (Biber & Finegan 1989; Bednarek 2008a; Conrad & Biber 2000; Precht 2003, 2008). In general, ­corpus linguists prefer the nominal form stance to refer to their primary object of study – the static, lexicogrammatical patterns found in aggregated data. With the help of special software, corpus linguists analyze a wide range of linguistic patterns that are often inaccessible to intuition: lexical frequencies, collocations, grammatical constructions, key words, etc. Stance presents a challenge for corpus linguists because the concept is usually described in semantic and pragmatic rather than purely formal terms ­(Channell 2000). Precht’s study (2003) is a good example of a corpus-based comparison

 Carl Blyth

of stance in spoken British English and spoken American English. With the aid of software called StanceSearch, Precht found that American speakers used significantly more affective adjectives (e.g. crazy, weird) than British speakers in informal conversations. Precht (2003) notes that the frequent use of affective markers by American speakers is likely to strike British ears as “inappropriately intimate or insincere” (p. 255). A third approach emphasizes yet another kind of phenomena; that is, the dynamic patterns of social action examined by ethnographers, conversation analysts, and interactional sociolinguists. Englebretson (2007b) uses the cover term interactional linguistics to encompass subfields of linguistics that emphasize the study of intersubjectivity. Interactional linguists tend to refer to their object of study with the gerundive form stancetaking. According to Englebretson (2007b), stancetaking plays a central role “among the aspects of language that are jointly constructed, negotiated, and realized in and through interaction” (p. 19). An excellent example of the interactional approach is by Haddington (2007), a conversation analytic study of stancetaking in news interviews.Haddington observed how interviewers use questions to position their interviewees, and how interviewees align or disalign with the projected position. The author (2007) describes positioning as “an activity in which the interviewer designs a question so that answering it poses difficult problems for the interviewee… A positioning question encodes or evokes a preferred stance, presumption, or presupposition…” (p. 283). According to Du Bois (2007), alignment refers to the recycling of linguistic forms that participants employ to respond to each other’s stances. Du Bois (2007: 160) represents the relevant structural relations with a diagraph, a special kind of transcription that juxtaposes stances in dialogic sequence as shown in (3). (3) alice: I don’t know if she‘d do it. mary: I don’t know if she would either.

Haddington (2007) emphasizes that the concept of alignment is not synonymous with agreement. In other words, participants may align with a speaker’s stance without overtly agreeing with the speaker. The concept of alignment presents obvious problems for comparing multilingual data. In one sense, Cultura’s requirement that participants use their native language results in inherently disaligned stances since participants are unable to recycle linguistic elements of their ­foreign ­interlocutors’ discourse. Therefore, in this study, alignment has been adapted to refer to the recycling of a linguistic category or construction such as ‘affective adjective’ or ‘impersonal construction’ rather than an exact repetition of a ­preceding word or phrase. Moreover, the concepts of positioning and alignment, originally conceived for the analysis of oral interaction, require adaptation for the



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions 

analysis of written computer-mediated discourse. For example, in an asynchronous online forum, the intended addressee of a message is not always clear.2 Based on the stance literature, I formulated three research questions that targeted three types of pragmatic variation in the Cultura data – cultural, grammatical, and interactional. The sequence of the three research questions and the accompanying analyses is an important design feature of this study that attempts to integrate quantitative and qualitative methods into a coherent whole: the cultural analysis generated hypotheses for the grammatical analysis whose results in turn informed the interactional analysis. The use of multiple methods of analysis, commonly referred to as triangulation, has been increasingly advocated in discourse studies (Baker 2006; Hunston 2007).3 1. Culture: What are the French and American cultural models for individualism and how do they relate to culture-specific L1 stances; i.e. cultural scripts? 2. Grammar: How do the French and Americans use first person singular reference to construct their L1 stances? Is there evidence for French and American ‘grammars of stance’; that is, preferred lexicogrammatical resources for constructing stances? 3. Interaction: How do the French and Americans negotiate their L1 stances with each other in their forum postings? 3.  Method 3.1  Procedures for data collection To answer the first research question concerning cultural models of individualism, I adapted D’Andrade’s (2005) heuristic procedures.4 D’Andrade suggests that researchers begin by interviewing cultural informants about a specific topic.

2.  Herring (1999) identified two major obstacles to turn-taking in online environments: the lack of simultaneous feedback and the disruption of turn adjacencies. Because forum posts are displayed in terms of when they are received by the server, the turn-taking system is often disrupted and therefore a post’s contextual relevance may be ambiguous. 3.  Baker (2006: 16) gives three advantages of triangulation for discourse analysis: “it facilitates validity checks of hypotheses, it anchors findings in more robust interpretations and explanations, and it allows researchers to respond flexibly to unforeseen problems and aspects of their research.” 4.  The discussion of methods for constructing cultural models is necessarily brief. Interested readers should consult D’Andrade (2005) for an in-depth explanation of the methods.

 Carl Blyth

The interview data are then ‘winnowed’ into recurrent propositions or ideas. These propositions are analyzed in terms of word frequency to determine how the concept is structured. The most frequent words are divided into semantic groups and arranged into a set of gist propositions that together represent a cultural model of the topic; e.g. marriage, democracy, ‘The American Dream’, etc. Since all Cultura participants must perform a lexical association task based on a list of terms that are frequently assumed to be equivalent in both languages (e.g. individualism vs. individualisme), I was able to skip the winnowing process. I collected the results of eight lexical association tasks and compiled the French and American associations into two separate groups. This process resulted in two sets of lexical data: the American set totaled 643 English words associated with individualism and the French set comprised 526 French words associated with individualisme. I used these data to determine salient elements of the two cultural models. The second research question sought to determine distributional patterns of first person singular pronoun use in the parallel French and American corpora. To explore the pronominal patterns, I compiled eight bilingual discussions from 2008 to 2010 on the topic of individualism taken from the Cultura archive.5 I copied and pasted the discussions into a single text file using TextEdit. Concordance software such as AntConc,6 the program used for this study, often requires data to be ­converted into a text file format (e.g. .txt). In general, text files avoid problems with formatting and character recognition that often plague word processed document files. Next, I separated the text file into two small parallel corpora: the American English corpus totaling 6070 words and the French corpus totaling 3165 words.7 Concordance and collocational analyses were conducted to uncover hidden phraseological differences by relating the cultural concepts of individualism/individualisme to Berman’s (2005) dimension of generality: “how relatively general or specific reference is to people, places, and times mentioned in the text” (p. 107). Berman (2005) distinguishes between three levels of linguistic expression with respect to Reference: Personal and Specific (e.g. I/my parents think, my/this boy’s father made me/him apologize); Generic (e.g. People/we tend to think, Things depend on your/one’s attitude); and Impersonal (e.g. English ‘It’s well known’, French il faut

5.  Cultura may be accessed at 〈http://cultura.mit.edu/〉. 6.  AntConc can be downloaded for free and comes in Macintosh, PC or Linux versions. I used AntConc 3.2.3 (PC version) for all concordance and collocational analyses. 7.  The corpora used for this study are relatively small. Nevertheless, Baker (2006) contends that the size of a corpus should ultimately be determined by its use. He gives multiple ­examples of how small corpora can yield interesting results.



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions 

‘it’s necessary’, Spanish se sabe ‘it’s known’). While the notion of generality involves many different linguistic forms, the pronominal system was selected as a profitable place to begin the analysis of stance (Cramer 2010; Pennebaker 2011; Wortham 1996). Furthermore, the study was limited to Personal and Specific reference as realized by first person singular forms; e.g. English I/me/my; French Je/me/m’/ moi/mon/ma/mes. This decision was based on the belief that first person singular forms were functionally equivalent in both languages and lent themselves to direct comparison. The third research question focused on how the different L1 reference patterns uncovered in the aggregated data affected the interactional process. All eight discussions were converted to plain text files that preserved elements of formatting and sequence. A single forum discussion between American students from MIT and French students from Université de Brest was chosen for in-depth qualitative analysis. 3.2  Procedures for data analysis To construct the cultural models of individualism, AntConc’s word list program was used to rank the 643 English words (311 types) and 526 French words (242 types) in terms of frequency. Words that represented fewer than 5 tokens were eliminated, resulting in an English list of 285 tokens (44% of the total data) and a French word list of 220 tokens (46% of the total data). The remaining widely shared lexical items were arranged by parts of speech to establish relationships between the concepts following D’Andrade (2005). To facilitate the analysis of lexical relations, the French and American word lists were visualized using word cloud technology.8 An analysis of first person singular reference in the two languages was conducted using AntConc’s concordance function. All tokens of first person singular pronouns were analyzed; e.g. subject, object, and possessive pronouns. Because the American students produced roughly twice as much discourse as the French students, token counts were not comparable. Therefore, first person singular pronouns from the French and American corpora were divided by the number of words in their respective corpus to arrive at proportions for comparison. A test of proportions (z-test) was then employed to determine whether the different usage

8.  Some researchers object to the use of word clouds as reductionist. However, it is important to remember that the use of word clouds in this study was accompanied by other methods for constructing cultural models. All word clouds were generated using Wordle.com, an open web application.

 Carl Blyth

rates for first person singular pronouns between the French and Americans were statistically significant. Following the concordance analysis of first person singular tokens in French and English, a collocation analysis of first person subject pronouns (e.g. ‘I’, ‘Je’) was undertaken to identify patterns of phraseology. Phraseology is a very general term used to describe the tendency of words and groups of words to occur more frequently in some environments than in others (Hunston 2011). The goal of the collocational analysis was to establish the major phraseological categories for first person singular subject pronouns. For example, based on their semantic similarity, tokens such as ‘I think’ and ‘I suppose’ would form a category labeled ‘epistemic’. The goal of the interactional analysis was to determine whether the eight discussions shared a global organization. In addition, a single discussion was chosen for a close, qualitative analysis in terms of alignment and positioning as reformulated for online bilingual data. To explore alignment, I focused on whether the French and Americans used personal and impersonal constructions in the same way. To explore positioning, I analyzed whether a post was directed to the group or a specific individual and whether the post contained a presupposition that presented a problem for subsequent stancetaking. 3.3  Participants The participants included 258 students from two American universities (Brown University and MIT) and 172 students from four French universities (­Université de Brest, Université de Lille, ENSAM – Lille, and ENSEIRB-MATMEC – Bordeaux).9 The design of Cultura controls topic and task; all participants are given the same topics to discuss as well as similar guidelines for conducting the online discussions. Cultura’s first-language-only policy results in parallel sets of L1 data gathered under relatively controlled conditions, ideal data for cross-cultural comparison. Unfortunately, Cultura does not provide demographic information (e.g. age, sex, social class) about participants. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that the two groups are roughly comparable given the similar profiles of the French and American universities.

9.  The names of participants cited in this chapter appear exactly as they do in their online posts. IRB approval is generally not required when using online data retrieved from public chat rooms or forum discussion groups such as Cultura. However, rules concerning online discourse are evolving rapidly and researchers would be wise to consult the IRB of their home institution.



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions 

4.  Results The results are reported according to the three research questions and their different analyses: cultural analysis, grammatical analysis, and interactional analysis. 4.1  Cultural analysis The first research question focused on the construction of French and American cultural models based on lexical association data with the English word individualism and the French word individualisme. The American word list is shown in Table 1 and the French word list is shown in Table 2. Table 1.  American word list (number of tokens) Nouns

Adjectives

Pronouns

Adverbs

self (34)

unique (38)

me (5)

alone (5)

freedom (27)

different (11)

independence (21)

important (8)

expression (19)

free (7)

confidence (13)

independent (6)

identity (10)

good (5)

personality (9)

personal (5)

selfishness (8)

quirky (5)

creativity (7)

selfish (5)

liberty (6) rights (6) strength (6) capitalism (5) uniqueness (5)

Table 2.  French word list (number of tokens) Nouns

Adjectives

Pronouns

égoïsme (65)

seul (27)

moi, soi (7 each)

solitude (12)

personnel (13)

société (11)

égoïste (10)

liberté (10)

solitaire (8)

autonomie (9) égocentrisme (9) capitalisme (7) individu (6)

 Carl Blyth

The main finding is the rather obvious variation in evaluation or connotation between the English and the French words. The majority of the English adjectives associated with the American word ‘individualism’ have positive connotations: unique, important, free, independent, good, quirky. Similarly, the English nouns exhibit a positive valence: freedom, independence, confidence, creativity, etc. However, there were two English words that carried a negative connotation: selfish and selfishness. If we examine words with only 3–4 tokens, we discover a vein of negative connotation: arrogance, greed, lonely, loneliness, overrated, ridiculous, stubborn, solitude. Another result is that the American associations for individualism make no mention of any social group. The only possible exception is the word capitalism (5 tokens) that implies an economic collective. In striking contrast to the positive American view, the French view of individualisme is something akin to a social evil. In fact, the most frequent French association is the word égoïsme (‘selfishness’, 65 tokens out of 526 total words, 12% of data). If we combine égoïsme and words with the same root (e.g. égocentrique, égocentrisme, égoïste), we arrive at 88 tokens representing 17% of the total data. Clearly, selfishness is a very widely shared element in the French cultural model of individualisme. Another semantically related group of words – solitude, solitaire, seul (‘alone’) – emphasizes the social isolation that lies at the heart of the French concept. Finally, there is another important difference in the French associations – an emphasis on the relation of the self to the collective (e.g. société, capitalisme). The semantic variation found in the American and French lexical data was translated into two different cultural models following D’Andrade (2005), as shown in (4) and (5): (4) American Model of ‘Individualism’ ‘Individualism’ is the free expression of the self ’s uniqueness. Individualism is beneficial to the self. In excess, individualism may be problematic for the self. (5) French Model of ‘Individualisme’ ‘L’individualisme’ est l’acte égoïste de se concevoir sans référence au groupe. Le résultat de l’individualisme est un isolement malsain de la personne de son groupe. Se séparer de son groupe est nuisible pour la personne d’autant que pour le groupe. [‘Individualisme’ is the selfish act of thinking of oneself without reference to the group. The result of individualism is an unhealthy separation of the person from the group. Separating oneself from the group is harmful for the person as well as for the group.]



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions 

In terms of the cultural standing continuum, the American view of individualism would appear to fall somewhere around ‘commonly accepted opinion’. Americans share a positive view of the concept but also seem to be well aware that it can cause problems; e.g. loneliness and greed. The French view of individualism would seem to fall to the right of the American view. Much more narrowly focused than the American concept, the French concept is overwhelmingly negative and relies heavily on a single semantic element: égoïsme. The French cultural model predicts that the opinions about individualism expressed by the French will be highly taken for granted in French society and, as a consequence, expressed largely in impersonal terms. By contrast, the American model predicts that individualism should be viewed as a less unified construct. As a consequence, American opinions about individualism should tend to be expressed in more personal terms. In summary, the two terms appear to be false cognates that index very different cultural referents and therefore evoke very different cultural models. 4.2  Grammatical analysis The second research question examined the use of first person singular ­pronouns in the construction of French and American stances. Table 3 shows the ­number of English and French first person singular tokens according to the three ­relevant ­grammatical categories: subject pronouns, object pronouns, and ­possessive ­pronouns. The total number of first person pronouns was divided by the total ­number of words in the corpus to arrive at proportions for comparison (i.e. 152 tokens of first person singular reference/6070 English words = .025; 54 tokens of first ­person singular reference/3165 French words = .017). A test of proportions (z-test) indicated a statistically significant difference between the two usage rates of first person singular pronouns (z-score = 2.47; p-value = 0.01). When the comparison is restricted to the use of first person singular subject pronouns (133 tokens of ‘I’/6070 English words = .022; 33 tokens of ‘Je’/3165 French words = .011), the difference between the two groups is shown to be highly significant (z-value = 3.75; p-value = 0.0002).10 Table 3.  First person singular pronouns for English and French Subject pronouns

I (133 tokens)

Je (35 tokens)

Object pronouns

Me (9 tokens)

Me/m’/moi (12 tokens)

Possessive pronouns

My (10 tokens)

Mon/ma/mes (7 tokens)

Total: 152 tokens

Total: 54 tokens

10.  The two-proportion z-test assumes that words are independent of each other. Therefore, this test cannot account for possible repeated measures effects and clustering measures effects.

 Carl Blyth

A collocation analysis of the first person subject pronouns (‘I’, ‘Je’) was undertaken to identify patterns of phraseology in the two languages. The English first person singular subject pronoun fell into five categories based on its collocation with different verbal predicates; e.g. epistemic, agreement, affective, communicative, and miscellaneous. The categories of verbal collocations for English ‘I’ are displayed in Table 4. Table 4.  Categories of verbal collocations for English ‘I’ (133 tokens) Epistemic (84 tokens)

Agreement (13 tokens)

Affective (13 tokens)

Misc. (13 tokens)

Communicative (10 tokens)

think (37)

agree (13)

to+be surprised (7)

be (2)

say (4)

believe (8)

to+be curious (4)

make (2)

ask (2)

know (7)

to+be shocked (1)

like (1)

talk (1)

find (6)

feel (1)

choose (1)

define (1)

be+ADJ (5)

do (1)

mean (1)

understand (4)

have (1)

hear (1)

guess (3)

study (1)

expect (1)

learn (1)

suppose (1)

introduce (1)

suspect (1)

extend (1)

suppose (1)

caution (1)

subscribe (1) interpret (1) wonder (1) see (1) assume (1) hypothesize (1) get (1) perceive (1) notice (1) follow (1)

The same five categories were found to be relevant for the French first ­person subject pronoun, although in a different order of importance: epistemic, ­communicative, agreement, miscellaneous, and affective. Table 5 displays the ­verbal ­collocations for French ‘Je’. A comparison of first person pronouns in the two languages according to these five categories suggests a possible mismatch between the two cultures in terms of affectivity. There is only one example of ‘Je’ that collocates with an affective adjective (e.g. Je suis désolé de ne pouvoir répondre à ta question ‘I am sorry I can’t respond to



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions 

Table 5.  Categories of verbal collocations for French ‘Je’ (35 tokens) Epistemic (18 tokens)

Communicative (9 tokens)

Agreement (5 tokens)

Misc. (2 tokens)

Affective (1 token)

penser (7)

dire (2)

être d’accord (4)

s’intéresser à (1)

être désolé (1)

croire (2)

ajouter (1)

rejoindre (1)

associer (1)

comprendre (2)

expliquer (1)

avoir+une idée (2)

rappeler (1)

considérer (1)

confirmer (1)

s’attendre à (1)

noter (1)

savoir (1)

confondre (1)

voir (1)

parler (1)

supposer (1)

your question’) compared to 12 such collocations in the ­American data (e.g. “I am surprised”, “I am curious”, “I am shocked”). When affective tokens are converted to percentages (i.e. number of affective adjective collocations divided by the total number of collocations), a 3:1 ratio of affect display is revealed (i.e. .09 American vs. .03 French). In addition to these quantitative differences, there is also the qualitative difference between the feelings (e.g. American surprise and curiosity vs. French regret). In summary, the concordance analysis revealed statistically significant differences between usage rates of first person singular pronominal reference. Americans made many more references to themselves and to their personal feelings than did the French. 4.3  Interactional analysis The third research question sought to determine how the French and American students negotiated their divergent L1 stances in interaction. The qualitative analysis revealed that the American participants were in the majority in all eight discussions and, as a consequence, produced twice as much discourse. Furthermore, the American students initiated seven of the eight discussions. Finally, all eight discussions manifested the same overall structure; i.e. each discussion began with a summary of the lexical association task before turning to an explanation of the results. The quantitative differences regarding first person reference and personal affect uncovered by the concordance analysis mapped onto the overall structure of the interactions in ways that indicated problems for stancetaking. In general, the Americans began their posts by noting their personal surprise at the results of the lexical association task. The American participants oriented to this p ­ ersonal ­affective stance by overtly agreeing and by aligning their subsequent stances using similar linguistic elements. In contrast, the French participants did not conform to the American display of personal affect. In fact, the only time a French ­participant initiated the discussion, she did not mention her personal feelings as

 Carl Blyth

the ­Americans tended to do but rather employed an impersonal construction: “C’est i­mpressionnant comment on conçoit différemment l’individualisme.” ‘It is impressive how differently we conceive of individualism’. To illustrate how the first person epistemic and affective stance markers are dispersed in the interaction, it is helpful to examine a single discussion in its entirety as shown in the Appendix that contains 10 online posts. To facilitate the analysis, all first person singular subject and object pronouns have been highlighted in the transcript. The first post is from Macdaleine, an American, who begins the discussion by noting her surprise (“I was actually surprised by some of the responses”). Her post continues with two first person epistemic stance markers (“I think that…, It makes me wonder…”). She ends by posing a g­ eneral question to the group about why the French participants responded with such negative associations. In the second post, the American Manuel aligns with ­Macdaleine’s affective display by noting that he was expecting such results (“I partially expected something like this..”). Manuel’s post exemplifies the ­difference between alignment and agreement. While Manuel does not agree per se with ­Macdaleine (i.e. he does not experience the same feelings as Macdaleine), he nonetheless shares his own personal experience. The third post is authored by Jared, an American who linguistically aligns with the previous American posts by mentioning his surprise at the results (“I was also surprised…” “Another reason I was so surprised…”). Jared uses three personal epistemic stance markers (“I think the differences…” “I had never thought that…” “I think it’s possible…”). The fourth post, written by an American named David, does not follow the stance patterns of the three previous posts because it exhibits neither epistemic nor personal affective markers. The fifth post, written by an American named Eric, realigns with the earlier American stances by beginning with a personal affective stance marker (“I too was surprised…”). Similar to the first post by Macdaleine, Eric ends by asking whether there are any positive connotations in French for the word individualisme. In general, the Americans orient to the affect displayed in previous posts and make efforts to respond in kind, thereby demonstrating a high degree of intersubjectivity. The sixth post, written by Maxime, is the first one from a French participant. This post is remarkably different in terms of structure and tone compared to the previous five American posts. Maxime begins with an impersonal expression that asserts the truth of the two cultural models (“Il est vrai que la vision du mot individualisme en France est diamètralement opposée à la vision du mot pour les Américains”. ‘It is true that the vision of the word individualisme in France is diametrically opposed to the vision of the word for the A ­ mericans’). Maxime’s assertion refers neither to his feelings nor to the results per se. Not only does Maxime ignore the American comments about personal feelings, but he also adopts a syntactic complexity and rhetorical style at odds with the Americans. Maxime



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions 

employs structural parallelism (“En France…,” “Aux ­Etats-Unis…;” “Chez nous…,” “Chez vous…”) to highlight the French and American o ­ pposition. Furthermore, Maxime ends his post with a query that presupposes a negative stereotype of American capitalism (“…le Capitalisme pur et dur” ‘…hard-nosed capitalism’). The seventh post by the American Khalea responds to the problematic positioning of Maxime’s previous post. Khalea begins her response by directly ­addressing Maxine (“Hi Maxime”). Then, Khalea evaluates the question positively (“You raise an interesting question”) and agrees with the presupposition that such a negative stereotype exists. However, Khalea disputes the generalizability of the stereotype by citing personal, lived experience (“I have noticed…” “I have found that in the coastal United States…”). Khalea ends with a direct question that reestablishes the American perspective by combining affective and epistemic markers (“I would be curious to know…”). In the eighth post, the French student Maxime responds to Khalea by directly addressing her (“Bonjour Khalea” ‘Hello Khalea’). Next, he proffers a standard French formula for making someone’s acquaintance (“Enchanté de te r­encontrer” ‘Happy to meet you’). Due to its formulaic nature, this affective expression omits the first person pronoun. Recall that the concordance analysis revealed only one token of ‘Je’ that collocated with an affective adjective. This demonstrates that ­quantitative analysis alone may overlook relevant phenomena and is best a­ ccompanied by some form of qualitative analysis. Maxime prefaces his response to K ­ halea with a formula of thanks (“Merci de ta réponse” ‘Thanks for your response’). His response includes two impersonal expressions (“il est intéressant de voir…” ‘It is interesting to see…’ and “il est vrai que certaines regions…” ‘It is true that certain regions…’). However, he ends his post with two first person singular references (“je n’ai pas la moindre…” “I don’t have the least…’ and “Je suis désolé…” ‘I am sorry’). As noted, this is the only example in the French corpus of a ­collocation of an overt first p ­ erson singular subject pronoun with an affective adjective. The ninth post comes from Hillary who enters the conversation in typical American fashion with a first person singular reference (“The responses made me realize…”). Hillary also resembles her American peers by directing her comments to a specific French participant (Maxime) and by ending her post with a question directed at the French. The tenth and final post of the forum is written by the French participant Maxime. Maxime begins with an apology because his reply comes six days following the previous post that had mentioned him by name and had also included a query (“désolé du retard” ‘sorry for the delay’). His post is replete with rhetorical strategies meant to generalize his opinions: “un vieil adage” ‘an old saying’, “D’une règle générale” ‘As a general rule’, “Dans la vie de tous les jours” ‘In everyday life’. He also uses several forms of general reference: “on”, “les Français”, “les gens”, “les habitants du quartier” (‘one’, ‘the French’, ‘people’, ­‘neighbors’). Maxime ends by asking the Americans whether the French cultural phenomena that he discusses in his post exist in the United States.

 Carl Blyth

5.  Discussion The discussion of the findings follows the three research questions that are repeated at the beginning of each section. The last section is devoted to a ­discussion of methodological issues. As noted, L1 pragmatic variation can be found at v­ arious levels of the linguistic system: lexical semantics, grammatical patterns, and d ­ iscourse structures. While most approaches to stance variation typically focus on one level, this study argues for separate but integrated analyses of all three. 5.1  Cultural analysis Research Question 1: What are the French and American cultural models for individualism and how do they relate to culture-specific L1 stances? The results of the lexical association data clearly confirm two very different ­ merican cultural models for the cognates individualism/individualisme. The A concept is generally positive while the French concept is overwhelmingly ­ ­negative. This fact alone predicts difficulties for cross-cultural stancetaking. The findings for the cultural models analysis raise an interesting question of where to locate e­ valuation in the linguistic system. Recall that according to systemic ­functional linguistics (Martin 2000; Martin & White 2005), appraisal is conceptualized as belonging primarily to the interpersonal function of l­anguage. ­However, the c­ultural ­models analysis clearly demonstrates that values and attitudes are ­embedded in the ideational function as well. In other words, the abstract construal of a cultural object already contains evaluative attitudes that are then deployed in interaction. ­Furthermore, it seems likely that the French model of individualism that devalues personal autonomy would lead the French to avoid framing their opinions in overtly personal terms. Conversely, the American model of individualism that values the free expression of the self would lead Americans to frame their opinions in more overtly personal terms. Future studies will need to examine more closely the effect of different topics on L1 stancetaking. The general findings partially confirm the French and Anglo stance scripts as described by Peeters (2000). The findings corroborate Peeter’s claim that French assertions are typically framed in terms of truth and certainty (Il est vrai que ‘It is true that’) while American assertions tend to contain epistemic mitigation (‘I think that’). However, the results of the concordance findings seem to contradict parts of the cultural scripts as formulated by Peeters (2000). For example, according to Peeters (2000: 198), French speakers frame opinions “like a thing that is true” because “[they] want people to know what [they] feel”. However, the results seem



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions 

to indicate that the French preference for an impersonal frame emphasizes truth at the expense of personal affect. 5.2  Grammatical analysis Research Question 2: How do the French and Americans use first person ­singular reference to construct their L1 stances? Is there evidence for French and ­American ‘grammars of stance’; that is, preferred lexicogrammatical resources for c­ onstructing stances? This study tentatively suggests that French and American college students may actually have different ‘grammars of evaluation’ (Bednarek 2008a; Hunston 2011), at least when discussing the cultural concept of individualism. It appears that American college students evaluate topics more readily in terms of affect than do their French counterparts. Conversely, the French students appear to evaluate topics more readily in terms of impersonal judgment than American students. Recent studies in Appraisal Theory have identified the attitudinal categories of affect and judgment as particularly relevant to distinguishing textual genres (Martin & White 2005). It seems likely that the same categories should distinguish culturally preferred patterns of communication, as argued by Belz (2003). These cultural predispositions are likely to be manifested in canonical grammatical constructions. In the Cultura data, American speakers expressed personal affect by using the construction I am (very) ADJ that/by/to (“I was surprised by some of the responses…”). European French speakers showed a preference for expressing social judgments with the impersonal construction Il est (très) ADJ que (“Il est vrai que certaines régions sont plus ou moins libérales que d’autres”. ‘It is true that certain regions are more or less progressive than others’). Belz (2003) claims that such culturally determined communicative behavior is highly resistant to change. Citing Byrnes’s (1986) study of German and ­American interactional styles, Belz advocates that teachers help learners to become aware of culture-specific discursive patterns without trying to change them. Further evidence for deeply ingrained linguistic reflexes of L1 stancetaking comes from a brief exchange between two students who violated Cultura’s first-language-only requirement. Darin, an American student, begins a forum discussion in typical American fashion with a post that expresses his personal affect (“Je suis un peu choquée [sic] par les réponses françaises au mot individualisme”. ‘I’m a little shocked by the French responses to the word individualisme’). A few posts later, François, a French student, answers Darin. In keeping with French norms, François ignores Darin’s expression of personal affectivity and responds instead with generic and impersonal expressions in his L2 English (“For French people success is deeply linked to work in groups. It is thought to

 Carl Blyth

be harder to achieve a great purpose if our aim is only a personnal [sic] success. It is said to be selfish not to include the other in one [sic] success…one must share one’s success”). 5.3  Interactional analysis Research Question 3: How do the French and Americans negotiate their L1 stances with each other in their forum postings? The findings of the interactional analysis demonstrate differences in positioning and alignment. One post by the French student Maxime positions his American interlocutors to deal with a problematic presupposition, a rhetorical move that Haddington (2007) identified as typical of news interviewers. In contrast, the American posts contain only open-ended questions that are free of such negatively-charged presuppositions. Furthermore, the Americans take stances by employing more first person affective and epistemic markers and position their French interlocutors to respond in a more personal way by asking them direct questions, often addressed by name to the specific participant. The French do not respond to the American affective stances by mentioning their own feelings. Rather, they avoid first person reference and engage the Americans by adopting a generic and impersonal frame. Despite these differences, however, the bilingual discussions in Cultura never devolve into conflict along the lines described by Belz (2003) and Ware and Kramsch (2005). For the most part, the Cultura participants manage to ­maintain their online discussions for the entire semester in a relatively cordial manner. Of course, there are important differences between Cultura’s online forum and the email exchanges described by Belz (2003) and Ware and Kramsch (2005). Research on computer-mediated communication in instructed environments has revealed that many factors affect the outcome of interactions; e.g. modality, topic, participants, synchronicity, cultures-of-use (Chun 2008; O’Dowd & Ritter 2006; Thorne 2003). The lack of overt conflict, however, does not mean that L1 stance differences were not noticed or did not have any effect on the interaction. For example, my American students frequently expressed irritation at their French partners whom they felt preferred to ‘debate’ rather than ‘discuss’. Such comments indicate awareness that the French stances somehow violated American cultural norms governing register and genre distinctions. Scholars interested in the ephemeral indexical interpretations of stancetaking in discourse should look to recent efforts by ­sociolinguists who are exploring combinations of variationist and ethnographic methods (Eckert 2000, 2008; Eckert & Rickford 2001; Kiesling 2009; Silverstein 2003). To elicit indexical interpretations, future studies should include



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions 

interviews with participants who, with the aid of transcripts, recall thoughts and ­feelings triggered by specific interactional moves. Future studies should also focus on the ­process of stance accretion (Bucholtz & Hall 2005; Du Bois 2002), the ­accumulation of multiple stances taken over the course of an interaction that help establish a social identity. 5.4  Methodological issues Despite their heuristic utility, cultural scripts present several methodological challenges. The main problem appears to be that they may not be granular enough to capture important pragmatic distinctions. Furthermore, there is no specified syntax for writing cultural scripts, although Goddard (2011) notes that natural semantic metalanguage syntax and cultural scripts theory are still very much under development: “No one as yet knows how many scripts would be needed for a relatively comprehensive description of the ‘verbal culture’ of any society (just as no one has yet produced a complete ethnography of communication in conventional terms, or, for that matter, a complete grammar).” Another issue is the intertextuality that operates between cultural scripts. For example, the cultural scripts as formulated by Peeters (2000) seem to conflate epistemic and affective stance. The findings suggest that these two stances would be best captured in separate but interacting scripts. Strauss’s cultural standing model also presents methodological difficulties. It is not always possible for the analyst to determine which opinion community a speaker is addressing in a public forum such as Cultura. Strauss (2004) claims that an “interesting topic for future research is what happens when two or more opinion communities are salient for the speaker” (p. 187). This is precisely the case of the forum discussions in Cultura where the French and American opinion communities are both potentially relevant. Another issue is the universality of the continuum. Strauss (2004) acknowledges that it may need to be adjusted depending on a community’s tolerance for conflict: … in speech communities that avoid conflict, a view may not need to be very controversial to be marked as controversial, while among speech communities that have a high tolerance for conflict and debate (e.g. Israel: Blum-Kulka 1982, cited in Wierzbicka 2002: 242), the scale could be skewed the other way, with views that are controversial being treated as if they were simply debatable, and debatable views as the common opinion. (Strauss 2004: 188)

Another challenge of the cultural standing model is that it comprises a constellation of many different linguistic features. Therefore, future studies of cultural standing will need to be based on an analysis of many linguistic features and not on a single feature; e.g. personal/impersonal reference.

 Carl Blyth

Finally, it is important to note that this study is based on a relatively small corpus. While Baker (2006) maintains that large-scale corpora such as the ­British National Corpus are not always necessary for conducting discourse analysis, he does advocate that studies based on small corpora be checked against a larger, reference corpus to strengthen generalizability. The findings of the present study are still in need of confirmation by comparison with French and American ­reference corpora. Future studies should strive to establish whether French and English first person pronouns occur with comparable frequency in comparable formal and informal genres along the lines advocated by Berman (2005). 6.  Conclusion Stancetaking in discourse has been studied from many different research perspectives. Not surprisingly, these various strands of research have ­ ­emphasized different pragmatic phenomena. It seems that a mixed methods approach is most appropriate for understanding L1 pragmatic phenomena that interact in c­ omplex ways. To that end, this study has sought to blend three different types of ­analysis  – cultural models analysis, concordance analysis, and interactional a­ nalysis – to capture three related stance concepts: cultural standing (the ­expectations for ­interaction based on topic and culture-specific stance scripts), stance (the ­relatively stable grammatical patterns for constructing an opinion), and s­ tancetaking (the rhetorical moves made by interlocutors during interaction). Given the newness of the field, Englebretson (2007b) contends that stance researchers should guard against academic imperialism. While I agree that the adoption of a single theoretical paradigm would be premature, the current lack of a general framework makes it difficult to integrate disparate research findings. Future studies should endeavor to integrate findings into an explicit theory of language, whatever that may be. Of all the possible theories of language, it would seem that systemic functional linguistics holds the greatest potential for analyzing L1 pragmatic variation in cross-cultural stancetaking because it conceptualizes a language as a complex yet integrated system of meaning-making potential and assumes that different human groups will mean in different ways (Halliday 2007: 364). Moreover, this perspective construes language as a system of paradigmatic choices that facilitates the exploration of ‘meaning styles’ or ‘fashions of meaning’ (Halliday 2007: 364). Finally, as the most fully developed functional theory of language, systemic functional linguistics helps shed light on the ‘higher’ strata of language use such as registers and genres where “language construes the culture” (Halliday 2007: 365).



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions 

References Bakhtin, M. 1981. Discourse in the novel. In The Dialogic Imagination, M. Holquist (ed.), 259– 422. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Baker, P. 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum. Bednarek, M. 2008a. Emotion Talk across Corpora. London: Palgrave. Bednarek, M. 2008b. An increasingly familiar tragedy: Evaluative collocation and conflation. Functions of Language 15(1): 7–34. Bednarek, M. 2008c. Semantic preference and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus ­Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4(2): 119–139. Bednarek, M. 2009a. Dimensions of evaluation: Cognitive and linguistic perspectives. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(1): 146–175. Bednarek, M. 2009b. Language patterns and attitude. Functions of Language 16(2): 165–192. Belz, J. 2003. Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology 7(2): 68–99. Belz, J. & Thorne, S. (eds). 2005. Internet-mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education. Boston MA: Heinle. Berman, R.A. 2005. Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 105–124. Biber, D. & Finegan, E. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9: 93–124. Blum-Kulka, S. 1982. Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics 3: 29–59. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, R. Nice, transl. Cambridge: CUP. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. Bucholtz, M. 2009. From stance to style: Gender, interaction, and indexicality in Mexican immigrant youth slang. In Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, A. Jaffe (ed.), 146–170. Oxford: OUP. Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. ­Discourse Studies 7: 585–614. Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byrnes, H. 1986. Interactional style in German and American conversations. Text 2: 189–206. Channell, J. 2000. Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds), 38–55. Oxford: OUP. Chun, D. 2008. Computer-mediated discourse in instructed environments. In Mediating Discourse Online, S. Magnan (ed.), 15–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Conrad, S. & Biber, D. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds), 56–73. Oxford: OUP. Cramer, J. 2010. ‘Do we really want to be like them?’: Indexing Europeanness through pronominal use. Discourse Processes 21(6): 619–637. Danet, B. & Herring, S. (eds). 2007. The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture and Communication Online. Oxford: OUP. D’Andrade, R. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP.

 Carl Blyth D’Andrade, R. 2005. Some methods for studying cultural cognitive structures. In Finding ­Culture in Talk, N. Quinn (ed.), 83–104. New York NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Du Bois, J. 2002. Stance and consequence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ­American Anthropological Association, 21 November, New Orleans LA. Du Bois, J. 2007. The stance triangle. In Englebretson (ed.), 139–182. Eckert, P. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell. Eckert, P. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4): 453–476. Eckert, P. & Rickford, J. (eds). 2001. Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: CUP. Englebretson, R. (ed.). 2007a. Stancetaking in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond 164]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Englebretson, R. 2007b. Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In Englebretson (ed.), 1–26. Englebretson, R. 2007c. Grammatical resources for social purposes: Some aspects of s­ tancetaking in colloquial Indonesian conversation. In Englebretson (ed.), 69–110. Furstenberg, G. 2003. Reading between the cultural lines. In Reading Between the Lines: ­Perspectives on Foreign Language Literacy, P. Patrikis (ed.), 74–98. New Haven CT: Yale University Press. Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K. & Maillet, K. 2001. Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura Project. Language Learning & Technology 5(1): 55–102. Goddard, C. 2009. Cultural scripts. In Culture and Language Use [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 2], G. Senft, J.-O. Ostman & J. Verschueren (eds), 68–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goddard, C. 2011. NSM semantics in brief. NSM Homepage. 〈http://www.une.edu.au/bcss/­ linguistics/nsm/cultural-scripts.php〉 (20 December 2011). Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A. 2004. Cultural scripts: What are they and what are they good for? Intercultural Pragmatics 1(2): 153–166. Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A. 2007. Semantic primes and cultural scripts in language learning and intercultural communication. In Palmer & Sharifian (eds), 105–124. Haddington, P. 2007. Positioning and alignment as activities in stancetaking in news interviews. In Englebretson (ed.), 283–318. Halliday, M.A.K. 2007. On the concept of educational linguistics. In Language and Education, J.J. Webster (ed.), 354–367. London: Continuum. (First published in Journal of Applied Linguistics 6 (1990): 7–36). Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C. 1999. Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Languagebased Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum. Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. ­London: Edward Arnold. Herring, S. 1999. Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4(4): 1–13. Hunston, S. 2007. Using a corpus to investigate stance quantitatively and qualitatively. In Englebretson (ed.): 27–48. Hunston, S. 2011. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. New York NY: Routledge. Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (eds). 2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: OUP. Jaffe, A. 2009. The sociolinguistics of stance. In Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, A. Jaffe (ed.), 3–28. Oxford: OUP.



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions 

Jisa, H. & Viguié, A. 2005. Developmental perspectives on the role of French on in written and spoken expository texts. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 125–142. Johnstone, B. 2007. Linking identity and dialect through stancetaking. In Englebretson (ed.), 49–68. Johnstone, B. 2009. Stance, style, and the linguistic individual. In Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, A. Jaffe (ed.), 29–52. Oxford: OUP. Karkkainen, E. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Englebretson (ed.), 183–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Keisanen, T. 2007. Stancetaking as an interactional activity: Challenging the prior speaker. In Englebretson (ed.), 253–282. Kiesling, S. 2009. Style as stance: Stance as the explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation. In Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, A. Jaffe (ed.), 171–194. Oxford: OUP. Martin, J.R. 2000. Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds), 142–175. Oxford: OUP. Martin, J.R. & Rose, D. 2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London: Continuum. Martin, J.R. & White, P.R. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave. Martin, J.R. & Rose, D. 2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Cultures. London: Equinox. Matthiessen, C. 2009. Meaning in the making: Meaning potential emerging from acts of meaning. Language Learning 59(1): 206–229. O’Dowd, R. & Ritter, M. 2006. Understanding and working with “failed communication” in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal 23(3): 623–642. Palmer, G.B. 1996. Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Paveau, A.-M. 2006. Les prédiscours: Sens, mémoire, cognition. Paris: Presse de la Sorbonne-Nouvelle. Peeters, B. 2000. “S’engager” vs. “To show restraint”: Linguistic and cultural relativity in discourse management. In Evidence for Linguistic Relativity [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 168], S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (eds.), 193–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pennebaker, J. 2011. The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say About Us. New York NY: Bloomsbury Press. Precht, K. 2003. Stance moods in spoken English: Evidentiality and affect in British and American conversation. Text 23(2): 239–257. Precht, K. 2008. Sex similarities and differences in stance in informal American conversation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(1): 89–111. Quinn, N. 2005a. Introduction. In Finding Culture in Talk, N. Quinn (ed.), 1–34. New York NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Quinn, N. 2005b. How to reconstruct schemas people share, from what they say. In Finding Culture in Talk, N. Quinn (ed.), 35–82. New York NY: Palgrave Macmillan . Reilly, J., Zamora, A. & McGivern, R.F. 2005. Acquiring perspective in English: the development of stance. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 185–208. Scheibman, J. 2007. Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversations. In Englebretson (ed.), 111–138. Sharifian, F. 2011. Cultural Conceptualizations and Language [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts 1]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 Carl Blyth Sharifian, F. & Palmer, G. (eds.). 2007. Applied Cultural Linguistics: Implications for Language Teaching and Intercultural Communication [Converging Evidence in Language and ­Communication Research 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Silverstein, M. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & ­Communication 23: 193–229. Strauss, C. 2004. Cultural standing in expression of opinion. Language in Society 33: 161–194. Strauss, C. & Quinn, N. 1997. A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge: CUP. Thorne, S. 2003. Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology 7(2): 38–67. Ware, P. & Kramsch, C. 2005. Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal 89(2): 190–205. Wierzbicka, A. 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Social Interaction. Berlin: ­Mouton de Gruyter. Wierzbicka, A. 1992. Semantics, Culture and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culturespecific Configurations. Oxford: OUP. Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: OUP. Wierzbicka, A. 1997. Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, Japanese. Oxford: OUP. Wierzbicka, A. 2002. Right and wrong: From philosophy to everyday discourse. Discourse ­Studies 4: 225–252. Wortham, S. 1996. Mapping participant deictics: A technique for discovering speakers’ footing. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 331–348.

Appendix: Fall 2009 MIT/Brest Forum11 1.  I was actually surprised by some of the responses. I think that individualism is something that most people strive for and is celebrated in the states but quite a few french students described it as “selfishness” and “alone”. Its an interesting perspective. It makes me wonder, if not individualism than what? What is the social atmosphere of France like or were these the first words that came to mind, and if that’s the case, why so negative?  Macdaleine S Sep 28, 2009 – 20:00 2. The French seem to have a completely opposng view towards this concept as opposed to the Americans. the americans have an extremely positive view towards what individualism is, while the French seem very negative towards it. They seem to consider the concept as egoist and oo personal. I partially expected something like this to come up, and was actually the reason why I chose this as one of my words, because I know that socialism is a strong political party in France, something which would never be considered in the US. The Americans strive much more towards what is ultimately the American Dream, which is being the best

11.  Numbers have been added to the posts to facilitate exemplification and discussion. Otherwise, the posts are reprinted exactly as they appear in the online forum, including all typographical and grammatical errors. The author of each post identifies himself or herself at the end of the post. Each post is stamped upon receipt for date and time.





Cross-cultural stances in online discussions  you can be individually, and the differences in opinion between the two cultures regarding the concept can be traced back towards the differences in cultures and ideals. Manuel L Sep 28, 2009 – 20:44

3.  I was also surprised by the responses of the French students to this topic. I think the ­differences between the French economy, where socialism is more prevalent, and the ­American economy, where capitalism is the norm, might have something to do with this attitude. Another reason why I was so surprised had to do with the fact that individualism is such an integral part of the American identity that I had never thought that anyone could be so much against it. I think it’s possible that the French students think more about selfcentered people when they think of individualism while the American students think more about reaching their own personal goals and improving themselves.  Jared M Sep 28, 2009 – 21: 00 4. The generally negative view of “individualism” by the French seems to match well with their very uniform responses, compared to Americans who view it favourably and have much more diverse associations. It also suggests that to the French, “individualism” has a very narrow, confined meaning (which may be negative), whereas to Americans it is more open to interpretation.  David M Sep 28, 2009 – 21:02 5.  I too was surprised by how blunt and uniform the french reaction to ‘individualism’ was. Over half of the responses were some form of égoïste or seul. It is clearly a loaded term in French. Are there any other synonyms that don’t carry such a negative connotation?  Eric N Sep 29, 2009 – 04:51 6.  Il est vrai que la vision du mot individualisme en France est diamètralement opposée à la vision du mot pour les Américains. En France, l’individualisme est donc synonyme de solitude, d’egocentrisme voire même d’égoïsme. Aux Etats-Unis, les Américains voient l’individualisme davantage comme l’indépendance, la liberté, preuve de la force mentale et de l’identité propre. “Chez nous”, on peut dire qu’en règle général, les étudiants (les jeunes en général) sont plutôt situés a gauche (socialisme) avec des valeurs comme l’égalité, la Fraternité, le social. “Chez vous”, je ne sais pas si vous pouvez me le confirmer mais un des stéréotypes qui caractérise la Maxime R Sep 30, 2009 – 14:28 société américaine est le Capitalisme pur et dur.  [ ‘It is true that the vision of the word individualism in France is diametrically opposed to the vision of the word for Americans. In France, individualism is synonymous with isolation, egocentrism and even selfishness. In the United States, Americans see individualism more like independence, freedom, proof of one’s mental strength and own identity. In France, as a general rule, we can say that students (young people in general) are more or less on the left (socialism) with values of equality, brotherhood and solidarity. In the US, I don’t know if you can confirm it for me but one of the stereotypes that characterize American society is hard-nosed capitalism. In France, we can say as a general rule, students (young people in general) are more or less on the left (socialism) with values such as equality, brotherhood, and solidarity. In the US, I don’t know if you can confirm it for me but one of the stereotypes that characterizes American society is hard-nosed capitalism.’]

 Carl Blyth 7. Hi Maxime, You pose an interesting question – while I would agree that capitalism has played an ­undeniable role in shaping much of American life (our long work days and short ­vacations in particular), the views of Americans on politics, government and society, as you can ­imagine, tend to vary very broadly. I have noticed, however, that they can be roughly categorized by geographical region. For instance – I have found that in the coastal United States (in cities like New York, ­California and Boston) most people subscribe to the same sorts of principles that you described as being typical of the French. Liberalism is popular among them, I believe, largely because coastal regions tend to have larger immigrant populations than the rest of the country – a fact which tends to make residents of these areas more tolerant to differences in culture, ethnicity and class (and thus more sympathetic to leftist causes) than the more culturallyhomogenous land-locked regions of the country. I would be curious to know whether such correlation between geography and ideology exists in France. Are your metropolitan areas generally more liberal than your rural regions, like ours are? Best, ~ Khalea Khalea R Sep 30, 2009 – 22:50 8.  Bonjour Khalea enchanté de te rencontrer D’abord : Merci de ta réponse, il est intéressant de voir que les régions où les immigrants sont plus nombreux soient plus tolérantes de par le fait. Cette réponse casse l’idée que l’on se fait qui consiste a faire passer les Américains pour des capitalistes inhumains. Pour répondre à ta question, il est vrai que certaines régions sont plus ou moins libérales que d’autres. Par exemple, lors d’éléction en France, des cartes qui mettent en évidence la ­différence de majorité de droite ou de gauche sont faites. (Comme vous pouvez le voir avec ce site : http://elections.rfo.fr/IMG/jpg/Infographie_gauche2008.jpg) Pour être honnète avec toi, Khalea, je n’ai pas la moindre idée de ce qui peut expliquer cette différence d’idéologie. Peut être les régions urbaines sont-elles plus capitalistes que nos régions urbaines ? Je suis désolé de ne pouvoir répondre à ta question. Mes camarades t’éclaireront peut être davantage. Maxime R Oct 01, 2009 – 11: 06 Max.  [‘Hi Khalea, glad to meet you First of all: thanks for your response, it is interesting to see that the regions where immigrants are the most numerous are the most tolerant because of this fact. This response explodes the idea that one holds which consists of passing off Americans for inhumane capitalists. To respond to your question, it is true that certain regions are more or less progressive than others. For example, during the election in France, some maps showed the difference between the right and left majorities that are made. (As you can see with this site: http://elections.rfo.fr/IMG/jpg/Infographie_gauche2008.jpg) To be honest with you, Khalea, I don’t have the least idea about what can explain this ideological difference. Maybe urban regions are more capitalist than our urban regions. I am sorry not to be able to answer your question. My classmates will perhaps clarify things more for you.’] 9. The responses made me realize that individualism must have different connotations in each coucntry, but I’m not sure why that is. Maxime – as you pointed out, individuality means selfishness and being egocentric, and the french seem to value fraternity and the group



Cross-cultural stances in online discussions  identity more than the individual identity. Why is that, though, and how does this transfer over to other parts of life besides government? Hillary J Oct 01, 2009 – 23:47

10.  Bonjour Hillary, désolé du retard: Il y a un vieil adage qui dit : “L’union fait la Force”. D’une règle générale, les Français attachent de l’importance au social. Par exemple, dans une entreprise, a bonne ambiance et la complicité entre les ouvriers priment sur la compétition des uns sur les autres. Dans la vie de tous les jours, on peut souvent croiser des occasions où les gens sont invités a se rejoindre. Ainsi, de temps en temps, des banquets, des jeux collectifs sont organisés pour la ville afin que les habitants puissent se rencontrer. Une fois l’an, un jour appelé “Jour des voisins” met en place un repas en plein-air pour tous les habitants du quartier. Ces petits éléments sont simples mais ils permettent de créer du lien social. Aux Etats-Unis, il est rare de trouver ce genre de réunion ?  Maxime R Oct 07, 2009 – 05:25 [‘Hi Hillary, sorry for the delay: There is an old adage that says: Might comes from working together. As a general rule, the French attach importance to togetherness. For example, in a business, a good atmosphere and feeling between the workers is more important than competition between workers. In everyday life, you can often come across occasions when people are invited to get together. Therefore, from time to time, dinners, group activities are organized by the town so that people can meet up. Once a year, a day called “Neighbor day” calls for a dinner outdoors for everyone in the neighborhood. These small elements are trivial but they allow social bonds to be made. In the US, is it rare to find this kind of get together?’]

chapter 3

Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse An examination of mitigating devices employed by Dominican female clients and a Cuban American therapist Nydia Flores-Ferrán Rutgers University, USA

Labov and Fanshel’s (1977) seminal study on therapeutic discourse posits that the therapeutic interview contains general rules and patterns of face-to-face interaction that lend themselves to the examination of mitigation. This study investigates mitigation phenomena (e.g. bushes, shields) and indirectness in Spanish in an institutional setting to determine whether these are pragmatically motivated. The corpus was generated during motivational interviews in which Dominican clients and a Cuban therapist discussed depression and medication. Studies have attested to pragmatic variation with regard to ways in which mitigation and indirectness are expressed (e.g. Delbene 2004; Félix-Brasdefer 2010; Hernández-Flores 1999; Placencia 1996). Given these studies, this chapter reveals how indirectness is bolstered and corroborates the influence of several micro-social factors that mediate variation.

1.  Introduction Linguistic variation has been at the core of sociolinguistics for over forty years. Empirical work has investigated how social factors may condition the use of a ­linguistic variable. Following Labov’s (1966, 1972) seminal work, sociolinguists have investigated the choices that speakers make when they encounter two or more competing linguistic forms that represent ways of saying the same thing. While the effects of social variables (e.g. education, social class) have been of primary concern in sociolinguistics, researchers have also attended to regional variation. However, Barron and Schneider (2009: 426) maintain that pragmatic variation “between and across L1 varieties of the same language” has been u ­ nder-investigated. With

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

respect to Spanish, a new and growing body of research attends to intra-lingual and inter-lingual pragmatic variation (e.g. ­Félix-Brasdefer 2008a, 2008b, 2011; Márquez Reiter 2002; Márquez Reiter & ­Placencia 2005). Results from these and other studies have attested to pragmatic variation with regard to how indirectness is manifested by speakers in speech acts (e.g. refusals, requests). Nonetheless, a preference to use indirectness has not been systematically found across Spanish dialects (e.g. Márquez Reiter 2002; Márquez Reiter, Rainey & Fulcher 2005). For instance, while speakers may prefer conventional indirectness such as a hint, ­others have been found to favor a more direct response (e.g. García 2007, 2008). Félix-Brasdefer’s (2005) study of Mexican Spanish speakers, for example, found a general preference for conventionally indirect requests, followed by direct requests and, to a lesser degree, non-conventionally indirect requests such as hints. To date, however, only a few studies have attended to mitigation and indirectness in Spanish in institutional discourse (e.g. Cordella 2007; Delbene 2004; ­Flores-Ferrán 2009, 2010). Mitigation devices are often employed to express indirectness. For instance, Briz (2004) suggests that mitigation serves as a negotiating tool since it minimizes what has been said by reducing the illocutionary force and masking the real intention of the speaker in order to maintain equilibrium. Labov and ­Fanshel (1977: 346) maintain that mitigating strategies are also employed to mediate c­ onflict. Other scholars convey that mitigation is related to politeness. In their discussion of politeness theory, Brown and Levinson (1987) describe m ­ itigation as a set of strategies used to attenuate the impact of a face-threatening act. However, Fraser (1980) has noted that mitigation is not the same as politeness since an utterance may be determined to be polite without mitigating (e.g. thank you). ­Márquez-Reiter et al. (2005: 4), following Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989), suggest that directness is related to speaker-hearer expectations. That is, a speaker may employ directness if the hearer is more likely to comply with a request. Conversely, speakers will be indirect when they are uncertain of the hearer’s compliance. Mitigating devices have been explored in Spanish in various contexts (e.g. Blum-Kulka et al. 1989; Bravo 1999; Bravo & Briz 2004; Koike 1994; Murillo Medrano 2002). In the present chapter, pragmatic variation is investigated ­regarding the use of mitigating strategies in the context of Spanish therapeutic discourse. In particular, the study examines mitigation in the discourse of four Dominican female clients and a male Cuban-American therapist produced during Motivational Interviews (MI) in which adherence to treatment (i.e. use of medication) and depression are discussed. MI discourse follows a non-confrontational model, which suggests that decisions to move toward change are more powerful if they come from within the client (Van Wormer 2007). Or, said differently, MI practice is a client-centered therapeutic style; an approach that enhances readiness for change (Miller & R ­ ollnick 2002: 25). Thus, it is conceivable that mitigating



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

devices are frequently used in this context since the therapist is not directly asking the c­ lient to change and, if the ­clients resist change, indirectness will be expressed in the latter’s discourse. Within the medical field, client language and discourse produced during therapeutic sessions have been the focus of research by many scholars (e.g. Amrhein, Miller, Yahne, Palmer & Fulcher 2003; Delgado, Alegría, Cañive, Díaz, Escobar, Kopelowicz, Oquendo, Ruíz & Vega 2006; Halonen 2008; Kulik & Carlino 1987; Laffal 1987; Leahy 2004; Mondada 1998). Nonetheless, these studies do not attend to mitigation or ways in which indirectness is expressed in Spanish. Drawing on insights from Labov and Fanshel’s (1977) study of therapeutic discourse, concepts related to ‘face’ and politeness (Arundale 2006; Brown & ­Levinson 1987, respectively), Grimshaw’s (1990) principles regarding conflict talk, and Barron and Schneider’s (2009) pragmatic variationist framework, the present work exemplifies the mitigating devices employed by a therapist and his clients using descriptive-qualitative and quantitative analyses. The study is not concerned with macro-social factors (e.g. age, gender, education) and how they may condition variation. Rather, and drawing from Barron and Schneider’s (2009: 430) integrative approach, it is concerned with micro-social factors. That is, it focuses on discourse-pragmatic concerns that prompt the use of mitigating devices and indirectness within this specific institutional interaction, taking into consideration the complexities of language use and combining elements such as the discursive setting, goals, speaker roles, client needs, power, topics, and social distance. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 is devoted to the review of theoretical underpinnings that informed this study, while Section 3 discusses the methodology. These sections are followed by the results. Finally, the chapter closes with a discussion and concluding remarks.

2.  Review of literature and theoretical considerations Prior to reviewing mitigation, several theoretical considerations with respect to the intersection between therapeutic discourse and conflict are discussed. 2.1  Some theoretical considerations about the therapeutic session Motivation Interviewing (MI) theory evolved from Rogerian psychotherapy, a ­person-centered counseling approach, which was a practice of the 1940s and 1950s. Van Wormer (2007) maintains that MI is known as a change-inducing strategy, a modality that aims at enhancing client motivation towards change. There are several reasons why MI discourse was selected for this study and how this discourse intersects with conflict talk and mitigation. First, depression, the topic discussed

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

during the MIs, is considered by others as stigmatized. Self-stigma refers to when individuals internalize the negative associations of depression (Interian, Martínez, Guarnaccia, Vega & Escobar 2007). Thus, it is conceivable that because stigma is involved and negative associations are made by clients as they discuss conflict, mitigating strategies would be employed in instances in which displeasure and dispreferred responses are voiced. As noted by Labov and Fanshel (1977): The contradictions and pressures that exist in the therapeutic situation are responsible for the creation of two distinct fields of discourse within the therapeutic session. One is the style of everyday life, in which a patient tells about the events of the preceding days …A second field of discourse is interview style… Some discourse is easily recognized as characteristic of the therapeutic session by special vocabulary: “interpretation”, “relationship”, “guilt” ...  (Labov & Fanshel 1977: 35–36)

Another reason why this particular discourse is of interest is related to the type of interaction that is unique to MI: the therapist listens, motivates, and guides; the client speaks. That is, the organization of the interaction is consistent for all clients and attends to one goal: to motivate the client to adhere to treatment (i.e. medication). Since the discursive routine and context are similar for each client, from a discourse-analytic perspective, this type of interaction lends itself to an examination of mitigating strategies and indirectness. 2.2  Conflict talk and its relevance to this study With regard to conflict talk, this study is guided by Grimshaw’s (1990) principles of conflict. He posits that argumentativeness and contentiousness are characteristic of this type of discourse. The study also took into account the fact that conflict may focus on beliefs, objects, persons, groups, or institutions. While contentiousness may be avoided in therapeutic MIs, adversarial incidents are recounted, problems are discussed and, to avoid conflict, the speakers may soften their utterances and intentionally use strategies that decrease tension. For instance, Grimshaw (1990) posited that in conflict narratives, we may even find that “culture/speech community members also recognize (that) other varieties of conflict and ­conflict-related talk such as apologies, gossip, insults…can be embedded in various sorts of conflictful interaction…” (p. 11). Further, Labov and Fanshel (1977) maintain that Crucial actions in establishing coherence of sequencing in conversation are not such speech acts as requests or assertions, but rather challenges, defenses, and retreats, which have to do with the status of the participants, their rights and obligations, and their changing relationships in terms of social organization ...  (Labov & Fanshel 1977: 58–59)



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

With these considerations in mind, the next section discusses the theoretical background on mitigation and how variation may be expressed. 2.3  Mitigation Fraser (1980: 341) defined mitigation as a modification of a speech act that reduces the unwelcoming effects that the act may have on its hearer. That is, mitigation reduces the illocutionary force of a message and that reduction can manifest in different ways. For instance, Labov and Fanshel’s (1977) examination of ­therapeutic conversations revealed that breaches in social relations were mitigated by the use of several linguistic devices such as syntactic alterations that mitigated requests and demands, the use of distinct intonation contours, and responses that were considered ‘indirect’. Scholars who have investigated mitigation were informed by Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory and concepts of ‘face’ and ‘facework’ (­Goffman 1955). However, Arundale (2010) maintains that the conceptualization of ‘face’ can no longer be viewed as one-sided from the speaker’s perspective. Face C ­ onstituting Theory conceptualizes ‘face’ as entailing two or more persons’ interaction with concerns related to social identity, public self-image, or social wants, a co-constructed interaction. Researchers who investigate mitigation in several Spanish dialects have found support for this co-constructed conceptualization of ‘face’ (Bravo 1999; Briz 2004; Hernández-Flores 1999; Placencia 1996; among ­others). For instance, Hernández-Flores (1999: 38) explains that the reason for being polite or indirect is to enhance and strengthen the ­interactants’ relationship. Placencia (1996) also posits that the lexical choices speakers make are motivated by a desire to maintain their public self-image. She claims that the cultural concepts of el qué dirán ‘what people will say’ and guardar las apariencias ‘to keep up appearances’ represent ways in which people need to present a ‘good image’ or conform to group expectations. From these and other explanations (e.g. Watts 2003), we gather then that cultural values also mediate indirect speech acts. For instance, in another ­medical-related case study of an Italian doctor-patient dialogue, Caffi (2007: 161) noted that mitigating devices were useful in managing the interaction between the interlocutors during potential conflicts. Her study revealed the uses of bushes, hedges, and shields. Caffi posited that mitigation has several functions that point to two main dimensions: (1) one related to instrumental needs, and (2) another related to identity and relational needs. Somewhat akin to this current study, Delbene (2004) investigated mitigating devices employed during medical interviews that dealt with a stigmatized disease in Uruguayan Spanish. Among the many findings of the study, she reported that

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

male physicians exhibited the most frequent use of mitigating devices, especially when interacting with female patients and in instances in which negative prognoses were discussed. For example, doctors were found to downgrade harsh messages related to the gravity of an illness. To date, only a few studies have examined mitigation in therapeutic discourse among speakers of several Spanish varieties. Flores-Ferrán (2009, 2010) reports that the therapist’s employment of mitigating devices was conditioned by his intention to motivate the client indirectly to continue with treatment. Thus, in the case of the therapist’s discourse, the micro-social factor of solidarity influenced several uses of mitigating devices. Further, the study documented the use of several shields (i.e. zero/null subject, uno ‘one’ as opposed to uses of yo ‘I’, and the cultural concepts of el qué dirán ‘what people will say’ and guardar las apariencias ‘to keep up appearances), and the use of proverbial-like sayings as devices that were strategically employed to express indirectness. We learn from these studies that mitigation has not received systematic attention with regard to how it is realized in conflict-related therapeutic talk. Further, the few studies that have attended to mitigation in therapeutic contexts have not investigated pragmatic variation. 2.4  Pragmatic variation (PV) Barron and Schneider’s (2009) framework suggests that variational pragmatics (PV) investigates intra-lingual differences, (i.e. PV between and across languages), an area that remains to date under-investigated. They maintain that PV can be conceptualized as the intersection of pragmatics and sociolinguistics. Their framework assumes two components, one of which distinguishes the impact of the five macro-social factors of region, age, gender, ethnicity, and social class. The other assumes micro-social factors related to power, distance, and other situational factors. Barron and Schneider (2009) suggest that the micro-social factors are concerned with speaker constellations and, as such, the primary aim of this study is to determine how mitigation is employed within the context of the micro-social dynamics of speaker interaction. That is, it examines the realization of mitigation among four Dominican clients and their Cuban therapist, not to uncover how gender or dialect condition mitigation, but to determine the manner in which indirectness and mitigation are operationalized within the interactants’ roles. With this goal in mind, the study seeks to respond to three research questions. 1. What kinds of mitigating and indirect strategies were employed by the clients and the therapist?



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

2. Is pragmatic variation manifested in the use of these strategies among the ­different clients and the therapist? 3. How are mitigation and indirectness expressed according to the topics discussed? 3.  Data and methods 3.1  The participants The four female Dominican clients’ ranged in age from 28 to 55 years. All completed high school in their respective countries and reported that they had limited speaking abilities in English. Thus they were not considered bilingual. The therapist, in his early 40s, was a Cuban-American raised in Florida who held a doctorate. Because relatively little is known about how mitigation is expressed in therapeutic discourse in Dominican Spanish, four subjects from the Dominican Republic were selected from a larger pool of 22 digitally-recorded MIs conducted by the same therapist. All recordings were conducted at a U.S. medical facility. 3.2  Data The study is part of a larger study of digitally recorded MIs gathered during 2006 to 2009. The interviews were conducted by one therapist who worked at a university medical institution. To guarantee privacy between the therapist and clients, and to ensure reliability in the interpretation of the discourse, I was not present for any of the interviews.1 Each motivational session lasted approximately 45 minutes in duration and each client was interviewed twice. The first segments of each interview dealt with standard salutations and health issues. During the remaining segments, the clients’ conditions and their experience with the prescribed medication were discussed. The latter part of each interview was devoted to documenting the frequency with which the medications had been taken. 3.3  Data analysis The analysis conducted of the clients’ discourse consisted of a thorough examination of every clause they produced. Every verb in each clause was first identified in order to capture propositions that contained the presence of a mitigating device. The therapist’s role was characterized as that of a listener in that he produced 1.  All digital interviews were transcribed using an adaptation of Jefferson (2004). Due to space constraints, the author’s original transcriptions are not included in this text.

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

reformulations, recasts, and questions that were purposely designed to motivate the client to talk. Thus, his discourse did not contain lengthy utterances and was analyzed line-by-line with the purpose of extracting and coding each device or indirect act. A mixed-method approach was used to analyze the data: the qualitative analysis informed the quantitative analysis. First, a discourse analysis was conducted to identify mitigating devices and indirect propositions, and the contexts in which they were employed. Second, a statistical analysis was conducted to identify patterns in the use of mitigating devices among the subgroups (i.e. the clients as opposed to the therapist) and among clients (i.e. between clients), to determine the topics that elicited frequent uses of the strategies. Thus, the study addresses transferrability, or the extent to which these results can be extended to other contexts, and generalizability, or the extent to which gross tendencies appeared with regard to the speakers’ use of indirectness and mitigating strategies. 4.  Results In this section, the diverse mitigating and indirect utterances found in the corpus are qualitatively analyzed in their respective contexts (4.1). This section is followed by the quantitative analysis (4.2). 4.1  Qualitative analysis The qualitative analysis addressed two of the research questions. The first question addressed the kinds of mitigating devices that emerged in the corpus and the second addressed differences in the use of the devices among the speakers. When examining large amounts of data, Schegloff (1993) argued that we are looking at multiple or aggregates of single instances. Thus if an indirect utterance or a mitigating device was employed only once, its use was considered important because it provided the analyst further insights regarding the diversity of strategies employed in the study. The devices attested in the corpus were: hedges (e.g. más o menos ‘more or less’), bushes (such as como ‘as’ ‘like’), and several constructions containing como, shields (e.g. uno ‘one’), epistemic disclaimers (e.g. según he leído ‘as I have read’), tag questions, parenthetical verbs (creo que ‘I think’), proverbial sayings, and the diminutive -ito/ico2 morphology. 2.  Lipski (1994: 233), among others, has noted that the Cuban Spanish dialect, similar to the dialects of Colombia and Costa Rica, favors the diminutive -ico or its variant -ito such as in



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

In the following section, the utterances produced by the clients (C) and the therapist (T) are first contextualized, and the strategies employed are underlined and explained. In instances in which null subjects were used, the subjects appear translated in parentheses (e.g. tenemos que darte crédito ‘[we] have to give you credit’). The purpose of selecting null subjects in several contexts was related to the fact that a null subject can be considered a mitigating strategy because null subjects can defocalize or diminish the subjects’ presence in an utterance. Thus, the uses of null and overt subjects were also considered critical to the analysis.3 4.1.1  Hedges/Bushes In this study, a distinction was made between hedges and bushes,4 partially guided by Brown and Levinson (1987: 145) and Caffi’s (1999) definition of bushes. Brown and Levinson (1987) suggest that a hedge is “a particle, word, or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set; it says of that membership that it is partial or true only in certain respects” (p. 145). Brown and Levinson (1987) also suggest a hierarchical scale of hedges following Gricean maxims: 1. Quality hedge: a cautionary premise that can decrease the commitment to the truth of a proposition such as “to the best of my recollection” (si mal no recuerdo), 2. Quantity hedge: a signal that the information provided is less precise than expected such as “roughly speaking” or “more or less” (más o menos), 3. Relevance hedge: introduces a shift in topic such as “By the way” “sorry, I just thought…” (perdona, pero creo que); and, 4. Manner hedge: related to politeness such as “To be succinct, more clearly…” (Para ser preciso, más claro…”) In following Caffi (1999), I employ the term ‘bushes’ to refer to ‘approximators’. The most frequently-employed bushes in the corpus of this study were como ‘like’,

ratico ‘short while’ or momentico ‘just a moment’. In this study, both -ico and -ito were found in the discourse of the Cuban therapist while the Dominican clients used only -ito. 3.  For the analysis, the use of every null subject could not be considered a mitigating strategy. Further explanations are provided in the analyses of the excerpts. 4.  Initially, hedges and bushes were analyzed as one variable and this resulted in an elevated frequency of ‘hedges’. After recoding and disaggregating this variable, hedges such as si mal no recuerdo ‘if I recall correctly’ were coded separately from bushes such as como, and como constructions. In disaggregating this variable, the analysis was able to yield distinct patterns.

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

como que ‘as is’, tal como ‘just like’, como + verb (i.e. como diría ‘like (I) would say’), and como si fuera ‘as if ’.5 In Excerpt (1) the client described how she felt regarding her emotional state and that of being unemployed. She used como que ‘as if ’ and como ‘like’, an imprecise mechanism, to describe how she felt: (Excerpt 1) (P3MI#1L21) 01 C: Bueno, eso me ha afectado porque yo estaba 02 acostumbrada a ganarme el cheque semanal y yo 03 sacaba cuatrocientos y pico 04 de dólares semanal, y al verme así, 05 pues eso como que me ha bajado 06 mucho la autoestima. 07 T: Okay. 08 C: A veces me siento como muy deprimida. C: ‘Well, that has affected me because I was used earning a weekly ­paycheck and I used to withdraw some four hundred dollars weekly and to see me like this, it has left me as if with low self esteem. T: Okay. C: Sometimes I feel like very depressed.’

In this excerpt como que (line 5) and como (line 8) were strategically employed immediately before the speaker expressed her conditions: low self esteem and depression. That is, she had the option of stating directly that her economic situation had affected her self-esteem and she felt depressed. Thus, como operates as an approximator since the speaker was not describing her precise feelings. In Excerpt (2), the client gives her word that she is telling the truth as she describes her relationship with her husband. Here, multiple uses of como que describe the humiliating conditions she experienced in the relationship. Excerpt (2) (029 MI#1L37) 01 C: De palabra, (.) él me humilló, él me trató 02 como que yo, como que yo no era nadie, 03 me hizo sentir, y me siento aún como que, 04 no soy nada, no soy nadie. C: ‘On my word, (.) he humiliated me, he treated me as if I, as if I was none, (he) made me feel, and (I) still feel as if, (I) am nothing, (I) am no one.’

The client had the option of expressing él me trató mal ‘he treated me badly’; ­however the redundant uses of como (lines 1–3) also illustrate how she diminished

5.  The diverse uses of como throughout the paper are referred to as ‘como constructions.’



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

her husband’s actions regarding the abuse. Interestingly, the use of the null subject ‘I’ operated as a shield in the latter part of the utterance. It defocalized and diminished the client’s identity in the proposition. For instance, in the first part of the utterance, the client employed the overt subject yo (lines 1–2) to explain how her husband treated her, but then switched to use the null subject yo ‘I’ to discuss how she was currently feeling. Especially noteworthy were the multiple uses of forms such as como si fuera ‘as if I were’, como que ‘like’, tal como ‘as’. Observations regarding como and como constructions merit specific attention since they were employed redundantly in the corpus. First, the Dominican females in this study are native Spanish speakers. Therefore, the analysis of these and other constructions are interpreted using a Caribbean Spanish viewpoint. Second, the analysis of these constructions cannot be compared to English ‘like’ since the speakers’ native language was Spanish. The clients employed these approximators when speaking of ‘self,’ family, treatment, depression, and of unrelated topics to medication. Like many other mitigators, these forms contributed to reducing risks, avoiding conflicts, and attenuating the gravity of a condition. Because the use of como decreases the exactitude with which a feeling is expressed, I suggest here that its implicit use was to voice discomfort. Considering that this form also reduces the illocutionary force of a message, it is suggested that its weakening effect can go undetected if not carefully associated with the context of therapeutic discourse. 4.1.2  Parenthetical verbs Parenthetical verbs are optional and embedded verbs that are usually followed by or are adjacent to a main clause that serves a discursive function. Schneider (1994) points out that parenthetical verbs such as me imagino ‘I imagine’ and supongo ‘I suppose’ operate as inserted verbs and have no syntactic connection between them and their host sentence. Urmson (1952) maintains that verbs such as ‘think’, ‘suppose’, ‘guess’, and ‘expect’ are considered parenthetical verbs (as cited in Fraser 1980: 348). These verbs relate to opinion, belief, and thought, such as pienso ‘I think’, opino ‘my opinion is’, creo ‘I think’, considero ‘I consider’. In Excerpt (3), the therapist strategically positioned me imagino (‘I imagine’) which is syntactically free. Further, the phrase serves to mitigate his message since he already knew why the client had come to his office. Excerpt (3) (51MI#1LINE15) 01 C: ...yo estoy dispuesta a cualquier (.) pregunta. 02 T: Ok. Bueno, eh (..) ¿Qué le parece si 03 empezamos por para que yo pueda conocerle 04 un poquito mejor y acerca de las cosas que,

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

05 de los problemas que estaba enfrentando? 06 Me imagino que es la razón por la cuál, eh, 07 estás aquí… C: ...I am ready to respond to any question. T: Okay, well, eh (…) What do you think I (we) start so for that I can get to know you a bit better and about the things, the problems that (you) were confronting. (I) imagine that is the reason why, eh, you are here...’

Several observations can be made regarding this excerpt. First, the therapist used empezamos (line 3), a plural-inclusive pronoun, to include and engage the client in the conversation as if both interlocutors were agreeing on where to begin the session. Second, to be more indirect, the therapist used several key null subjects in me imagino ‘(I) imagine’ as opposed to yo me imagino ‘I imagine’. This observation is based on research that points to two concerns: Cuban and Dominican Spanish have been documented as having the highest frequencies of pronominal expression. Second, verbs of mental activity tend to be expressed with overt pronouns (e.g. Flores-Ferrán 2002, 2007; Otheguy, Zentella & Livert 2007). Thus, these reasons, combined with the fact that the therapist knew the purpose of his client’s visit, suggest that the null subject in me imagino ‘(I) imagine’ operates as a mitigating device. In addition, he also indirectly explained that he wanted to get to know her better and employed the diminutive form -ito to express indirectness (i.e. that he was going to discuss personal issues). It should also be noted that this form is not characteristic of Cuban Spanish and, therefore, he accommodated his speech to avoid creating distance. Finally, we find that the omission of the subject in estaba enfrentando ‘you were facing’ (line 5) operates as a shield in two ways: in using tú ‘you’, the utterance would have been too direct; and the morphology of the verb refers to usted, the formal second-person pronoun. The micro factor of [-distance] therefore mediated the use of the null subject. In Excerpt (4) the client was seeking direct advice from the therapist. In turn, the therapist avoided telling her what to do: Excerpt (4) (42M1L694) 01 C: No, no dígame qué hago. 02 T: … bueno … 03 C: Deme un consejo. 04 T: … Okay, el consejo es que yo pienso que, 05 honestamente, es una opción difícil, ee sería fácil 06 para para yo decir, bueno debes de hacer esto … C: ‘No, no tell me what should (I) do. T: …well… C: Give me advice. T: …Okay, the advice is that I think that, honestly, it’s a difficult option, ee (it) would be easy for me to say, well, you should do this’ ...



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

To avoid directly telling the client what to do, the therapist hesitated, and produced two mitigating devices: a parenthetical verb (line 4) and an epistemic disclaimer (line 5), yo pienso que, and honestamente, respectively. He then completed the utterance claiming that it would be easy to tell her what to do, but indirectly suggested that it was not the purpose of the session. He used the conditional sería fácil para para yo decir ‘it would be easy for me to say’ (lines 5–6). 4.1.3  Shields Shields are known as impersonal mechanisms; e.g. the use of ‘one’, ‘as we know’, generic ‘you’ and ‘we’ (Flores-Ferrán 2009; Haverkate 1990). In some instances, they can serve to substitute for the first person ‘I’, and also a speaker may use these forms to avoid using the first person pronoun directly. Caffi (1999, 2007) suggests that shields represent instances in which one of the three deictic components of the utterances is negated by obscuring it or placing it in the background. In the next excerpt we find that uno ‘one’ was used to obscure the use of first person yo since the client is worried about taking too many pills. Excerpt (5) (03MI2L84) 01 C: No sé por qué, imagínese, uno tanto beber 02 pastillas, también puede venir una úlcera. C: ‘I don’t know why, imagine, one taking so many pills, also an ulcer may arise.’

The use of uno ‘one’ (line 1) operates as a shield; it deflects use of the first person yo ‘I’ in this instance to a generalized entity. Here the client avoided telling the therapist that she was concerned about the side effects of the medication. In addition, the client employed a parenthetical verb, imagínese (‘imagine’) (line 1), as a pseudo-inclusive verb, suggesting that the therapist would feel the same. In Excerpt (6), the therapist used the impersonal mechanism of a pseudoinclusive ‘we’ while he was attempting to reward the client for thinking about her goals. Excerpt (6) (051MI2L30) 01 C: Pensar positivo. Son problemas pero lo veo 02 como, como una meta. Como que son cosas que 03 yo tengo que romper para llegar adonde yo 04 quiero. 04 T: Emhm, emhm. Entonces, te le6le te le tenemos que 05 dar crédito… porque no es como si fuera que no 6.  Represents a lexical repair in the string of utterances te le forms, indirect object personal pronouns. Te refers to the informal second person and le, formal second person.

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

06 quiere pensar en los problemas o que los estás 07 ignorando… C: ‘Think positive. (They) are problems but (I) see like, like a goal. Like they are things that I have to break in order to reach where I want to go. T: Mmm, mmm. Then, (we) would have to give (you) credit…because it is not as if (you) don’t want to think about the problems or that (you’re) ignoring them…’

As the client was attempting to convey her goals, noticeable uses of como constructions ‘like’, ‘as if ’, appear in her utterance. The therapist also used the como si fuera ‘as if ’ (line 5) to interpret her message. Further, the use of the null subject ‘we’ in tenemos que dar crédito (lines 4–5) is illustrative of how the therapist covertly awarded credit to the client by including himself among others. That is, in using tenemos ‘we have to’, he may have been referring to the team of doctors that she was seeing, which was an unknown entity, or a self-inclusive nosotros ‘we’, since he could have said ‘I have to give you credit’ for moving ahead. ­Interestingly, the therapist also attempted to repair the forms of address from informal te to formal le (line 4). This switch may be indicative of his goal to avoid producing distance [-distance] or situating himself in a position of power. 4.1.4  Epistemic disclaimers Epistemic disclaimers express a form of knowledge, opinion, or attitude. Caffi (2007: 67) points out that these mitigating devices represent preparatory formulas, such as si mal no recuerdo, si no me equivoco ‘If I’m not wrong…’, ‘If I’m not mistaken…’, and non-epistemic disclaimers, for example, siento decirte esto pero…; odio tener que decirte… ‘sorry to tell you but…’; ‘I hate to tell you…’. For instance, a disclaimer may precede or follow an advisory that appears in an adjacent clause such as Siento decirte esto pero, no puedo prestarte el dinero. ‘I hate to tell you but, I can’t lend you the money’. In the following excerpt, we find the use of epistemic disclaimers accompanied by other mitigating devices as the client discloses information regarding when she began medication: Excerpt (7) (51MI1L20) 01 C: Em (..) Yo soy protagonista. (Risas) De una a 02 mi– de una serie muy difícil. Bueno, 03 en realidad (..) yo me dio depresión 04 pos-partum. Y de allí, allí fue cuando me di 05 cuen–, que empecé a medicarme, pero en 06 realidad yo siempre, eh, como que (.) me, 07 como que mi ánimo se bajaba un poquito…



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

C:  ‘Em (..) I am a protagonist. (Laughter) in a mi– a very difficult series. Well, in reality (..) I got post-partum depression. And from there, there was when I real–, that (I) began medicating, but in reality I always, ah, like that (.), like my spirit went down a little bit.’

In Excerpt (7), the client employed the preparatory formula of en realidad ‘in ­reality’ (lines 3 and 6) to explain or admit that she was suffering from ­post-partum depression and that she had began medication at that time. Further, como que (lines 6 and 7) was used to downgrade her low condition. She also employed the diminutive -ito (line 7) to diminish further the impact of what she was describing as her low spirit. In the following utterance, we find that the client produced an epistemic disclaimer in the beginning of the statement. Excerpt (8) (42MI1L429) 01 C: Ee según lo que yo he leído, los efectos se, xxx,7 02 yo puedo sentirme peor de lo que yo me he 03 sentido. ‘Um, according to what I have read, the effects, xxx, I can feel worse than what I have been feeling.’

Excerpt (8) shows how the client shifted the blame from herself (for not taking medication) to what she has read about the effects of the medication. That is, she pointed to what she has read and how that information has informed her to be cautious about medication instead of producing a proposition that would clearly indicate that she felt uncomfortable with the medication. Also noticeable throughout this excerpt is the overt use of the pronoun yo, which is not considered mitigating. Therefore, on the one hand she positioned the disclaimer as a mitigator, and on the other, she pointed to herself and was direct. 4.1.5  Tag questions Syntactic choices such as tag questions can serve to mitigate. Tags are propositions (e.g. declaratives) that are turned into questions. For instance, Labov and Fanshel (1977: 85) place requests for information at a higher level on a scale of mitigation than assertions. They consider tags as intermediate on a three-step scale with respect to aggravation and the tags are formulated in such a way that the order is mitigated by a question as in: You have enough time to dust the room. You have enough time to dust the room, don’t you? Do you have enough time to dust the room?

7.  Unintelligible utterances were transcribed as xxx.

[aggravating] [less aggravating] [least aggravating]

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

In Excerpt (9) the therapist reformulated his question and asked the client how she was able to determine whether the medication would help her condition. At the same time, he produced a recast of what she stated earlier, using a tag to ensure that he had interpreted her message appropriately. Excerpt (9) (29MI1L477) 01 T: Déjeme… yo se la hago de una mejor manera, 02 una manera más clara, amm. Okay, entiendo 03 que tiene como esa duda de que, “no estoy 04 segura si esto me va a funcionar a mí, y 05 y creo que esto de pronto no me va a ayudar,” 06 algo así me está diciendo, ¿cierto? T:  ‘Let me…I will do it again in a better way, aclearer way, amm. Okay, (I) understand that (you) have some doubts about, “(I) am notsure whether this is going to work for me, and and, (I) think that immediately this is not going to work,” something like that (you) are saying, right?’

This excerpt is rather unusual in that it contains a double-nested mitigating strategy that, to my knowledge, has not been accounted for in the literature. While there is a tag question at the end of the proposition in which the therapist reformulated his client’s views about how the medications may not be working, he shifted his voice to quote her and used first-person reference. If the therapist had uttered “you are not sure whether something is going to work, and… you think immediately it [medication] is not going to work”, the proposition would  have been considered direct. Thus, the quotational shield (Caffi 1999) serves to deflect attention from therapist and at the same time distances him from the utterance. Further, he uses two other devices: como and creo que (lines 3 and 5), a bush and parenthetical verb, respectively. These strategies are suggestive of the ways in which he politely took a risk in quoting and interpreting her message. 4.1.6  Diminutives Direct speech acts such as requests in combination with the diminutive and a formal address such as Préstame un poquito ‘Lend me a little’ represent ways in which speakers downgrade an order or request. Murillo Medrano (2002) suggests that this attenuating strategy contributes to reducing threat by shifting the focus of the utterance as an imperative verb to the object being requested in the diminutive form. He also suggests that this effect reduces conflicts and increases solidarity. In Excerpt (10), the client described how she felt about her progress:



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

Excerpt (10) (42MI2L431) 01 C: Un poquito, yo digo, todavía no me siento, me 02 siento mejor, me siento mejor pero todavía me 03 falta, seguir luchando. C: ‘A little, I say, (I) don’t feel yet, (I) feel better, (I) feel better but there is still something missing, to keep struggling.’

In this excerpt, the client reduced the effect of a dispreferred response by using the diminutive -ito (line 1). In other words, she downgraded the fact that she still has a way to go to reach the stage of improvement. It should be noted that the therapist shifted from -ito to -ico during several interviews. The diminutive -ico is characteristic of the Cuban Spanish dialect, not Dominican Spanish. Thus, he once again accommodated his speech to his client’s dialect and expressed the Dominican Spanish morphological ending -ito. Interestingly, the use of a null subject in seguir luchando ‘to keep fighting’ (line 3) also operates as a shield. In other words, the client is not admitting that she has to keep fighting. Instead, she suggests that this is what has to be done, and she employed a pseudo-passive with no head subject as opposed to saying yo tengo que seguir luchando ‘I have to keep fighting.’ 4.1.7  Proverbs and proverbial sayings: Other mitigating strategies Proverbs and metaphoric-like sayings comprise other ways in which speakers can mitigate an utterance (Flores-Ferrán 2010). For instance, Seitel (1972), in ­citing Firth (1926), has noted that proverbs “[b]y virtue of their being expressed in objective terms, they [proverbs] influence without forcing and their objectivity carries more weight than an emotional outburst” (p. 137). In other words, they operate as indirect speech acts that attenuate the force of their message. Orwenjo (2009) also suggests that proverbs “offer one of the most accessible and efficient means of avoiding direct critique by alluding to the criticized manner in an indirect, less aggressive manner” (p. 145). In Excerpt (11), we find that the client used a biblical saying to explain how she thinks others perceive her. The second saying produced by the therapist, is illustrative of how he attenuated his message: Excerpt (11) (03MI1L456) 1 C: Porque dice también un refrán, dice “Ayúdate 2 que yo te ayudaré”. Porque dice “Todo lo que 3 pidáis en mi nombre, y cree que ya lo vas a 4 recibir, lo tendrás” todo eso lo dice. Y en 5 combinación con la voluntad de, del médico 6 también. 7 T: Okay. Okay. 8 T: Y “el que busca siempre encuentra”…

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

9 C: Y “el que busca siempre encuentra”. C: ‘Because a proverb says, “Help yourself and I will help you.” Because (it) says “Everything you ask in my name, and (you) believe in eventually (you) will receive, (you) will receive”, all that is said.’ In combination with the will of the doctor also. T: and, “one who seeks always finds”… C: and, “one who seeks always finds”.’

In Excerpt (11), the client explained how difficult it is to get out of the depressive state and used a biblical proverb (lines 1–4). Namely, this strategy is used to invoke assistance from two sources, from God and from the doctor. In response to that saying, the therapist produced another proverb that includes two devices. First, the therapist employed an impersonal mechanism (line 8) of a shield el ‘one’ or ‘he’ who searches instead of expressing ‘you,’ which would have focused attention directly on the addressee. Second, he also employed a proverb (line 8) to tell the client that if she seeks help, she will always find it. In other words, he indicated she should try helping herself or take the initiative. In turn, instead of agreeing with the therapist, the client then merely repeats the therapist’s saying after a long second pause (line 7). Jefferson (1988) suggests that silence can be considered as a strong dispreference marker. That is, this latter repetition together with the previous pause can be interpreted as indirectly rejecting the therapist’s views or that she was processing the information and not necessarily agreeing.  ther indirect devices: Guardar las apariencias (‘to keep up appearances’) 4.1.8  O (Placencia 1996) The socio-cultural concepts of el qué dirán ‘what others will say’ and guardar las apariencias ‘keep up appearances’ posited by Placencia (1996) and evidenced in the corpus of therapeutic discourse by Flores-Ferrán (2010) suggest that these concepts intersect with the use of mitigating strategies. In other words, the client may employ these utterances to express his intentions indirectly. In the following two excerpts we find ways in which a client indirectly voiced her discomfort about what it meant to take medication and what others will think of her.8 These indirect propositions appeared in several utterances produced by clients. The therapist, in reacting to or recasting what clients stated, also employed these el qúe dirán utterances in only a few instances in the corpus. 8.  Although instances in which propositions related to el qué dirán or guardar las apariencias were evidenced in several interviews, these were not entered in the quantitative analysis since these cultural concepts are not realized and coded under a distinct mitigating device. Rather, they were analyzed independently within their context. Thus, to avoid complicating the coding process, these types of utterances were only addressed in the qualitative analysis.



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

Excerpt (12) (42MI1 L501) 01 C: Ahí está la cuestión, no no no, yo nunca tengo 02 miedo, yo no tengo miedo de que la gente me 03 vea ee, que yo no esté, cantando ni bailando, 04 miedo tengo del efecto del medicamento. 05 Yo lo que tengo miedo como de que la gente 06 se dé cuenta de que, eee, o me estoy, bueno 07 normalmente la persona que usa un 08 medicamento antidepresivo … C: ‘  There’s the point, no no no, I never am afraid I’m not afraid that people see me, um, that I’m not singing or dancing, the fear (I) have is of the effect of the medication. What I’m afraid of is like that people ­realize that, um, (I) am, well, normally a person that uses ­antidepressive medication.’

In (12), the client produced a statement that downgrades the effects of being discovered by others as a person using antidepressants. She first escalates her statement (lines 2–4) by stating that she is not afraid of people seeing her perform publicly. Later, that utterance is followed by what really frightens her (lines 5–8): having people realize that she is on medication. Thus this excerpt is illustrative of how indirectness is mediated by el qúe dirán. In (13) below, the client again produces a statement that is reflective of el qúe dirán. In it, she admits that her biggest fear is that she might be considered crazy: Excerpt (13) (42MII L553) 01 C: Eee lamentablemente vivimos en un mundo, 02 desde que, e por ejemplo, alguien se da 03 cuenta, o alguien sabe que tú estás tomando 04 medicamentos anti antidepresivos o, o para 05 la ansiedad, ee tú puedes dar con personas 06 que dicen que no son antidepresivos o que se 07 deprimen, sino que es para la gente que está 08 loca, aa ‘esa usa medicina’. C: ‘Um, unfortunately, (we) live in a world, since that, e for example, someone realizes, or someone knows that you are taking anti­anti-depressive medication, or or for anxiety, ee you can encounter people that say that [the medications] are not antidepressants or that they get depressed, instead they are for people that are crazy, aa ‘that one uses medication’.

The client employed the generic tú in this excerpt (line 3); however, this form operates as a shield. Its referent is not the therapist; rather, it is the generic tú that refers to anyone or ‘one.’ The manner in which the client expressed her discomfort with the medication, therefore, was to point to others. If we examine the utterance

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

further, we may not find more precise mitigating devices. That is, the utterance itself represents an indirect way of expressing the reason why she had a problem with antidepressants: she fears that people will think that she is insane (line 7–8). The manner in which the client approached this discomfort was first, by escalating and providing the big picture, ‘we live in a world’ (line 1), and then downgrading the effect of the utterance by focusing on people’s views about others who take these medications. Or, said differently, the client indirectly explained how stigmatized she felt. With regard to how mitigation intersects with cultural concepts, F ­ lores-Ferrán (2010), following Placencia’s (1996) work, argued that lexical choices do not necessarily have to be of face-saving nature, and that it may be more precise to say that people want to save their public self-image. However, this study goes further and posits that utterances related to el qué dirán and guardar las apariencias represent mitigating strategies. That is, these expressions implicated conflict, negation, dispreferred responses, or ways of rejecting or refusing (see Félix-Brasdefer 2008a, 2008b). 4.2  Results: Quantitative analysis To expand on the first research question, which addressed the type of mitigating devices employed by the four female Dominican clients, Table 1 shows the mitigating devices employed during the eight motivational interviews by the clients, while Table 2 displays the devices produced by the therapist. The clients produced over 4,626 clauses with verbs. Of these, 348 of them contained mitigating devices. Table 1.  The distribution of mitigating devices employed by the four clients in all ­interviews Mitigation device Bush Como, Como + forms

Frequency

%

160

46

Parenth verbs

97

27.9

Tag questions

37

10.6

Hedges

23

6.6

Proverbs

15

4.3

Diminutive -ito

7

2

Epistemic disclaimers

5

1.4

Shields Total

4 348

1.1 100



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

We can observe in Table 1 that of the 348 mitigating devices realized in the clients’ discourse, the most frequently used devices were como and its constructions (46%), parenthetical verbs (27.9%), and tag questions (10.6%). Although low in frequency, proverbs and metaphorical sayings were used by the clients in 15 instances in the corpus. In Table 2 the mitigating devices employed by the therapist are illustrated. Table 2.  The distribution of mitigating devices employed by the therapist in all interviews Mitigation device

Frequency

%

Diminutives

45

25

Shields

39

21.5

Bushes Como, Como + forms

36

20

Hedges

23

12.7

Parenthetical verbs

20

11

Epistemic disclaimers

11

6

Tag questions

4

2.2

Proverbs

3

1.6

Total

181

100

In Table 2, we find that the therapist favored the use of the following devices: diminutives (25%), shields (21.5%), and the approximator como and its constructions (20%), followed by hedges (12.7%) and parenthetical verbs (11%). At first glance, the tendencies shown in Table 1 and 2 point to pragmatic variation in the preferences exhibited by the therapist and the clients. In other words, a micro-social factor of ‘speaker role’ conditions the use of these mitigating devices in this institutional discursive setting. Three explanations can be provided at this juncture to support the presence of the factor. First, unlike the tendencies reflected in Table 1 in which we found that all four clients produced 348 mitigating devices, the therapist employed 181 in all the interviews. Most intriguing is the fact that in relation to the total number of devices employed by the four clients in eight interviews, the therapist produced a relatively higher number of mitigating devices compared to his clients. The second observation points to the distinct distribution of the frequencies in which the devices were employed. In other words, the therapist and clients favored distinct mitigating strategies. For instance, the therapist’s discourse contained more frequent uses of diminutives (25%), shields (21.5%) and como constructions (20%), while the clients employed como constructions (46%), parenthetical verbs (27.9%), and tag questions (10.6%). A third observation: tag questions and proverbs were disfavored by the therapist (2.2% and 1.6%,

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

r­ espectively). Finally, a tendency to employ shields and epistemic disclaimers was not evident by the clients (1.1% and 1.4%, respectively). In sum, the data illustrated in Tables 1 and 2 are suggestive of pragmatic variation in the use of these devices. It is suggested here that the variation found is motivated by the type of institutional discursive interaction and speaker role, two micro social variables. In the following figure and tables, this claim is further elaborated. 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Clients % Therapist %

s

ge

d He

ds

el

i Sh

E

s

Di

st pi

Qs Vbs mo erbs ives g a th ut Co rov T in en P r m Pa Di

Figure 1.  Mitigating device frequencies among clients and therapist

As shown in Figure 1, while the relative frequencies of mitigating devices vary according to the clients and the therapist, they appear to increase for both types of speakers with regard to the approximator como and its constructions. That is, the most frequently employed bushes in the corpus of this study were como ‘like’, como que ‘sort of ’, tal como ‘just like’, como+verb (i.e. como diría ‘like would say’, como más o menos ‘like more or less’, and como si fuera ‘as if ’) and these devices were consistently used by the therapist and the four clients throughout the interviews. The figure also illustrates a general favoring of diminutives only by the therapist. Therefore, here we can assume that pragmatic variation is also evident; however, we cannot claim that the macro sociolinguistic factors (i.e. gender or age) conditioned the use of these devices. In instances in which the therapist employed the diminutive morphology characteristic of Dominican Spanish (-ito), we can claim that his choice was pragmatically motivated: to accommodate to his speakers’ dialect, diminish the distance between him and his clients, or decrease his status to that of an equal to his clients. Up until this point, we can only assume that the situational-interactional level, a micro social factor proposed by Barron and Schneider (2009), prompts the therapist to prefer the Dominican diminutive form. To examine this claim closely, Table 3 is presented.



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

Table 3 partially9 responds to the research question that addressed pragmatic variation in the use of mitigating devices according to the four female Dominican clients. Table 3 is revealing of the types of devices favored by each client. Table 3.  The distribution of mitigation devices according client (N=348) Mitigation device

Client

Total

01

02

03

04

Bush Como, Como + forms

28.1% (45)

38.8% (62)

21.9% (35)

11.3% (18)

100% (160)

Parenthetical verbs

29.9% (29)

3.1% (3)

62.9% 61

4.1% 4

100% (97)

Tag questions

5.4% (2)

54.1% (20)

24.3% (9)

16.2% (6)

100% (37)

Hedges

30.4% (7)

13.0% (3)

8.7% (2)

47.8% (11)

100% (23)

Proverbs

86.7% (13)

0% (0)

13.3% (2)

0% (0)

100% (15)

Diminutive -ito

28.6% (2)

14.3% (1)

42.9% (3)

14.3% (1)

100% (7)

Epistemic disclaimers

60% (3)

20% (1)

20% (1)

0% (0)

100% (5)

Shields

0% (0)

0% (0)

100% (4)

0% (0)

100% (4)

29% (101)

25.9% (90)

33.6% (117)

11.5% (40)

100% (348)

Total

In Table 3, we find varying frequencies in the use of several devices and similar patterns in others. That is, there is pragmatic variation in the use of several of these devices among the clients. For instance, only one client (03) favored the use of shields. She employed this device in only four instances but this accounts for 100% of the instances in which these devices were used in the corpus. Further, proverbs were evidenced in the discourse of only clients 01 and 03. That is, client 01 produced 86.7% of the proverbs while client 03 produced only 13.3%. Perhaps the most salient finding we can observe in this table was the consistent appearance of tag questions, parenthetical verbs, and como constructions. Every client used these mitigating strategies, although at varying frequencies. If we further elaborate on the individual tendencies, the data in this table show that client 04 favored hedges more than the other three clients (47.8%); most of the epistemic 9.  The qualitative analysis also yielded a response to these and other research questions.

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

­ isclaimers were employed by 01 (60%); a stronger presence of tag questions was d evident by 02 (54.1%); and parenthetical verbs were favored by 03 (62.9%). Thus, several clients exhibited a preference to use one device(s) over another. In other words, the use of mitigating strategies pragmatically varied from client to client, an observation that warrants us once again to posit a micro-social factor for this study of ‘speaker type’ as opposed to gender and age. Since the motivational interviews (MIs) focused on treatment and medication, it is plausible that several topics prompted the use of several devices. To shed some light on these patterns, the next analysis examines the distribution of devices according to topic. To respond partially to the third research question that addresses the distribution of mitigating devices according to topic, Table 4 is presented. Since several devices were employed in low frequencies, Table 4 could not include the intersection of speaker, mitigating device, and topic. It only presents the intersection of mitigating devices and the topic of discussion. In it we find that mitigating devices were favored with several topics related to first person yo ‘self ’, treatment, and depression. Table 4.  The distribution of mitigating devices employed by clients According to topic Topic

Hedge Shield Epistemic Tags Parenthetical Bush Proverb Dimi- Total disclaimers verbs Como nitive forms -ito

Treatment

8.5% (9)

.9% (1)

.9% (1)

12.3% (13)

43.4% (46)

42.1% (33)

.9% (1)

1.9% 100% (2) (106)

Yo ‘I’ (self)

8.5% (10)

.8% (1)

1.7% (2)

9.3% (11)

20.3% (24)

53.4% (63)

5.1% (6)

.8% (1)

Depression

2.6% (1)

0% (0)

0% (0)

21.1% (8)

21.1% (8)

42.1% (16)

5.3% (2)

7.9% 100% (3) (38)

Family

3.8% (1)

7.7% (2)

0% (0)

0% (0)

23.1% (6)

65.4% (17)

0% (0)

Unrelated topic

4.2% (2)

0% (0)

2.1% (1)

6.3% (3)

22.0% (11)

56.3% (27)

6.3% (3)

UNO ‘one’

0% (0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

Tú

0% (0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

Usted ‘formal you’

0% (0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

Nosotros ‘we’

0% (0)

0% (0)

Total

100% 100% (23) (4)

0% (0)

100% (118)

100% 26

2.1% 100% (1) (48)

33.3% 66.7% (1) (2)

0% (0)

100% (3)

50.0% (1)

50.0% (1)

0% (0)

0% (0)

100% (2)

50.0% (2)

0% (0)

50.0% (2)

0% (0)

0% (0)

100% (4)

33.3% (1)

0% (0)

33.3% (1)

0% (0)

33.3% (1)

0% (0)

100% (3)

100% (5)

100% (37)

100% (97)

100% (160)

100% (15)

100% 100% (7) (348)



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

Table 4 shows that the bulk of the mitigating devices centered on three main topics: ‘self ’ (yo), treatment and, to a lesser extent, depression. If we closely examine this table according to mitigating devices, we find that 42.1% of the bushes (como constructions) were realized during treatment-related talk. Similarly, 43.4% of the parenthetical verbs were realized during treatment-related talk. Further, the majority of the bushes were also employed during depression-related talk (42.1%). These findings therefore suggest that mitigating devices, with respect to the clients’ discourse, seem to be mediated by discourse topic. Again, we find that at the micro-social level, ‘discourse topic’ operates as yet another micro-social factor that influences the use of mitigating devices. Unlike Table 4 in which the distribution of mitigating devices by topic was found statistically significant (p=.000), the analysis did not yield statistical significance (p=.123) with respect to the use of the devices according to topic in the therapist’s discourse. Of the 181 devices employed by the therapist, 111 were found to be related to treatment talk, thus leaving empty cells in which many topics were not characterized by elevated uses of mitigating devices. Nonetheless, this numeric value seems to suggest that although the discourse produced by the therapist in this type of motivational interview is limited to backchanneling, questions, and listening techniques, the therapist employed more mitigating devices in instances in which the discourse was generally related to treatment. In sum, at least five micro-social factors mediate the use of mitigating devices: the role of speaker (i.e. client vs. therapist), the type of client (i.e. client x vs. c­ lient  y), the type of interaction (i.e. institutional motivational interviewing), the topic of the propositions being discussed (i.e. depression, treatment, ‘self ’), power relationship (i.e. [-power/-distance]), and the clients’ preference toward indirectness (i.e. cultural concepts that point to dispreferred responses). An underlying discursive factor of ‘type of discourse’ (conflict talk as opposed to non-conflict) is also proposed in this study. These findings therefore suggest that it is plausible to evidence pragmatic variation that is unrelated to macro-social factors. 5.  Discussion In this present chapter, I have chosen to discuss the mitigation strategies and indirect utterances employed by a Cuban therapist and four Dominican clients in MI sessions in which they discuss several conflict-sensitive topics to reveal pragmatic variation at the micro-social level. This section first addresses the findings of the qualitative analysis, followed by the quantitative analysis. In response to the first research question that focused on the type of mitigating devices employed by the speakers, strategic examples were presented in the qualitative analysis that pointed to the use of hedges, bushes, parenthetical verbs,

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

shields, epistemic disclaimers, tag questions, proverbial sayings, diminutives, and indirect propositions like el qué dirán ‘what people will say’ and guardar las apariencias ‘to keep up appearances’ (Placencia 1996). The second research question focused on determining the mitigating devices and differences that are expressed in the clients’ and therapist’s discourse. The qualitative analysis was able to attest to linguistic variation that was mediated by pragmatic needs in the use of the diminutives -ico vs. -ito on behalf of the therapist. This finding remains of significant interest since the alternation of these two morphological endings represents ‘two ways of saying the same thing’ (Labov 1966). Pragmatic variation was also found in the use of forms of address produced in the therapist’s discourse. That is, the qualitative analysis revealed that the clients’ propositions did not exhibit changes in forms of address from formal to informal when they addressed the therapist. This shifting between T/V forms represented ways in which he mediated concerns of solidarity. With respect to the varying use of address forms found in the study, Brown and Levinson (1987) noted that in many languages, the use of T (singular non-honorific pronoun) represents a move toward solidarity. In several instances in the corpus, the therapist used V usted (second person formal pronoun) overtly and covertly. The strategic selection of T/V in the same frame represented ways in which the therapist mitigated the expression to avoid creating offense (Labov & Fanshel 1977). These shifts also point to changes in his identity from an advisory capacity to an equal in the interaction. Namely, the therapist’s power status shifted in several instances to less authoritative ways of speaking in order to motivate his clients to continue speaking about medication and treatment. Thus, the dynamic of shifting the T/V forms represents a deictic-mitigating device that influenced solidarity and distance. Variation was also evidenced in the variable use of overt and null subject pronouns, the pseudo-inclusive first person plural nosotros ‘we’, and uno ‘one’. The ­particular use from generic to specific pronouns was found in the discourse of both the therapist and the clients. When the linguistic structure of each clause permitted several forms in the same competing syntactic slot, we found that the choice to use one over the other was mediated by reducing [-power] and [-­distance], or engaging the hearer. With regard to the use of null subjects, Cuban and Dominican Spanish ­varieties have been reported as having high rates of overt subject pronouns (e.g. ­Flores-Ferrán 2002, 2007). Further, verbs of mental activity tend to be accompanied by overt pronominals (e.g. Silva-Corvalán 1994). Thus in several instances in which a null subjects accompanied verbs of mental activity (i.e. me imagino ‘(I) imagine’), we consider these instances pragmatically motivated. Another explanation can also be provided with regard to null subject use and pseudo-­inclusive pronouns. Halonen (2008) maintains that these switches represent ways in which



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

the ­therapist i­dentifies with a topic, covertly pushes the client to continue, or can dramatize an event. She also notes that a generic referent may serve as “a device by which the therapists can highlight that they are included in the same frame of reference” and “to construct an experience anyone can relate to” (p. 151). Akin to what was documented by Flores-Ferrán (2009) with respect to the use of uno ‘one’, the study also attested to the varying alternations between uno and yo throughout the corpus. These alternations were mediated by pragmatic needs. That is, the clients shifted to the shield uno to refer to themselves in utterances in which they were recruiting the therapist as part of the proposition. Caffi (1999: 905–906) posits that mitigators such as ‘bushes’ weaken the subscription to the proposition; hedges weaken the endorsement of the illocution, and shields are employed to avoid self-ascription. Proverbs were also found in the corpus and, although employed by only several clients and used in a few instances by the therapist, these sayings pointed to ways in which indirectness was bolstered. The qualitative analysis also revealed how references to persons varied, including how the Latino cultural concepts of el qué dirán ‘what others might say’ and guardar las apariencias ‘keep up one’s appearances’ (Placencia 1996) were used by the clients. These concepts were found to intersect with indirect ways of expressing a dispreferred response. The manner in which references to persons are invoked may be suggestive of the emergence of a micro social factor that can be attributed to ways in which dispreferred responses are realized. The third research question addressed the relationship between the use of mitigating devices and the topics discussed. This question relied on the quantitative analysis. The study revealed that there was a significant statistical correlation between the use of mitigating devices and the topics discussed during a session with regard to only the clients’ talk. This finding is not surprising since it is plausible that resistance to treatment (e.g. complaints) could be manifested in utterances related to topics such as medication and treatment. Thus, and following Barron and Schneider (2009), pragmatic variation was found with regard to the ­micro-social variable of ‘topic’ in the use of mitigation and indirectness (see Terkourafi this volume). With respect to the therapist’s discourse, he used mitigators and indirectness throughout the session regardless of the topic of discussion. The quantitative analysis also supported observations made by the qualitative analysis with regard to the redundant uses of como ‘like’ constructions. However, the qualitative analysis revealed the distinct functions of these constructions, one of which is to scaffold as opposed to sending of an indirect or imprecise message. Further, the clients’ uses of como ‘like’ correlated to utterances linked to discomfort, complaints, and conflictive discourse. That is, como indicates uncertainty, and as Caffi (1999) has noted, a bush decreases precision and signifies that a condition is

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán

not fully satisfied. Thus, the use of these constructions in this particular context is considered similar to refusals (Félix-Brasdefer 2008a, 2008b; Márquez Reiter 2009) and it violates one of Grice’s (1975) maxims (i.e. be perspicuous: be clear). Trujillo (1990: 249–251) has also noted that not all como ‘like’ constructions share one meaning. Trujillo affirms that in defining the various uses of como: Esto significa reconocer en primer lugar que cada signo tiene su significado particular que, como tal, no es reducible a ninguna simplificación ni a ningún equivalente ocasional; y, en segundo lugar, que ciertos tipos de combinación son también signos, es decir, formas semánticas, o, dicho más claramente, significados propios y peculiares, y por ello también, intraducibles a equivalentes lógicos, situacionales o reales. ‘This means that we recognize in the first place that every sign has its particular meaning, and as such, it is not limited to one simplified or occasional equivalent; and secondly, that certain types of combinations are signs, that is, semantic forms, or stated more clearly, proper and peculiar definitions that are not translatable with logical, situational or real equivalents.’ (my own translation)  (Trujillo 1990: 249–251)

Como constructions may also serve a secondary function: to scaffold an utterance. That is, the speakers can use these forms to further explain a proposition. In the study, there are instances in which the therapist had asked the client about treatment and the clients responded by recasting the utterance, using these constructions. In sum, the study reveals that pragmatic variation can also be traced to variables unrelated to the macro-social factors such as age, gender, and socio-economic status. Rather, it can be evidenced in the speaker role (i.e. client-therapist) and the topic, and concerns related to power and solidarity. In this institutional context, mitigating strategies were mainly used to voice discomfort, express an unfavorable response, and enhance solidarity, among other goals. Further, the variable use of morphological endings and forms of address were mediated by pragmatic goals. 5.1  Methodological issues The challenges met by a researcher interested in investigating pragmatic variation in institutional discourses are many. The principle concern that emerged here was designing a study that was informed by two major disciplines – linguistics and psychology – and one that had to be informed by several theoretical frameworks (e.g. Motivational Interview Theory and conflict). Further, collecting data in an institutional discursive setting required the approval of two Institutional Review Boards. Finally, a mixed method approach had to be employed in order to capture utterances that were not strictly identified as devices but as indirect utterances (e.g. proverbs).



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

6.  Conclusion Barron and Schneider’s (2009) framework suggests that the aim of pragmatic variation is to determine whether discursive-pragmatic variation, when detected, can be socially or micro-socially stratified (see Terkourafi this volume). This study successfully addressed several micro-social factors that mediated variation. Of the five levels of pragmatic analysis posited by Barron and Schneider (2009: 428), this study identified two: the topic level, the level in which propositions and topic selections were mediated by talk such as depression; and the formal level, in which we found variation in features such as forms of address and references to persons. The study also uncovered the influence of several intra-lingual micro-social factors: the speakers’ role, the type of client, the institutional discourse related to the practice (i.e. motivational interviews), concerns related to solidarity and deference, and cultural concepts (see Blyth [this volume]; Koike [this volume]). Arundale (2006) has noted that “face meanings and actions arise, and are maintained and changed in relationships, as those relationships are conjointly co-constituted with and socially constructed across communicative events” ­ (p. 202). This perspective conceptualizes ‘face’ with an interactional and relational lens rather than looking at it as a one-sided individualistic use of language. In this study, we find that the therapist employed devices relative to his achievement goals of motivating his clients to adhere to treatment (i.e. medication), and the clients also employed devices in ways that responded to the goal of the session, to talk about their progress that, in many instances, was found to be attenuated. Both types of speakers co-constructed indirectness and employed mitigating strategies. Haugh (2007: 85) argues that politeness propositions emerge in conversation not simply as indirect meanings. Rather, they arise from a joint collaborative interaction among speakers; namely, by the interactional achievements of the speaker-hearer dyads. To this end, while the study revealed that the use of mitigating devices and indirect propositions served several pragmatic purposes, the importance of these findings points to how the micro-social factors conditioned mitigation and indirect utterances.

References Amrhein, P., Miller, W., Yahne, C., Palmer, M. & Fulcher, L. 2003. Client language during motivational interviewing predicts drug use outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical ­Psychology 71(5): 862–878. Arundale, R. 2010. Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2078–2105.

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán Arundale, R. 2006. Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 2: 193–216. Barron, A. & Schneider, K. 2009. Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use and interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(4): 425–442. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (eds). 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Bravo, D. 1999. ¿Imagen ‘positiva’ vs. imagen ‘negativa’: Pragmática socio-cultural y c­ omponentes de FACE (‘Positive face vs. negative image: Socio-cultural components regarding FACE’). Oralia 2: 155–184. Bravo, D. & Briz, A. (eds). 2004. Pragmática sociocultural: Estudios sobre el discurso de cortesía en español. (Socio-cultural pragmatics: Studies on politeness discourse in Spanish). Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística. Briz, A. 2004. La cortesía verbal codificada y cortesía verbal interpretada en la conversación (Coded verbal politeness and interpreted verbal politeness in conversation). In Bravo & Briz (eds), 67–92. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. Caffi, C. 2007. Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Caffi, C. 1999. On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 31(7): 881–909. Cordella, M. 2007. “No, no I haven’t been taking it doctor”: Compliance, face threatening acts and politeness in medical consultation. In Linguistic Politeness in the Spanish-Speaking World, M. Placencia & C. García (eds), 191–212. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Delbene, R. 2004. The function of mitigation in the context of a socially stigmatized disease: A case study in a public hospital in Montevideo, Uruguay. Spanish in Context 1: 241–267. Delgado, P., Alegría, M., Cañive, J., Díaz, E., Escobar, J., Kopelowicz, A., Oquendo, M., Ruíz, P. & Vega, W. 2006. Depression and access to treatment among Hispanics. The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry IV(1): 38–46. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2005. Indirectness and politeness in Mexican requests. In Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium, D. Eddington (ed.), 66–78. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press. 〈http://www.lingref.com/cpp/hls/7/〉. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2008a. Sociopragmatic variation: Dispreferred responses in Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Journal of Politeness Research 4: 81–110. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2008b. Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A Contrastive Study of the Realization and Perception of Refusals [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 171]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2010. Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in Mexico City and San José, Costa Rica: A focus on regional differences in female requests. Journal of Pragmatics 42(11): 2992–3011. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2011. Cortesía, prosodia y variación pragmática en las peticiones de estudiantes universitarios mexicanos y dominicanos (Politeness, prosody, and pragmatic variation in requests among Mexican and Dominican university students). In Estudios de ­variación pragmática en español (Studies of pragmatic variation in Spanish), García C. & M.E. Placencia (eds), 57–86. Buenos Aires: Dunken. Firth, R. 1926. Proverbs in native life with special reference to those of the Maori. Folklore 37: 134–153. Flores-Ferrán, N. 2002. A Sociolinguistic Perspective on the Use of Subject Personal Pronouns in Spanish Narratives of Puerto Ricans in New York City. Munich: Lincom.



Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse 

Flores-Ferrán, N. 2007. A bend in the road: Pronominal expression in Spanish after 30 years of sociolinguistic research. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(10): 1–29. Flores-Ferrán, N. 2009. Are you referring to me? The variable use of UNO and YO in oral ­discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 41(9): 1810–1824. Flores-Ferrán, N. 2010. An examination of mitigation strategies used in Spanish psychotherapeutic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1964–1980. Fraser, B. 1980. Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 4: 341–350. García, C. 2007. Ché, mirá, vos sabés que no no voy a poder: How Argentineans refuse an invitation. ‘Ché, look, you know that I won’t be able to…’ Hispania 90(3): 551–564. García, C. 2008. Different realizations of solidarity politeness. Comparing Venezuelan and Argentinean invitations. In Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in ­Pluricentic Languages [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 178], K. Schneider & A. Barron (eds), 269–305. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goffman, E. 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements of social interaction. Psychiatry Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 18(3): 213–231. Grice, H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York NY: Academic Press. Grimshaw, A. 1990. Conflict Talk. Cambridge: CUP. Halonen, M. 2008. Person reference as a device in group therapy. In Conversational Analysis and Psychotherapy, A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen & I. Leuder (eds), 139–152. ­Cambridge: CUP. Haverkate, H. 1990. Politeness and mitigation in Spanish: A morphosyntacticanalysis. In ­University in Diversity. Papers Presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th Birthday, H. Pinkster & I. Genee (eds), 7–131. Dordrecht: Foris. Hernández-Flores, N. 1999. Politeness ideology in Spanish colloquial conversation: The case of advice. Pragmatics 9(1): 1018–2101. Haugh, M. 2007. The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 84–110. Interian, A., Martínez, I., Guarnaccia, P., Vega, W. & Escobar, J. 2007. A qualitative analysis of the perception of stigma among Latinos receiving antidepressants. Psychiatric Services 58: 1591–1594. Jefferson, G. 1988. Notes on a possible metric which provides for a ‘standard maximum’ silence of approximately one second in conversation. In Conversation: An Interdisciplinary ­Perspective, D. Roger & P. Bull (eds), 167–196. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Expanded version in Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 42(1983): 1–83. Jefferson, G. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, G. H. Lerner (ed.), 13–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Koike, D. 1994. Negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests: Mitigating effects. Journal of Pragmatics 21(5): 513–526. Kulik, J. & Carlino, P. 1987. The effect of verbal commitment and treatment choice in medication compliance in a pediatric setting. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 10: 367–378. Labov, W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.

 Nydia Flores-Ferrán Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York NY: Academic Press. Laffal, J. 1987. Concept analysis of language in psychotherapy. In Language in Psychotherapy: Strategies and Discoveries, R. Russell (ed.), 71–106. New York NY: Plenum Press. Leahy, M. 2004. Therapy talk: analyzing therapeutic discourse. Language, Speech, and Hearing in Schools 35: 70–81. Lipski, J. 1994. Latin American Spanish. London: Longman. Márquez Reiter, R. 2002. A contrastive study of conventional indirectness in Spanish: Evidence from Peninsula and Uruguayan Spanish. Pragmatics 12(2): 135–151. Márquez Reiter, R. & Placencia, M. 2005. Spanish Pragmatics. New York NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Márquez Reiter, R., Rainey, I. & Fulcher, G. 2005. A comparative study of certainty and conventional indirectness: Evidence from British English and Peninsular Spanish. Applied ­Linguistics 26(1): 1–31. Márquez Reiter, R. 2009. How to get rid of a telemarketing agent? Facework strategies in an intercultural service call. In Face, Communication and Interaction, F. Bargiella-Chiappini & M. Haugh (eds), 55–77. London: Equinox. Miller, W. & Rollnick, S. 2002. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change. New York NY: Guilford Press. Mondada, L. 1998. Therapy interactions: Specific genre or “blown up” version of ordinary conversational practices. Pragmatics 8(2): 155–165. Murillo Medrano, J. 2002. La cortesía verbal en el español de Costa Rica (Oral courtesy in Costa Rican Spanish). Kañina XXVI(2): 109–118. Orwenjo, D.O. 2009. Political grandstanding and the use of proverbs in African political discourse. Discourse & Society 20(1): 123–146. Otheguy, R., Zentella, A. & Livert, D. 2007. Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Toward the formation of a speech community. Language 83(4): 770–802. Placencia, M.E. 1996. Politeness in Ecuadorian Spanish. Multilingua 15(1): 13–34. Schegloff, Emanuel. 1993. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language in Social Interaction 25(1): 99–128. Schneider, S. 1994. Pragmatic functions of Spanish parenthetical verbs. In Current Trends in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics, P. Garcés Conejos, R. Gómez Morón, A. Fernández & L.M. Padilla Cruz (eds), 37–52. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla – Research group of Intercultural Pragmatic Studies. Seitel, P. 1972. Proverbs and the Structure of Metaphor among the Haya of Tanzania. Ph.D. ­dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Silva-Corvalán, C. 1994. Language Contact and Change. Oxford: OUP. Trujillo, R. 1990. Sobre la explicación de algunas construcciones de como (About some explanations regarding como constructions). Verba 18: 249–266. Urmson, J.O. 1952. Parenthetical verbs. Mind 61: 480–496. Van Wormer, K. 2007. Principles of motivational interviewing geared towards stages of change: A pedagogical challenge. The Journal of Teaching Social Work 27(1–2): 21–35. Watts, R. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: CUP.

chapter 4

Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables English as a Lingua Franca of Practice in China Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer

University of Wisconsin, USA / University of Florida, USA This study analyzes Mandarin speakers’ disagreement behavior in English as a Lingua Franca of Practice (ELFP) at “English Corners” in a Mainland China city. It focuses on the extent of participants’ disagreement behavior covariation with seven sociolinguistic variables. Qualitative and quantitative measures are used: interactional sociolinguistics to examine the verbal/nonverbal features of the disagreement behavior of ELFP speakers; and Chi-square tests to examine the correlation between disagreement behavior and the variables. Results show that strong disagreement dominated weak disagreement. The frequency of strong/ weak disagreement appeared to have a marginally significant correlation with age. However, ELFP speakers’ priorities of improving communication in English may function to level out other variable differences.

1.  Introduction This study is an analysis of the speech behavior commonly known as ‘disagreement’ in a variety of English used in China. We study how Mandarin speakers use disagreement in what we term here, ‘ELFP’: English as a Lingua Franca of Practice. The English language is not technically a lingua franca in these contexts because all interlocutors have Mandarin as their common language. Rather, English is employed for the purposes of practicing language skills. The use of the world’s lingua franca, English, enables them to increase oral fluency; however, we demonstrate that because these users have little face-to-face interaction with English L1 speakers outside of China, the norms of interaction vary greatly from what may be deemed as pragmatically appropriate in most native-speaking varieties of E ­ nglish.1 1.  Zhu (2010) found distinctive features of ELFP that differ from native-speaking varieties of English. These included other speech behaviors such as greetings and compliments.

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer

This is clearly illustrated by the manner in which disagreement is employed by ELFP speakers in China (Zhu 2010). It is now widely agreed that transnationalism and globalization (e.g. ­Kearney 1995) have facilitated the spread of English worldwide. Debates have abounded among linguists and others on how to refer to this phenomenon: World Englishes (Kachru 1992), English as an International Language (McKay 2002), English as a Global Language (Crystal 1997, 2003), or English as a L ­ ingua Franca (Firth 1996; Jenkins 2006; Seidlhofer 2001, 2004, 2005). English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) was initially defined as a foreign language of communication employed by people who do not share a common language or culture (Firth 1996). The concept was later expanded (e.g. Seidlhofer 2004, 2005) to include speakers in the Outer and the Inner Circles (Kachru 1992). This definition, however, still cannot apply to the variety of English as a foreign language of communication (for language practice) spoken by people who already share a common language or culture. Because of this shortcoming, we assert that the features of this unique variety of English are better captured by the concept of ELFP. Our analysis focuses on disagreement as a speech act/event in this ELFP data because it emerged as a salient pragmatic feature that differed in striking ways from the typical way that disagreement is realized among native speakers of E ­ nglish in ordinary social interaction. To understand why disagreement stood out as salient, it is necessary to examine the sociolinguistic variables characterizing the speakers who expressed disagreement in a salient way and whether these variables were significantly correlated with their disagreement behavior. In this paper, Section 1 is a general introduction to the study; Section 2 provides background information about English in China; Section 3 discusses previous research on disagreement and sociolinguistic variables; Section 4 introduces the research methods employed for this study; Section 5 presents and analyzes the results of the study; Section 6 discusses methodological issues; Section 7 provides pedagogical implications; and Section 8 presents conclusions. 2.  English in China English is considered the most important foreign language in Mainland China owing to its role in global economic development. Chinese L1 speakers have realized the need to catch up with the outside world through English. This situation has triggered a great boom in English education across the country. The rapid pace at which English education has been growing can be demonstrated by the complete transition from English as a mandatory course only in secondary and



Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables 

tertiary education to English as a mandatory course at all levels of education, including elementary schools (Ministry of Education of China 2001).2 By the time they complete their college education, many Chinese L1 speakers will have had a history of studying English for at least ten years. Unfortunately, studying English in the classroom setting for a decade does not ensure that learners can communicate in English fluently. First, they do not have many opportunities to speak English in the ­Chinese-dominated environment. Second, there is a paucity of input from interaction with English L1 speakers.3 However, highly motivated Chinese users of English have managed to gather at English Corners, which are locations where they can hold informal conversations in English on a variety of topics for the purposes of language practice.4 English Corners are typically located in colleges or parks in a city. English Corners in colleges tend to be organized by faculty and students of English departments and are open to every learner of English during regular semesters. English Corners in parks are not formally organized; they are open and free to anyone in the Chinese community who is motivated to take a bus, ride a bicycle, or even walk to join the community and speak English sometimes for hours at a time. At English Corners, Chinese speakers of English feel free to discuss issues of interest, share worldviews/personal experiences, seek specific information, or socialize with others in English. They may be preparing themselves for graduate study in a foreign country where English is the medium of education, seeking opportunities to practice speaking English in order to improve their readiness for business negotiations with westerners, or simply enjoying chatting in English and passing time as a way of getting away from work. 3.  Theoretical framework 3.1  Disagreement Studies examining the language of disagreement among English L1 speakers (e.g.  Leech 1983; Brown & Levinson 1987) have observed that, at least 2.  Even before the national policy of making English a mandatory course at all levels of education took effect in China, many schools, including elementary schools, had required students to take English classes. 3.  It is true that people in China have been exposed to English-speaking media, but they have very few opportunities to have face-to-face interaction with English L1 speakers. 4.  When and how exactly the first English Corner started remains unclear, despite our best efforts to ascertain this information.

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer

in cases where self-deprecation is not an issue,5 English L1 speakers tend to use hedges, make concessions or provide partial agreement before ­presenting ­disagreement. This type of weak disagreement is preferred to strong disagreement where “a conversant utters an evaluation which is directly contrastive with the prior ­evaluation” (Pomerantz 1984: 74). Excerpts (1) and (2) are  respectively ­examples of weak disagreement and strong disagreement from P ­ omerantz 6 (1984). (1) (NB: IV: 11.-1) (Pomerantz 1984: 70) A: God izn it dreary. (0.6) Y’know I don’t think → B: ‘hh It’s warm though. (2) (SBL: 2.2.3.-15) A: …I feel like uh her and I play alike hehh → B: No. You play beautifully.

(Pomerantz 1984: 84)

In the first example, speaker B prefaces disagreement with speaker A’ s evaluation with a hedge ‘hh’, in the form of inbreaths. The hedge makes the disagreement weak and more acceptable to speaker A. In the second example, speaker B directly disagrees with speaker A’ s self-deprecation with No. This type of strong disagreement seems very typical in cases of self-deprecation. Pomerantz (1984) did not provide any examples of strong disagreement in non-self-deprecation cases because she argued that people tend to soften strong disagreement in those cases. Strong disagreement is dispreferred and minimized in Pomerantz’s (1984) assessment pairs because it comes across as rude, difficult, and even offensive. A disagreement would either be left unsaid or be prefaced by weak agreement. Likewise, studies on Chinese interaction have shown opt-out or weak disagreement to be favored by Chinese L1 speakers for the purposes of maintaining harmony (Bond 1986; Ting-Toomey 1988) or avoiding confrontation with people of higher status (Du 1995; Liu 2004; Pan 2000). Conversely, some research on other ethnolinguistic groups (e.g. Jewish, Greek), has shown that disagreement may actually function to build solidarity (Katriel 1986; Schiffrin 1984; Kakava 2002) or create collaborative perspectives (Georgakopoulou 2001). Relatively few studies have addressed disagreement behavior among E ­ nglish L2 speakers. While research on Japanese EFL students has shown that they tend

5.  Pomerantz (1984) found that after a self-deprecation, people tend to express disagreement strongly because it is preferred. In the case of non self-deprecation, weak disagreement is often used because it is more acceptable. 6.  It should be noted that Pomerantz (1984) was a CA (Conversation Analytic) study of native speakers of English.



Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables 

to opt out of producing disagreement due to pressure from status differences (Beebe & Takahashi 1989a; Pearson 1986; Walkinshaw 2007), some studies highlight the bald directness of other ESL learners (e.g. Habib 2008; Kakava 1995). In general, ESL students from various linguistic backgrounds have been found to employ strong disagreement without agreement components (e.g. Kreutel 2007; Salsbury & Bardovi-Harlig 2000, 2001); however, as they gain proficiency, they learn to use partial agreement or hedges and to postpone disagreement (­Bardovi-Harlig & Salsbury 2004). This has been considered as progress in pragmatic development. Users of English in places where there is little contact with native speaker norms have few opportunities for such progress. China, where English is a foreign language, is one prime example. In China, the most that L2 English learners can do to progress along a hypothetical interlanguage pragmatics continuum is to participate in communities where they ‘practice’ speaking the language without the positive or negative evidence from native speakers that is so critical for pragmatic development. 3.2  Sociolinguistic variables and disagreement As with all speech behavior, disagreement is affected and constrained by sociolinguistic variables. For instance, it is generally known that across many societies and ethnolinguistic groups, lower status interlocutors tend toward agreement and avoid frequent and intense dispreferred utterances; higher status interlocutors, by virtue of relative power, tend to initiate topic changes, control the direction of the conversation (Holtgraves 2005), and disagree more directly (Locher 2004). The important role of social status is reflected especially in Japanese speakers’ interaction (Beebe & Takahashi 1989b; Beebe, Takahashi & Uliss-Weltz 1990; Takahashi 1993; Walkinshaw 2007). To take this as evidence applicable to Chinese would be a dangerous assumption that Confucian values concerning social hierarchy are universal among Asian societies. We really know less about Chinese speakers’ interactions vis à vis the social status variable. Empirical evidence from spontaneous speech is needed to test the belief that societies based on Confucian values universally view social status in similar ways. Social status is, of course, confounded by the social distance variable. That is, status differences can be greatly diminished or increased by closeness or distance. Wolfson’s (1989) Bulge Theory posited that in speech acts including requests, compliments, refusals, disapprovals and apologies, intimates use the same politeness patterns as status-unequals and strangers, whereas non-intimates such as ­status-equal friends and acquaintances use similar politeness patterns. Other ­studies have yielded similar results (e.g. Beebe 1985; D’Amico-Reisner 1983),

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer

i­ndicating a clear correlation between direct disapproval and social distance on both the intimates and stranger ends of the social distance continuum. Nevertheless, Boxer (1993a) found that strangers and intimates exhibit disparate behavior for both indirect complaint and indirect complaint responses. People are more direct with those closest to them than with others. This indicates that Wolfson’s Bulge shape may be actually skewed, at least for L1 speakers. The participants in our ELFP data can be considered as friends, acquaintances or strangers who have a reason to want to converse, but in their L2. Given this confounding of contextual factors, social distance is worth examining. In addition to social status and social distance, the relationship between sex and speech behavior (Lakoff 2010) has been widely examined across ­English-speaking as well as other societies (e.g. Boxer 1993b; Brown 1980; Holmes 1990). Recently, however, gender and language scholars (e.g. Mills 2003) have argued strenuously against stereotypes of sex and politeness. According to Mills, the traditional views that women are more indirect, polite, cooperative, and conflict-avoidant are based on the assumption that women are socially and linguistically powerless. In real-life situations, women can be as direct, assertive, impolite and powerful as men. It is important to take into account other social factors when analyzing the role of sex in speech act performance in specific contexts. Another sociolinguistic variable of potential importance is that of age, which is particularly true in some societies where age entails increased deference and demeanor (e.g. Cook 1990; Ervin-Tripp 1982; Goffman 1956). Children at a certain age are very sensitive to degree of imposition in making a request (Gordon & Ervin-Tripp 1984). Blum-Kulka, Danet & Gerson (1985) found that both Israeli children and adults vary the indirectness of their requests according to the age and social status of the addressee. Goodwin (1983) also observed that when American children attempt to achieve aggravated disagreement, they use “intonation contours, turn shapes and patterning in sequences of talk to display rather than put off the expression of opposition” (p. 675). This differs from adults’ preference for agreement and dispreference for disagreement (e.g. Pomerantz 1984). Educational attainment is a sociolinguistic variable that has been sparsely studied, in part due to confusion between educational level and L2 proficiency. Educational level typically refers to highest degree or number of years of schooling as opposed to attainment in the English language. While interlanguage pragmatics research has tended to consider proficiency levels in the L2, few studies have overtly looked into the relationship between the variable of education and pragmatic attainment. This is indeed the case for research on disagreement. Language users may have a high educational attainment in their L1 but a low proficiency in L2. Therefore, it is erroneous to equate L2 proficiency and educational attainment.



Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables 

We address the sociolinguistic variable of educational attainment in the present research. 3.3  Sociolinguistic variables and ELFP To say that Mandarin Chinese speakers have difficulty acquiring pragmatic competence in English would indeed be an understatement. As with all L1 speakers, the root of the issue is that patterns of speech act performance reflect social conditions where the L1 is spoken. This is particularly true for the Chinese, whose speech behavior is severely constrained by the social hierarchy of Mainland China. Scollon & Scollon (1991, 1994) divided complex relationships in Asian countries, including China, into two categories: (1) inside relationships, and (2) outside relationships. Inside relationships include people sharing experiences at the same school, town, or workplace. Outside relationships are temporary relationships with strangers and in service encounters such as with sales personnel, bank tellers, and taxi drivers. However, these relationships were not so clear-cut for the ELFP speakers in this study because most of them did not have inside relationships. These users started to build common experiences at the English Corner. Only a few might share experiences outside this setting, but they tended to speak English with people they did not know outside the English Corner. Therefore, inside and outside relationships as sociolinguistic variables were not as distinctive as social distance in this study. Since Chinese interlocutors have traditionally been very conscious of their place in society, it is important to highlight here the social factors that affect their speech act realization. Du (1995) examined the realization in Chinese of three face-threatening acts – complaining, giving bad news, and disagreeing – using a production questionnaire. The results showed that college students avoid complaints that might damage hearers’ face, they give hints for conveying bad news to reduce its severity, and they express disagreement indirectly in order to avoid confrontation when hearers have higher social status/power. More recently, Liu (2004), in a study employing discourse completion tasks (DCTs), found the role of social status/power critical in interlocutors’ disagreement behavior. The two studies demonstrate how social status constrains the interaction between and among Chinese interlocutors in formal, academic settings. However, research results based on questionnaires and DCTs do not necessarily concur with those of naturally occurring conversations in informal ­non-familial settings. Zhu (2010) examined the interactional features of non-familial Mandarin speakers in informal conversations in a southeastern city of Mainland China. One of the salient features that emerged in approximately 97 hours of conversations in Mandarin was that strong disagreement significantly outnumbered

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer

weak ­disagreement. These results run counter to those of previous studies (e.g. ­Cardon & Scott 2003; Chen 1993; Chen & Chung 1993; Sheer & Chen 2003) that argued that Chinese people in general tend to communicate indirectly to avoid confrontation and maintain harmonious interpersonal relationships. In terms of choice of orientation for strong disagreement, Zhu (2010) ­uncovered three types of disagreement foci in Mandarin conversations:7 (1) issue-oriented negation; (2) self-oriented negation; and (3) other-oriented negation. ­Issue-oriented negation was found to outnumber self-oriented negation and other-oriented negation significantly. The Mandarin speakers in the study did not seem to take offense at these disagreement strategies. Instead, they made full use of the strategies for such functions as perspective sharing, solidarity building, information giving, suggesting, modesty display, self-defense, and joking accusation.8 These functions also appeared in ELFP conversations (Zhu 2010). The frequency of the participants’ use of strong and weak disagreement expressions and that of their choice of orientation for strong disagreement were also examined through Chi-square tests for possible correlations with seven sociolinguistic variables, including age, sex, education, ability to speak English, experience in English-speaking countries, socioeconomic status/income, and social distance. Except for the variable of ability to speak English, the other six variables were also tested in this study. 3.4  The context The present paper focuses on whether and to what extent the disagreement behavior of Chinese users of English, (ELFP speakers at English Corners, in this case), co-varies with seven sociolinguistic variables: (1) age, (2) sex, (3) education, (4) years of studying English, (5) experience in English-speaking countries, (6) socioeconomic status/income, and (7) social distance. Data are derived from 62 ELFP speakers. The participants were strangers, acquaintances, or friends who did not have political/administrative power over one another that would have made a big difference at workplaces. They conversed about everyday topics in informal, non-familial settings. Their social interaction differs greatly from the kinds of

7.  This categorization is in reference to types of indirect complaint themes (Boxer 1993b). Issue-oriented negation refers to disagreement oriented toward an issue under discussion; self-oriented negation happens when disagreement is oriented toward oneself; other-oriented negation means that the speaker orients disagreement toward the addressee, which can sound very face-threatening. Please see the section of Findings for specific examples. 8.  An example of joking accusation from Atkinson & DePalma (2008) is: A teacher said “I know you love each other, really” to enforce classroom order when two boys were just messing around and play-fighting under the table.



Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables 

interactions that occur in business, official, or academic settings where political/ administrative status or power difference is obvious and critical. Although power difference as an indicator of social status is not apparent for the ELFP context where outside relationships prevail, another indicator of social status, which is socioeconomic status/income, can be important. Therefore, in this study, sex, age, education, and socioeconomic status/income are considered. Social distance is also considered due to its important role in conversational interaction. Education is indicated by whether participants have earned a bachelor’s degree or not. Most Chinese parents feel obligated to pay for children’s undergraduate study if they have the financial capability. A bachelor’s degree is what most Chinese parents want for their children since it is one of the indicators for independence and good job opportunities. Experience in English-speaking countries is indicated by whether participants have been to English-speaking countries or not. Although the length of stay abroad could also be important, 82% of the participants did not even have the opportunity to go abroad due to high cost and difficulty of obtaining a visa. Social distance refers to three discrete point relationships between interlocutors: friends, acquaintances, and strangers.9 Socioeconomic status is indicated by participants’ income levels compared with local living expenses. It was explained by the first author to the participants and self-reported by the participants in questionnaires.10 Children or young adults between ages 10 to 19 were all chaperoned at the English Corner by one of their parents; these participants’ socioeconomic status was reported by their parents. However, language proficiency tests were not administered because of the fluid nature of ELFP communities. ELFP speakers showed up to join the communities and practice speaking English or socialize at unpredictable times at their free will. Those whose conversations were videotaped on the first day of data collection might not come to the English Corner in the following days of data collection. Hence, it was more possible to capture natural conversations among different ELFP speakers than among the same ELFP speakers, making it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain proficiency levels based on test scores.

9.  Since social distance is a continuum with varying relationship, discrete points are somewhat artificial. Nonetheless, for categorization and quantification, we have isolated these three discrete points. 10.  Although there used to be a tendency of modesty in China in identifying one’s economic status, things have changed with the development of the economy. People seem to take pride in being able to make money and feel comfortable disclosing how much they really earn.

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer

4.  Method Our data derive from a larger research project (Zhu 2010) on the interactional features of Mandarin and English spoken by Chinese L1 speakers.11 Data for this study were transcribed in accordance with Schiffrin’s (1987) conventions (Appendix A). In the analysis of data from English Corners, the use of strong disagreement was salient and striking, evidencing bald-on-record speech (Brown & Levinson 1987) that differed greatly from what is generally deemed appropriate among native speakers of most English speech communities. The study employs interactional sociolinguistic methods to analyze the disagreement behavior of ELFP speakers that occurred in 48 hours, 46 minutes, and 28 seconds of video-taped natural conversations. Because interactional sociolinguistics studies both the verbal and nonverbal features of conversations, taking the two aspects together greatly aids in decoding disagreement behavior. Through close analysis of audio and visual aspects, we were able to ascertain the differences between weak disagreement and strong disagreement in issue-oriented negation, self-oriented negation, and other-oriented negation in non-self-deprecation cases. The qualitative analysis is complemented by Chi-square tests to examine quantitatively the correlation between disagreement behavior and the seven sociolinguistic variables. The participants’ disagreement behavior was not predetermined as the object of inquiry. Rather, it emerged as one of the most salient interactional features in the ELFP interactions. In addition, questionnaires were administered after videotaping to collect the demographic information of all the participants who consented to being recorded (Appendix B). Data are derived from ELFP interactional conversations at two English ­Corners in a southeastern city of Mainland China. One of the English Corners is located in a big city park built around a lake. The park, open to anyone free of charge anytime, is always crowded with elders who chat with friends while taking a walk, middle-aged people who sing or dance for fun, and children who run around or take rides in a small, built-in amusement park. Between the amusement park and the lake are a hill and some open space covered with a few trees. ELFP speakers come to meet roughly between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays if they wish. The other English Corner, located on a playground of a teachers’ college, welcomes its visitors roughly between 7 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on Thursdays. It started out as an organized activity of the English Department of the college in fall and spring semesters, but has become

11.  The larger research project was partially funded by Language Learning – A Journal of Research in Language Studies.



Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables 

an expected event of ELFP speakers even when the college is closed for summer or winter holidays. Both English Corners have survived for decades due to persistent interest among ELFP speakers. Even if some cannot make it to English Corners one day, there are always newcomers to fill in. Thus despite the fact that these communities of practice have endured over time, they are fluid in participant structure. Natural ELFP conversations from these communities of practice were videotaped three times a week in the summers of 2008 and 2009. Prior to taping, the first author made efforts to make a few friends at both settings. This led to introductions to other members of the communities, which in turn helped greatly to prevent the face threatening effect of being videotaped by a complete stranger. After making herself familiar, she walked around the English Corners and joined ongoing conversations. The interlocutors were at times surrounded by peripheral members who stood nearby, listened quietly, or chimed in occasionally. At all times, at least one of the interlocutors was an acquaintance. This opened up the opportunity to explain the research project and ask interlocutors for permission to videotape their conversations. The data consist of 48 hours 46 minutes and 28 seconds of natural conversations in ELFP involving 117 interlocutors of different social backgrounds. However, only 62 interlocutors were ultimately deemed appropriate participants for this study; this was due to the random formation of conversation groups at the English Corners and mostly unfocused conversational content. The conversation groups tended to have different participants at different times of each E ­ nglish-Corner day because ELFP speakers often joined the conversations they were interested in and left other interlocutors talking whenever they had to go. The conversational content varied in accordance with the interlocutors who decided to stay and continue the conversations. As a result of this fluidity in participation structure, 55 interlocutors contributed so minimally to the collected conversations that it was impossible to analyze their speech behavior; the remaining 62 interlocutors became the focus of this part of the study due to their sufficient contribution to the data of conversations. Table 1 shows the general demographic information of these 62 participants that include six constant variables. Table 1 does not reflect the variable of social distance because this variable among interlocutors is relative and fluid rather than constant and fixed due to the nature of the communities of practice at English Corners. A first speaker can be an acquaintance of a second speaker but a stranger to a third speaker in the same conversation. When counting disagreement expressions, the relationship between the speaker and the target addressee is considered to examine its association with participants’ disagreement behavior. In the following section, the social distance of the interlocutors in the provided examples is discussed because it plays an important role in how disagreement is expressed.

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer

Table 1.  Sixty-two participants at English corners in China Sociolinguistic variables Age

Sex Education/Degree Years of studying English Experience in English-speaking countries Socioeconomic status/Income

Number of participants 10–19

18

20–29

33

30–39

5

40–49

6

Male

35

Female

27

Below Bachelor’s

29

At least Bachelor’s

33

3–9 years

34

At least 10 years

28

Never been abroad

51

At least once

11

Low

40

Middle

19

High

3

5.  Results The study revealed that the participants in this study employed 442 tokens of strong disagreement (91.89% of the total disagreement expressions), but only 39 tokens of weak disagreement (8.11% of the total disagreement expressions).12 Excerpt (3) is an example of how weak disagreement is expressed by Chinese speakers of E ­ nglish. Wang and Hua were female strangers who talked about Yoga. Wang disagrees with Hua on the difficulty of Yoga indirectly with a concession at the beginning of line 1739. (3) (From EngCorn2008-8) 1737 Wang: I think yoga, yoga is, uh, uh, an activity which different people can take part in, uh, the old, the young, uh, as well as young men and women, but usually women.

12.  The judgments were discussed with a Chinese teacher of college English in the city of data collection.



1738 → 1739

Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables 

Hua: It’s not that easy, very difficult. Wang: Yeah, but also not that difficult, because you are not ­required to, to do, to extend yourself much, you can just, uh, exert yourself, whatever, uh, you can exert, then it’s ok, there’s no need for you to, to reach a standard.

There undoubtedly are varying degrees of ‘weak’ on a continuum of weak to strong disagreement. However, for the purposes of this study, we take weak disagreement as a discrete category that aligns with the notion of Chinese indirectness. Compared with weak disagreement, strong disagreement appeared to be salient in the ELFP data due to the overwhelming number of times it appeared. Strong disagreement is not prefaced by hedges, concessions, and partial disagreement. This study categorizes strong disagreement into issue-oriented negation, self-oriented negation, and other-oriented negation in reference to types of indirect complaint themes (Boxer 1993b). The following are examples of the three types of strong disagreement that emerged in the data. Issue-oriented negation refers to disagreement oriented toward an issue under discussion. In Excerpt 4, Pan, a male, and Ye, a female, were friends. Pan makes a point that he does like traveling by negating Ye’s statement (line 35). The negation orients toward the issue of whether Pan likes traveling or not. (4) (From Cai4) 33 Pan: Also I knew Wanli district. But I have never been to the picnic spot. 34 Ye: You don’t like some travel. → 35 Pan: But I like traveling.

Self-oriented negation happens when disagreement is oriented toward oneself. In Excerpt 5, the interlocutors were male acquaintances who had met a few times at the English Corner. In line 180, Bei initiates his disagreement from his point of view that English is important for graduate students like him who have to do research in English. (5) (From EngCorn B) 177 Den: Excuse me. If China we have so many famous person say China doesn’t need English, so I don’t want to say learning English any more. 178 Jing: No, no, no. 179 Den: Yes. → 180 Bei: No, no, no. I don’t agree with you.

Other-oriented negation means that the speaker orients disagreement toward the addressee, which can sound face-threatening. In Excerpt (6), Feixian and Song were male strangers. In line 106, Feixian strongly disagrees with Song regarding

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer

whether there is information about job positions on the internet. The disagreement directly orients toward Song. (6) (From EngCorn2008-3) 105 Song: So so but actually I think the position on the internet is very little. So you said you and your classmates join together to find [an opportunity]. → 106 Feixian: [No. You don’t know] the exact yeah you don’t know the yeah you don’t know. There are so many information about positions in the hey three w dot 〈江西人才网站〉 dot com.13 Yeah. There are so many positions and we want to do something just like ­teaching or marketing yeah some (interrupted)

To ascertain possible correlations of strong/weak disagreement with the sociolinguistic variables, we ran Chi-square statistical tests. The percentages of strong disagreement expressions used by participants of varying backgrounds are much higher than those of weak disagreement expressions (see Table 2). Table 2.  Percentages of disagreement expressions in ELFP Sociolinguistic variables

Age

Sex Education/Degree

Years of studying English

10–19

Percentage of weak disagreement

96.08%

3.92%

20–29

91%

9%

30–39

88.67%

11.33%

40–49

97.5%

2.5%

Female

89.92%

10.08%

Male

93.83%

6.17%

Below bachelor’s

91.3%

8.7%

At least bachelor’s

92.08%

7.92%

3–9 years

91.6%

8.4%

92%

8%

92.89%

7.11%

At least 10 years Experience in Englishspeaking countries

Percentage of strong disagreement

Never been abroad

(Continued) 13.  This is the name of a Chinese website which literally means “Jiangxi Talent Website”. It looks like Feixian had difficulty translating the name of the website into English, so he chose to say it in Chinese instead.



Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables 

Table 2.  (Continued) Sociolinguistic variables

At least once Socioeconomic status/Income

Social distance

Percentage of strong disagreement

Percentage of weak disagreement

90.91%

9.09%

Low

91.14%

8.86%

Middle

91.54%

8.46%

High

95.24%

4.76%

Stranger

91.07%

8.93%

Acquaintance

93.37%

6.63%

90%

10%

Friend

The high frequency of strong disagreement does not necessarily entail a significant correlation between participants’ disagreement behavior and the sociolinguistic variables. The Chi-square tests show that the P-values of sex, education, years of studying English, experience in English-speaking countries, socioeconomic status, and social distance are, respectively, 0.1161, 0.7913, 0.8871, 0.4268, 0.5739 and 0.6441, much greater than the P = 0.05 level.14 This suggests that the frequency of strong/weak disagreement is not significantly correlated with these six variables. However, the test result for the age variable yielded a P-value slightly greater than 0.05 but smaller than 0.1 (P = 0.0757), indicating the marginal significance of age to the frequency of strong/weak disagreement. Moreover, the ELFP speakers used 307 tokens of issue-oriented strong ­disagreement, 121 tokens of self-oriented strong disagreement, and 14 tokens of other-oriented strong disagreement (see Table 3). ELFP speakers seemed to use more issue-oriented negation, less self-oriented negation and even less other-oriented negation. However, the high frequency of issue-oriented negation does not necessarily entail a significant correlation with sociolinguistic variables. Chi-square tests showed no significant correlation between the seven sociolinguistic variables and ELFP speakers’ choices of strong disagreement with different orientations. All seven P-values are much greater than 0.05.15 Note that before running Chi-square tests, tokens of self-oriented negation, and other-oriented negation were joined together as person-oriented negation because of the extremely low production of these two types of strong disagreement.

14.  The observed significance level (P-value) in this study is less than 0.05. 15.  The P-values for age, sex, education, years of studying English, experience in Englishspeaking countries, socioeconomic status and social distance are as follows: 0.7901, 0.9404, 0.4771, 0.7013, 0.4319, 0.2685, and 0.4230, respectively.

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer

Table 3.  Percentages of differently oriented strong disagreement in ELFP Sociolinguistic variables

Age

Sex Education/Degree

Years of studying English

Experience in English-speaking countries Socioeconomic status/Income

Social distance

Percentage of issue-oriented negation (307 tokens)

10–19

Percentage of person-oriented negation

Percentage of person-oriented negation

Self-oriented negation (121 tokens)

Other-oriented negation (14 tokens)

63.27%

32.65%

4.08%

20–29

70.33%

27.47%

2.2%

30–39

70.68%

24.81%

4.51%

40–49

69.23%

28.21%

2.56%

Female

69.63%

26.63%

3.74%

Male

69.3%

28.07%

2.63%

Below bachelor’s

66.67%

29.52%

3.81%

At least bachelor’s

70.33%

26.71%

2.96%

3–9 years

70.83%

25.83%

3.34%

At least 10 years

68.94%

27.95%

3.11%

Never been abroad

71.17%

25.68%

3.15%

At least once

67.73%

29.09%

3.18%

Low

68.75%

28.47%

2.78%

Middle

67.65%

28.99%

3.36%

High

78.33%

18.3%

3.34%

Stranger

68.63%

27.45%

3.92%

Acquaintance

69.23%

28.4%

2.37%

Friend

83.33%

16.67%

0%

6.  Discussion The results of this study indicate that participants in the ELFP communities tend toward strong disagreement strategies because the percentages of using strong disagreement are overwhelmingly higher than those of weak disagreement. It is



Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables 

l­ogical to think that this pattern might be due to the fact that the participants perceive the English-Corner experience as language practice where disagreement elicits more conversation.16 This hypothesis needs to be verified by follow-up interviews with the participants. Meanwhile, it is important to point out that the findings for the participants’ English use match Zhu’s (2010) findings on Mandarin speakers’ disagreement behavior that revealed the same tendency and similar strategies. Thus there is indication of possible pragmatic transfer at work from Mandarin norms to ELFP use. Pragmatic transfer might occur more in low proficiency L2 learners (Rose 2000). On the other hand, high proficiency L2 speakers may choose to preserve L1 pragmatics even when they communicate in L2 (Habib 2008). Although all these hypotheses need more empirical evidence and thorough research (Kreutel 2007), it is possible that the ELFP speakers in this study might not be conscious of how they behaved pragmatically when speaking English because it took them some effort to produce English words and sentences in order to engage in the conversations. Language production seemed to have attracted more attention than the pragmatic aspects of English, of which some participants might not even have knowledge. Lack of awareness of the differences between L1 and L2 pragmatics might also have caused L2 speakers to resort to L1 pragmatics in their social interaction in L2. It has already been observed in studies on Chinese users of English conducting business negotiations with English L1 speakers (e.g. Cardon & Scott 2003). The participants in the studies appeared to start negotiations with an introduction to the great history of China, the economic glory of China, the importance of technology or culture exchange between China and the U.S., eventually leading to the business at hand. They were inclined to employ inductive reasoning in ­cross-cultural business meetings, which, while perfectly normal and acceptable to them, unfortunately perplexed American interlocutors and stalled negotiations (Sheer & Chen 2003). Outside of the business sphere, Chinese L1 norms seem to appear in L2 ­pragmatics as well. To take some examples, Li, Zhu & Li (2001) examined how harmony maintenance, a typical Chinese cultural value, becomes transferred into cross-cultural communication in English. Eisenstein & Bodman (1986) noticed 16.  Although it might be possible that everyday conversation topics of a mundane nature might demand less of interlocutors’ effort to frame disagreement, sensitive topics with ­conflict of interest tend to elicit more strong and direct disagreement because interlocutors can become emotionally involved. Therefore, the mundane nature of everyday topics is not considered one of the possible reasons for the participants’ overwhelming use of strong disagreement in this study.

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer

a deviation from English L1 pragmatics in terms of gratitude expressions produced by Chinese learners of English. Qu & Wang (2005), Liu (1995), and Yuan (1996) examined Chinese L1 speakers’ responses to compliments in English. They observed that the traditional cultural value of being modest is transferred into the target language and thus causes some communication problems. Yeung (1997) and Cook & Liddicoat (2002) found that Chinese learners of English use Chinese L1 norms when making requests in English. Therefore, it may not be surprising to find both Mandarin and ELFP speakers used significantly more tokens of strong disagreement than weak disagreement. Our participants’ preference for strong disagreement runs contrary to findings of previous research, much of which has found that Chinese users of ­English are indirect. It is widely agreed (e.g. Chen 1993; Chen & Chung 1993) that Confucianism has an enormous influence on the Chinese collectivist culture, Chinese people’s thought patterns, and the ideals of human relationships. It is believed that these values have led to the indirect communication style of Chinese people in social interactions and other domains. Similar findings occur in workplace communication as well. In job interviews with English L1 speakers, for example, Wong & Phool-Ching (2000) found Chinese interviewees to be unassertive, ­self-deprecating, indirect, not confident, and unfit for business management. ­Morris et al. (1998) noted that Chinese managers tend to avoid conflicts because of the relatively high value placed on conformity and tradition. In the educational domain, González, Chen & Sánchez (2001) observed that Chinese learners of ­English tend to remain indirect when writing in English by circling around a topic, which is less clear and more confusing to English L1 speakers. The findings of the current study may reflect changes in Chinese people’s beliefs, thus resulting in change over time in behavior and language. It has been argued that the wealthier a society becomes, the more individualistic the outlook of its people becomes (Triandis 1995). It may well be the case that with the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, Chinese culture is taking on a more western value system. For example, as early as 1995, Garrott found that Chinese college students placed Confucian values like collectivism, harmony with others, and respect for tradition at a much lower level of importance than the values of individualism, self-cultivation, and personal knowledge. More recently, Lee (2005) found that Cantonese speakers made requests in a direct sequence accompanied by fewer directness reduction devices than English speakers. Such findings indicate the inappropriateness of associating Chinese speakers with only traditional collectivist values. Moreover, these studies question the validity of polarizing labels. They caution us as researchers to avoid generalizations about the communication style of an entire culture.



Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables 

Regarding the seven sociolinguistic variables studied here, age was found to be marginally correlated with the frequency of strong disagreement and weak disagreement. Traditionally in China, age is highly revered because the elders are deemed wiser. When elders speak, young people are supposed to remain silent (Lin 1939); seniority has superordinate status, and older generations are more entitled to disagree strongly than younger generations. However, our study shows that people aged 10–19 used almost as much strong disagreement (96.08%) as people aged 40–49 (97.50%), suggesting that younger people can be as strong in their speech behavior as older people. People aged 20–39 were relatively less strong, even though their strong disagreement still outnumbered weak disagreement to a great extent. One possible explanation of this similarity may be the fact that most youngsters in China are the only children of their families. Because they are cherished, it may be true that there is increased flouting of traditional values. That fact, coupled with the undisputable fact that Chinese youth have had more economic and sociopolitical power than ever before, has challenged notions of seniority (Faure & Fang 2008). Young Chinese have more access to western values that might be gradually subverting traditional values. Confucian filial piety has begun to erode, and respect for older persons has been weakened in modern Chinese society (Ng, ­Phillips & Lee 2002). Indeed, traditional Chinese values are undergoing major changes (Garrot 1995). None of the other sociolinguistic variables appear to have a significant role in participants’ use of strong/weak disagreement. For instance, what are conventionally considered essential factors in a patriarchal and hierarchical society like China, such as sex and socioeconomic status, appear to lose their absolute power in ELFP communities. Although these two variables are not significant, male participants did use more tokens of strong disagreement (93.83%) than females (89.92%), indicating that males tend to disagree more directly than females in this study, though not in a significant way. This pattern could suggest that Chinese women are still facing traditional sex-related constraints and expected to be more agreeable than men (Honig & Hershatter 1988). Likewise, high-income participants employed more strong disagreement expressions (95.24%) than middle-income and low-income participants (respectively 91.4% and 91.14%), suggesting that high-income participants felt more comfortable and confident to dissent directly, though not in a significant way either. This result could suggest that the level of socioeconomic status can contribute to the force of interlocutors’ disagreement. However, since the participants conversed about everyday topics in informal, non-familial settings, without administrative power over one another or conflicts of interest, socioeconomic status does not appear significant in the everyday conversations as opposed to formal conversations in business, official, or academic settings.

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer

Even though it is natural to assume that education, years of studying English and experience in English-speaking countries ought to have an effect on disagreement behavior, these variables have left little trace on participants’ disagreement behavior in ELFP, according to our statistics. The differences in the percentages of strong disagreement expressions used by the participants with and without a bachelor’s degree, or the participants with and without ten years of studying English are less than 1% (see Table 2), indicating the non-significant role of education and years of studying English in the disagreement behavior of the participants at the English Corner. In contrast, the difference in the percentage of strong disagreement expressions used by the participants with and without experience in English-speaking countries is more than 1% (see Table 2). This pattern might suggest the slightly more important role of cross-cultural experiences in the participants’ disagreement behavior since cross-cultural experiences might help raise people’s awareness of the value of opposing viewpoints to some extent and make them comparatively less forceful in disagreement. Social distance is not significantly associated with the participants’ disagreement behavior, just like other variables. But there are slight differences in the percentages of strangers, acquaintances, and friends using strong disagreement. Acquaintances (93.37%) showed a slightly greater tendency to use strong disagreement than strangers (91.07%) and friends (90%), but not in a significant way. With regards to the participants’ orientation toward strong disagreement, none of the seven sociolinguistic variables are significantly associated. However, it is noticeable that issue-oriented negation was significantly used. Focusing on issues in disagreement seems to require less emotionally loaded language and can sound more impersonal, less face-threatening and more acceptable to the addressee in comparison with person-oriented negation. It is generally believed that people tend to pursue harmony and avoid confrontation in the Chinese culture (Bond 1986; Ting-Toomey 1988). This traditional practice might still have some impact on the participants’ negation patterns even though the participants were found to use more tokens of strong disagreement than weak disagreement in this study. Orienting strong disagreement toward issues sends out the message that the issues are open for fair and mutual discussion, rather than emotional involvement or even personal attack. To some extent, issue-oriented negation works better to maintain harmony. Although some variables seem to make more difference than others in the participants’ use of strong/weak disagreement and their orientation of strong disagreement, none of them plays a statistically significant role. This is likely due to the fact that ELFP communities are unique sociolinguistic phenomena framed in globalization, internationalization of English, and dominance of Mandarin in the Chinese society. ELFP speakers’ priorities of improving communication in English



Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables 

and making sense of the world together as communities of practice may function to level out variable differences. 7.  Methodological issues The findings of our study differ from those of previous research, which illustrates the difference that research context and method can make. It also indicates the importance of conducting empirical research on the basis of natural, authentic data in informal, non-familial settings. Everyday conversations in the real world might not be able to be precisely captured in DCTs because people do not always know how they behave in real-life situations. Research on the basis of natural data can be a meaningful addition to research on speech acts on the basis of questionnaires. However, empirical data is not easy to obtain and analyze. For this study, some participants did not want to sign consent forms but were willing to have their oral consent recorded. When recording conversations in public settings, the observer’s paradox (Labov 1972) may not be avoided completely. But it is certainly reduced by starting conversations with acquaintances or friends as opposed to strangers. The effect can appear less and less with the conversations moving on because interlocutors are so actively engaged in the conversation topics of their own choice and interest that they pay little attention to the fact of being recorded. The recorded data were transcribed and analyzed through interactional sociolinguistic methods. Although this was time consuming considering the size of the data, both verbal and nonverbal features were essential components for identifying types of disagreement expressions. For instance, a smile that happens right before or while strong disagreement is expressed can mitigate the force of dissent and turn it into weak disagreement. This observation would not be possible for research using DCTs that rely on participants’ statements to reflect their perception of their own behavior. The qualitative analysis of this study was complemented with Chi-square tests to ascertain possible correlations between disagreement behavior and the seven sociolinguistic variables. But it was not possible to find enough instances of every type of strong disagreement in order to run a Chi-square test. To be more specific, neither tokens of self-oriented negation nor those of other-oriented negation reached a number that could go through the test. The problem was solved by having self-oriented negation and other-oriented negation consolidated as ­person-oriented negation. Despite the problem, the combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses revealed the participants’ speech characteristics in a relatively more comprehensive way than a single approach could afford.

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer

As mentioned earlier, the participants’ language proficiency was not tested owing to the fluidity of the communities of practice at the English Corner. However, it was observed that in their first few English-Corner experiences, many participants behaved as peripheral members who had insufficient vocabulary and grammar knowledge to conduct discussions at all. Very often, they opted out of conversation completely and chose the role of listener. Only after they had developed confidence and competence in speaking English did they feel that they could become more centrally-situated participants with increased choice of conversation partners and topics. This gradual movement from peripheral to central interlocutors was no doubt due to the fact that higher English proficiency leads to more respect from community members and more opportunities to speak ELFP. It appears that the role of English proficiency in ELFP speakers’ disagreement behavior or interaction can be better revealed in diachronic studies than in synchronic studies. Efforts in this respect could help reveal the speech and behavior of the communities of practice at the English Corner. 8.  Pedagogical implications This study is pedagogically important for both language teachers and students. Since people tend not to forgive language learners with inappropriate interactional or speech behaviors, even though they might sympathize with learners of low L2 grammatical proficiency, it is essential for English language teachers and learners to become aware of pragmatic differences between English and Chinese. This is particularly the case now that China is becoming such an important economic and political international entity. Unfortunately, most English textbooks in China do not address pragmatic differences. The findings of the disagreement behavior in ELFP of this study can provide English language teachers and students with authentic English L2 conversations on which to devise teaching and learning resources. 9.  Conclusions This study is a theoretical contribution to research on varieties of English used across the world. It proposes the new construct of English as a Lingua Franca of Practice (ELFP) to define the distinctive type of English spoken by Chinese users of English at English Corners in China. Since other constructs, such as World English, English as an International Language, English as a Global Language, and



Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables 

English as a Lingua Franca cannot capture the nature of English spoken at English Corners, ELFP is a more adequate moniker. Indeed, it functions as the medium of communication chosen by speakers sharing the same first language and culture for the purposes of language practice. We have examined the disagreement behavior of Chinese people speaking ELFP at English Corners in a southeastern city of Mainland China. The ELFP speakers studied here favored strong disagreement over weak disagreement and employed more issue-oriented negation than person-oriented negation. This finding coincides with the results of the same population speaking the L1, Mandarin, in the larger research project (Zhu 2010). However, the disagreement behavior of ELFP speakers differs from that of Mandarin speakers in the Chi-square test results that examined possible correlations between disagreement and sociolinguistic variables. None of the sociolinguistic variables were found to be significantly correlated with disagreement behavior in ELFP, whereas some were found to be statistically significant in the Mandarin conversations analyzed in the larger project. The findings suggest the uniqueness of English Corners, where the effect of sociolinguistic variables is undermined by ELFP speakers’ collaborative effort in language practice. Thus, the study has theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical implications. In order to study possible pragmatic transfer adequately, it would be fruitful to follow some participants through their ELFP-speaking and Mandarin-speaking experiences and compare their interactional features in general and disagreement behavior in particular. Likewise, since this study was based on ELFP communication among Chinese L1 speakers, it would be interesting to follow the same participants to see whether they show the same interactional features and disagreement behavior when talking with English L1 speakers in informal non-familial settings. Finally, since English Corners are located in all major cities in Mainland China, it would be an additional contribution to this body of research if studies could be carried out to examine the interactional features and disagreement behavior in ELFP in other locations in China. Future research along this line can contribute to our knowledge of how Chinese L1 speakers interact in English, which is increasingly important to the globalized world. Since the Chinese are the largest population in the world and comprise one of the largest ethnic groups in many countries, it is essential to achieve a “conceptual and practical understanding of Chinese communication practices and their underlying cultural premises” (Gao & Ting-Toomey 1998: viii). This knowledge can help minimize communication breakdowns and promote successful cross-cultural communication in the 21st century – the ­‘Century of Asia’.

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer

References Atkinson, E. & DePalma, R. 2008. Imagining the homonormative: Performative subversion in education for social justice. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29: 25–35. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Salsbury, T. 2004. The organization of turns in the disagreements of L2 learners: A longitudinal perspective. In Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning, D. Boxer & A. Cohen (eds), 199–227. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Beebe, L. 1985. Speech Act performance: A function of the data collection procedure? Paper presented at the 18th Annual TESOL conference, New York, April. Beebe, L. & Takahashi, T. 1989a. Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In The Dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical Studies in Second Language Variation, M. Eisenstein (ed.), 199–218. New York NY: Plenum. Beebe, L. & Takahashi, T. 1989b. Do you have a bag?: Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition. In Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Discourse and Pragmatics, S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston & L. Selinker (eds), 103–125. Clevedon: ­Multilingual Matters. Beebe, L., Takahashi, T. & Uliss-Weltz, R. 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, R. Scarcella, E. Andersen & S. Krashen (eds), 55–73. New York NY: Newbury House. Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B. & Gerson, R. 1985. The language of requesting in Israeli society. In Language and Social Situations, J. Forgas (ed.), 113–141. Berlin: Springer. Bond, M. 1986. The Psychology of the Chinese People. Oxford: OUP. Boxer, D. 1993a. Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics 19: 103–125. Boxer, D. 1993b. Complaining and commiserating: Exploring gender issues. Text 13: 371–395. Brown, P. 1980. How and why women are more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In Women and Language in Literature and Society, S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker & N. Furman (eds), 111–136. New York NY: Praeger. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. Cardon, P. & Scott, J. 2003. Chinese business face: Communication behaviors and teaching approaches. Business Communication Quarterly 66: 9–22. Chen, G. 1993. A Chinese Perspective of Communicative Competence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association (79th, Miami Beach, FL, November 18–21). Chen, G. & Chung, J. 1993. The impact of confucianism on organizational communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association (79th, Miami Beach, FL, November 18–21). Cook, H.M. 1990. The role of the Japanese sentence-final particle no in the socialization of children. Multilingua 9: 377–395. Cook, M. & Liddicoat, A. 2002. The development of comprehension in interlanguage ­pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied ­Linguistics 25: 19–39. Crystal, D. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: CUP. Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: CUP. D’Amico-Reisner, L. 1983. An analysis of the surface structure of disapproval exchanges. In Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds), 103–115. Rowley MA: Newbury House.



Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables 

Du, W.S. 1995. Performance of face-threatening acts in Chinese: Complaining, giving bad news, and disagreeing. In Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language, G. Kasper (ed.), 165–205. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J. 1986. ‘I very appreciate’: Expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics 7: 167–185. Ervin-Tripp, S. 1982. Ask and it shall be given to you: Children’s requests. In Georgetown ­University Roundtable in Language and Linguistics, H. Byrnes (ed.), 235–245. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Faure, G.O. & Fang, T. 2008. Changing Chinese values: Keeping up with paradoxes. International Business Review 17: 194–207. Firth, A. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of ‘normality’: On lingua franca English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 237–259. Gao, G. & Ting-Toomey, S. 1998. Communicating Effectively with the Chinese. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Garrott, J.R. 1995. Chinese cultural values: New angles, added insights. International Journal of Intercultural Relation 19: 211–225. Georgakopoulou, A. 2001. Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1881–1900. Goffman, E. 1956. The nature of deference and demeanor. American Anthropologist 58(3): 473–502. González, V., Chen, C.Y. & Sánchez, C. 2001. Cultural thinking and discourse organizational patterns influencing writing skills in a Chinese English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) learner. Bilingual Research Journal 25: 417–442. Goodwin, M. 1983. Aggravated correction and disagreement in children’s conversations. ­Journal of Pragmatics 7: 657–677. Gordon, D. & Ervin-Tripp, S. 1984. The structure of children’s requests. In The Acquisition of Communicative Competence, R. Schieffelbusch & J. Pickas (eds), 83–106. Baltimore MD: University Book Press. Habib, R. 2008. Humor and disagreement: Identity construction and cross-cultural enrichment. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1117–1145. Holmes, J. 1990. Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society 19(2): 155–199. Holtgraves, T. 2005. Social psychology, cognitive psychology, and linguistic politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, Language, Behaviour, Culture 1(1): 73–93. Honig, E. & Hershatter, G. 1988. Personal Voices: Chinese Women in the 1980’s. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2006. Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly 40: 157–181. Kachru, B. 1992. World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching 25: 1–14. Kakava, C. 1995. Directness and indirectness in professor-student interactions: The intersection of contextual and cultural constraints. In Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, J.E. Alatis, C.A. Straehle, B. Gallenberger & M. Ronkin (eds), 229–246. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Kakava, C. 2002. Opposition in Modern Greek discourse: cultural and contextual constraints. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1537–1568. Katriel, T. 1986. Talking Straight: Dugri Speech in Israeli Sabra Culture. Cambridge: CUP.

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer Kearney, M. 1995. The local and the global: The anthropology of globalization and transnationalism. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 547–565. Kreutel, K. 2007. “I’m not agree with you”: ESL learners’ expressions of disagreement. TESL-EJ 11(3): 1–35. Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell. Lakoff, R. 2010. Gender. In Society and Language Use [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 7] J. Jaspers, J. Östman & J. Verschueren (eds), 152–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lee, C. 2005. A cross-linguistic study on the linguistic expressions of Cantonese and English requests. Pragmatics 15: 395–422. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Li, W., Zhu, H. & Li, Y. 2001. Interpersonal harmony and textual coherence in Chinese business interaction. Multilingua 20–3: 285–310. Lin, Y.T. 1939. My Country and My People. London: William Heinemann. Liu, D. 1995. Sociocultural transfer and its effect on second language speakers’ communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 19(2): 253–265. Liu, S. 2004. Pragmatic Strategies and Power Relations in Disagreement: Chinese Culture in Higher Education. Boca Raton FL: Universal Publishers. Locher, M. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. McKay, S. 2002. Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and Approaches. Oxford: OUP. Mills, S. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. Ministry of Education of China. 2001. Jiaoyubu guanyu jiji tuijin xiaoxue kaishe yingyu kecheng de zhidao yijian (The Ministry of Education Guidelines for vigorously promoting the teaching of English in primary schools). 〈http://www.edu.cn/20010907/3000637.shtml〉. Morris, M., Williams, K.Y, Leung, K., Larrick, R., Mendoza, M.T., Bhatnagar, D., Li, J., Kondo, M., Luo, J.-L. & Huet, J.-C. 1998. Conflict management style: Accounting for cross-national differences. Journal of International Business Studies 29(4): 729–747. Ng, A.C.Y., Phillips, D. & Lee, W. 2002. Persistence and challenges to filial piety and informal support of older persons in a modern Chinese society: A case study in Tuen Mun, Hong Kong. Journal of Aging Studies 16(2): 135–153. Pan, Y. 2000. Politeness in Chinese Face-to-Face Interaction. Stamford CT: Ablex. Pearson, E. 1986. Agreement/disagreement: An example of results of discourse analysis applied to the oral English classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics 74: 47–61. Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds), 57–101. Cambridge: CUP. Qu, J. & Wang, L.Y. 2005. Pragmatic transfer in compliment responses by Chinese learners of English. Sino-US English Teaching 12: 1–16. Rose, K. 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 27–67. Salsbury, T. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2000. Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality in English L2. In Social and Cognitive Factors in Second Language Acquisition, B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. Anderson, C. Klee & E. Tarone (eds), 57–76. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press. Salsbury, T. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. “I know your mean, but I don’t think so”: Disagreements in English L2. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, L.F. Bouton (ed.), 131–151. UrbanaChampaign IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois.



Disagreement and sociolinguistic variables 

Schiffrin, D. 1984. Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13: 311–335. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.B.K. 1991. Topic confusion in English-Asian discourse. World Englishes 10(2): 113–125. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.B.K. 1994. Face parameters in East-West discourse. In The Challenge of  Facework, S. Ting-Toomey (ed.), 133–155. Albany NY: State University of New York Press. Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11: 133–158. Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 209–239. Seidlhofer, B. 2005. English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 59: 339–341. Sheer, V.C. & Chen, L. 2003. Successful Sino-Western business negotiation: Participants’ accounts of national and professional cultures. The Journal of Business Communication 40(1): 50–85. Takahashi, T. 1993. Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In Interlanguage Pragmatics, G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds), 138–157. Oxford: OUP. Ting-Toomey, S. 1988. A face negotiation theory. In Theory and Intercultural Communication, Y.Y. Kim & W.B. Gudykunst (eds), 47–92. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Triandis, H.C. 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Walkinshaw, I. 2007. Power and disagreement: Insights into Japanese learners of English. RELC Journal 38(3): 278–301. Wolfson, N. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Boston MA: Heinle and Heinle. Wong, I.F.H. & Phool-Ching, L. 2000. Chinese cultural values and performance at job interviews: A Singapore perspective. Business Communication Quarterly 63(1): 9–22. Yeung, L. 1997. Polite requests in English and Chinese business correspondence in Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 505–522. Yuan, Y. 1996. Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of the English pragmatics of advanced Chinese speakers of English. In The 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes & A. Zukowski (eds), 861–872. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press. Zhu, W. 2010. Interaction in English as a Lingua Franca of Practice and Mandarin Chinese: Practice, Praxis and Perception. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.

Appendix A Transcription conventions (adapted from Schiffrin 1987) Speaker turn start : Simultaneous utterances [[ ]] Overlapping utterances [] Contiguous utterances after an interruption = Omission … A short untimed pause _ Long untimed intervals (pause) Laughter @

 Weihua Zhu & Diana Boxer Code switching Borrowing Emphasis Characteristics of the talk Items in doubt No pause between different speakers’ utterances

〈〉 〈〉〉 italics (coughing) (unclear) Z

Appendix B Questionnaire for demographic information 本项目旨在研究: (1) 中国的英语使用者是怎样在英语角进行英语会话交流；(2) 中国 人是怎样在日常生活中进行汉语会话交流。您被邀请参加本研究，请填写以下信息， 因为您的信息对本研究很重要。即使未来在杂志上发表论文或会议上宣读论文，您的 信息都会保密。 You are invited to participate in a study that investigates: (1) how Chinese users of English interact with one another in English at English Corners in the Chinese-dominated environment; (2) how Chinese L1 speakers interact in Mandarin Chinese in everyday life. Please fill out this questionnaire because your background is very important for this study. All information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential, even if the study may be published in an academic journal or presented at a professional conference. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

姓名 (Name) : ________________ 年龄 (Age) : 10–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70–79 性别 (Sex) : 女 (female) 男 (male) 学历 (Degree) : 本科以下(Below Bachelor’s) 本科(Bachelor’s) 硕士(Master’s) 博士(Ph.D.) 职业(Occupation) : __________________________ 相对生活消费水平而言，你的收入 (Your income in comparison with living expenses): 中等(Middle) 高(High) 低(Low) 你会说英语吗？(Can you speak English?) 不会 (No) 会 (Yes) 学习英语的时间(Years of studying English): 3–9年(3–9 years) 至少十年(no less than 10 years) 是否去过英语国家(Experience in English-speaking countries): 没去过(never been abroad) 去过______年______月 (at least once; if so, how long? _________) 刚才与你说话的人是你的_______ (The person you’ve just talked with is your________) 朋友(friend) 亲戚(relative) 只是认识 (acquaintance) 陌生人(stranger) 你对刚才的对话感觉怎样？(How do you feel about your conversation with that person?) 没感觉(nothing) 很开心(enjoyable) 友好(friendly) 不友好(unfriendly) 冒犯人的(offensive) 你多久来一次英语角？(How often do you come to the English Corner?) ______________________________________ 你为什么来英语角？(Why do you come to the English Corner?) _______________________________________

chapter 5

Variation in the pragmatic use of conventional expressions Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig Indiana University, USA

This chapter investigates variation in the use of conventional expressions as a pragmatic resource for realizing speech acts (the actional level of Barron & Schneider 2009). From the perspective of pragmatics, studying variation in the use of conventional expressions shows that some speech acts and contexts promote greater use of conventional expressions; additionally, some conventions are used by more speakers in a community than others, but the reasons require investigation. From the perspective of better understanding concepts such as conventional expressions, investigating variation in well‑defined contexts such as those specified by the empirical study of pragmatics shows that basic units like conventional expression must be carefully defined, and that concepts such as ‘community-wide use’ or ‘social agreement’ must be quantified in some way to be meaningful.

1.  Introduction When most people hear the terms formula and conventional expression, they think of conformity. For example, the title of Manes and Wolfson’s (1981) now classic study, “The Compliment Formula”, emphasizes the predictability of compliments in American English. Likewise, the project on which this chapter is based was originally conceived to study the acquisition of second language (L2) pragmatics in contexts that evoked highly conventional – sometimes identical – responses from native speakers (Bardovi-Harlig 2009). It therefore might be somewhat ­surprising to find a chapter on conventional expressions in a volume on pragmatic variation. It turns out, however, that even situations that were developed to elicit ­conventional expressions admit variation of different types by both native speakers and learners. The goal of this chapter is to explore the range of variation found in the realization of conventional expressions, to show how different levels of analysis reveal different degrees of variation, to relate learner variation to native-speaker variation, and to suggest approaches for future study.

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

1.1  What are conventional expressions? Conventional expressions, including such strings as No thanks I’m full, Sorry I’m late, and No problem, are one type of pragmalinguistic resource available to s­ peakers to realize social demands. Conventional expressions are of interest to ­pragmatics because some situations seem to call not only for certain types of responses, but also for highly uniform responses, shared by a significant ­proportion of the speech community (what Myles, Hooper, & Mitchell 1998 call community-wide use). ­Conventional expressions have been described as crucial to social ­communication, as “tacit agreements, which the members of a community presume to be shared by every reasonable co-member. In embodying societal knowledge they are essential in the handling of day-to-day situations” (Coulmas 1981: 4). As an illustration of how a tacit agreement to say the same thing is r­ealized, consider the responses of undergraduate students in Bloomington, Indiana to two thanking contexts in a timed oral production task: one thanking context (thanking a teacher for a­ ssistance) elicited Thank you for your (help/time) in 94% of the responses, whereas another (thanking a teacher for a make-up test) elicited Thank you so much in 80% of the responses, showing that there are distinct and clearly favored responses to contexts (Bardovi-Harlig 2009; Bardovi-Harlig et al. 2010). Conventional expressions are also relevant to acquisition in that native ­speakers develop what Pawley and Syder (1983) call nativelike selection, the a­ bility to identify conventional expressions from among a range of grammatically ­correct paraphrases and the ability to use them; a process also relevant to second ­language learners. The use of conventional expressions has been credited with ­certain advantages; namely, increasing learners’ confidence that the speech acts they ­perform will be understood by interlocutors in the intended way (­ Wildner-Bassett 1994) and helping language learners appear native-like (Yorio 1989). Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993) have identified conventional expressions as “one area where insufficient control of pragmalinguistic knowledge is particularly obvious” (p.  9). Researchers often attribute mastery of conventional expressions to advanced learners (e.g. House 1996; Scarcella 1979; Yorio 1989). In fact, level of proficiency has been found to be a significant influence on both the production of conventional expressions (Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos 2011) and the recognition of conventional expressions and the ability to distinguish them from grammatical but modified, nonconventional counterparts (Bardovi-Harlig 2010). In research on conventional expressions in pragmatics, some studies identify conventional expressions by the presence of recurrent strings in production data, while many more investigate a preset list of expressions (Bardovi-Harlig 2012). In pragmatics research, some studies tie formulaic or conventional status to ­frequency defined by percentage of total production; for example, ­Bardovi-Harlig



Variation in conventional expressions 

(2009), Culpeper (2010), and Manes and Wolfson (1981) identified formulaic sequences as occurring at 50% of the production or more. In corpus studies, only recently ­making their way into pragmatics, frequent occurrence of ­recurrent strings has been defined as 40 occurrences per one million in corpus data (Biber, Conrad, & Cortes 2004). In contrast, many studies of conventional expressions in L2 ­pragmatics often identify the target expressions in advance of learner ­production, then confirm them by native speaker production on the same task. ­Kecskes (2000) used a written dialogue interpretation task to investigate expressions ­(situation-bound units) that had both literal and figurative readings such as Get out of here and Piece of cake. Roever (2005) constructed an online multiple-choice task to investigate pragmatic routines that included the target expression (confirmed by NS responses) and three distracters that were either relevant but nonidiomatic, or idiomatic but irrelevant. Bardovi-Harlig (2009, 2010) and Edmonds (2010) used native speaker production data to determine levels of frequency sufficient for conventional expressions to be tested in subsequent recognition (Bardovi-Harlig 2009, 2010) or processing tasks (Edmonds 2010). Collectively, these studies have focused on learners’ production, interpretation, processing, and recognition of specific conventional expressions that are preferred by native speakers in certain contexts. Due to interest in the conventional in L2 pragmatics, such studies have not yet investigated variation in production. Although this paper considers conventional expressions primarily for their social and pragmatic value, it is important to acknowledge that a larger literature treats the lexical and psycholinguistic aspects of conventional expressions and formulaic language (Bardovi-Harlig 2006; Schmitt 2004; Wray 2002). These studies often investigate issues of storage and retrieval. However, pragmatics justifiably makes few claims about the storage and retrieval of formulaic language; both are psycholinguistic concerns and not areas that pragmatics research is designed to address empirically. This chapter is an initial exploration into the variation of c­ onventional expressions in the context of L2 pragmatics. The next section presents the f­ ramework of the study; in predictable order, the following sections ­outline the method, analysis, and results. The paper culminates with a discussion of methodological issues in the study of variation in the acquisition of conventional expressions.

2.  Framework Barron and Schneider (2009) identify five main social variables relevant to the investigation of pragmatic variation: region, social class, ethnicity, gender, and

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

age (see also Wolfram & Schilling-Estes 2006). Of these five variables, the two ­considered (i.e. controlled for) in the design of this study are region and age. ­Particular conventional expressions may be favored by one community, but not found in another; they may vary by region and by generation, both within what can be considered a single expression (nah-nah-nah-nah-nah in California and nah-nah-nah-boo-boo in Indiana) and across expressions with the same function such as I don’t care to in South Central Indiana/Northern Kentucky and I don’t mind in other parts of the country or (like) chalk and cheese in British English for what Americans call apples and oranges (both expressions are used to highlight the futility of comparing unlike entities). The issue of regional variation in ­conventional expressions impacts research design in that the conventional expressions in a study of second language acquisition or use must be drawn from the same speech community in which the participants reside. This is considered in the M ­ ethod section.1 In second language acquisition research the most salient variable is the ­distinction between learners and native speakers. Research also typically investigates variables that distinguish learners from each other, including proficiency, length of study (for classroom learners), length of stay in host environment (for classroom learners, study abroad students, and contact language learners), and intensity of interaction (see Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos 2011 for a review). First ­language is generally part of L2 research designs, whether as the focus of investigation or as a variable to be controlled for, and is both a social and psycholinguistic variable. In addition to five types of social variation, Barron and Schneider identify five levels of pragmatic analysis: the formal level (linguistic form as such as ­discourse markers), the actional level (linguistic means available for the realization of ­specific speech acts), the interactional level (adjacency pairs, speech act sequences, and the structure of speech events), the topic level (topic selection and development), and the organizational level (turn taking, including silence, and overlap). ­Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1993) distinguish four levels in the a­nalysis of speech act production: the speech act produced, the semantic ­formulas used to realize the speech act, the content encoded, and the form. For s­peakers  to use the same expression in the same context, the speech act performed, the s­ emantic ­formulas used to perform it, the content encoded, and the form (the ­specific

1.  Regional variation per se is not the focus of this paper. The original study controlled for regional variation by selecting conventional expressions that were in use by speakers in a single community in which all participants lived at the time of the study. The goal was to ­represent fairly the input available to the learner-participants (see Method: [Section 3]).



Variation in conventional expressions 

sequence of words) must all converge. The present study examines the levels of the speech act and semantic formulas or pragmatic strategies ­(Bardovi-Harlig & ­Hartford 1993) and the actional level (Barron & Schneider 2009).2 This study addresses the following research question: At what level(s) of pragmatic analysis does ­variation in ­conventional expressions occur in the production of L1 and L2 speakers and what does it look like? 3.  Method The task employed in this study was not originally designed to test variation ­(Bardovi-Harlig 2009). On the contrary, it was designed to test conformity of response in certain contexts. Nevertheless, the contexts in which high levels of conformity were not achieved are quite revealing to a study of variation. The oral production task used in this study controls contextual variables (Barron & ­Schneider 2009). All observation and testing was conducted in the university community of which the prospective learners were members, thus controlling for regional preferences, and ensuring that the expressions were available as input to learners. Age (and status) variation was incorporated into the design by including undergraduate students as well as ESL teachers in the native speaker (NS) group. Peers and teachers play different roles in the learning environment. Peers and students are age comparable, and may be friends; peers are likely models of language use, although not all learners have native speaker friends (Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos 2011; Dörnyei, Adolphs, & Durow 2004). Teachers are older than most students and are a predictable source of input for students who spend 4–5 hours per day, five days a week in class. 3.1  Instrument The production task was developed in several steps: observation of conversations, scenario construction, piloting, further revision and culling of expressions, ­re-piloting, and selection of final contexts. The steps through the second pilot were carried out under the author’s supervision by Indiana University graduate s­ tudents in the Seminar in Interlanguage Pragmatics, Spring 2006. Following Myles, Hooper, and Mitchell (1998: 325), we identified conventional expressions in the original observational data that were (a) at least two 2.  Although the term ‘semantic formulas’ has more continuity with our previous work, when discussing conventional expressions and formulaic language, I prefer to use the term ‘pragmatic strategies’ to avoid confusion caused by the polysemous use of ‘formula’.

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

­ orphemes in length; (b) phonologically coherent (fluently articulated, nonhesim tant); (c) used repeatedly and always in the same form; (d) situationally dependent; and (e) community-wide in use, the latter being interpreted as frequent in the sample collected.3 We next constructed 77 scenarios to elicit the same expressions; these were then piloted with NSs of English. Scenarios that did not elicit conventional expressions were eliminated; scenarios that used a word or phrase that occurred in an expression were rewritten to avoid lexical priming. A subset of 44 revised scenarios was retested in the second pilot study. Following the second pilot, the scenarios that elicited a single expression in 50% or more of the responses or a set of two or three expressions that exhaustively defined the response set were advanced to the final task, resulting in 32 scenarios (for detailed information on task development, see Bardovi-Harlig 2009). The scenarios included both initiating and responding scenarios. In this task, the initiating scenarios elicited warnings, requests, and invitations. The responding scenarios elicited condolences, acceptances, and refusals of offers. Other speech acts such as apologies, thanking, and closings were assigned to both initiating (n = 13) and responding (n = 19) scenarios. The task was delivered by computer in a language lab. Participants simultaneously read the scenario on the screen and heard it over individual headsets. For initiating items, participants saw a second screen saying “You say,” to which they responded orally. For responding items, participants heard a turn (without written support) immediately after the scenario and then saw a screen that showed only “You say,” to which they provided an oral response. Participants received two training examples for each type. Responses were recorded through headset microphones onto digital files. An example of each type is provided here. The full task with instructions appears in the Appendix. Initiating-I1 You see your friend standing on a chair trying to reach a book at the top of the bookshelf. You know that the chair she is standing on has a broken leg. (next screen, visual only) You say: Responding-R12 You go to a clothing store and you need to find a new shirt. A salesperson approaches you. You don’t want the salesperson’s assistance. (Audio Only): “Can I help you?” (next screen, visual only) You say: 3.  Condition (c) refers to repetition of an invariant expression by an individual; condition (e) refers to use of expressions across individuals in a speech community. See Bardovi-Harlig (2006) for further discussion.



Variation in conventional expressions 

The production task was one of three tasks completed during a 50-minute session in the following order: audio recognition task (12 minutes; Bardovi-Harlig 2009, 2010), audio-visual production task (20 minutes including instructions and examples), and background questionnaire (approximately 5–10 minutes). 3.2  Participants 171 participants completed both the production and recognition tasks: 122 ­learners of English as a second language and 49 NSs of American English who attended or taught at Indiana University, a large public research university in the American Midwest.4 The learners ranged in age from 17 to 36 years with a mean of 23.8. The NSs were comprised of two groups: undergraduate peers who are the same age as the learners and represent the NSs with whom learners are most likely to interact outside of class, and ESL teachers who provide input in class and program ­activities during 4–5 hours of instruction per day. The 35 undergraduates ranged in age from 18 to 40 years with a mean age of 20.0. The 14 teachers ranged from 23 to 62 years, with a mean of 43.1. The learners were enrolled in four levels of instruction in the Intensive ­English Program, from low-intermediate (Level 3) to low-advanced (Level 6). Each level of instruction is seven-weeks long, with 135 to 165 hours of instruction. The learners represent 11 language backgrounds (Arabic: 54; Chinese: 12; Japanese: 13; Korean: 28; Thai: 5; Spanish: 3; Portuguese: 2; Turkish: 2; and one each of ­Italian, Tibetan, and Kazakh), and report a mean length of residence in the U.S. of 5.0 months and a mean length of English study of 4.7 years prior to their ESL experience. 3.3  Analysis The oral production task yielded just under 5,500 responses. All responses were transcribed and checked by two researchers (Bardovi-Harlig et al. 2010). The ­target expression for each scenario was identified as the longest sequence of words that recurred across speakers in that context. Some expressions, such as Nice to meet you, No problem, and You too! are both familiar and invariant, and could be ­anticipated in advance of empirical study. However, other expressions were

4.  A total of 124 learners participated. 123 learners completed the production task ­(Bardovi-Harlig et al. 2010) and 123 completed the recognition task (Bardovi-Harlig 2010). One learner arrived late and completed only the production task, and another did not save the recording for the production task. The present study includes only the learners who ­completed both tasks (cf. Bardovi-Harlig 2009).

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

identified solely through recurrent sequences.5 For example, the use of thanks or thank you does not fully capture the recurring expressions unique to the different thanking contexts, so the words that followed that were produced by the greatest number of speakers were taken into account. In one context, {Thanks/thank you} so much describes 80% of the undergraduate expressions and in another context {Thanks/Thank you} for describes 94%. Consistent with what is reported in the formula literature (Nattinger & DeCarrico 1992; Schmitt & Carter 2004), and as indicated with Thanks and Thank you, some expressions exhibit variability in form. The present analysis allows for minor grammatical differences between NSs and learners where variation is present in NS production. The use of the noncontracted copula is the most common case. For example, although NSs used both the contracted and noncontracted copula, they favored the contraction in expressions such as I’m just looking whereas learners used both I’m just looking and I am just looking. Learner variations in tense, however, were not included as these were not part of NS variation. Standard linguistic notation is used to represent variability within a conventional expression. Curly brackets {} show alternation, and parentheses indicate optional elements: {I’m/I am} (intensifier) sorry may be realized as I’m sorry or I am sorry with the optional presence of so or very. 4.  Results Of the 32 scenarios tested, 26 scenarios resulted in 29 expressions used at rates of 50% or higher by at least one of the NS groups. An additional scenario elicited high use of a single key word, which resulted in 27 conventional responses. Twentyfour expressions were produced by both groups of NSs at a rate of 50% or higher. Table  1 reports the production data, organizing the expressions in descending order according to the rates of production of the NS undergraduates. When more than one expression was produced by the NS undergraduates at the same rate, the NS teacher scores were taken into account. The item number and a descriptive title are given for each scenario. The conventional expressions are given in italics. The next columns give the percentage and raw scores for each expression by level and NS group. As Table 1 shows, 7 conventional expressions and one word (mess in I6) exhibit at least 80% or higher agreement in the undergraduate population, 8 are

5.  Only the conventional expressions are considered for this analysis; the full responses are beyond the scope of this investigation.

11 0

{Thanks/thank you} for {having/ inviting} me

Closing, party

R3

{Can/Could you} {get/V} me a glass

Reach glass

I7

40

No, {thanks/thank you}

More food

40

{I am/I’m} + intensifier + sorry

R19a

66

You {‘re/are} welcome

Father died

14

No problem

R16

20

I forgot

Gave ride

3

Sorry {for/about} the mess

R9

0

Excuse the mess

Forgot book

3

R8b

0

Mess

Mess

I6

Watch out

Puddle

I3

40

Thank you + intensifier + much

Make-up test

R17

17 100

Introduction

R15

Nice to meet you

Busy teacher

I10

{Thanks/Thank you} for

83

You too

Have a nice day!

R6

%

(0)

(4)

(14)

(14)

(23)

(5)

(7)

(1)

(0)

(1)

(0)

(14)

(35)

(6)

(29)

(N)

3 n = 35

Expression

Context

ID

3

23

60

19

61

26

26

0

0

13

13

29

84

35

94

%

(1)

(7)

(19)

(6)

(19)

(8)

(8)

(0)

(0)

(4)

(4)

(9)

(26)

(11)

(29)

(N)

4 n = 31

6

10

71

32

58

16

(45)

6

0

13

19

35

94

45

(2)

(3)

(22)

(10)

(18)

(5)

(14)

(2)

(0)

(4)

(6)

(11)

(29)

(14)

(29)

12

36

76

44

60

32

52

4

0

28

36

60

80

56

(3)

(9)

(19)

(11)

(15)

(8)

(13)

(1)

(0)

(7)

(9)

(15)

(20)

(14)

(21)

(N)

6 n = 25

84

%

Level

(N)

5 n = 31

94

%

Table 1.  Scenarios with dominant expressions by group and level, ordered by NSP rate of use

74

74

74

77

11

80

80

43

9

80

86

86

89

94

94

%

(26)

(26)

(26)

(27)

(4)

(28)

(28)

(15)

(3)

(28)

(30)

(30)

(31)

(33)

(33)

(N)

NS P n = 35

(7)

(11)

(10)

(13)

(3)

(9)

(11)

(1)

(5)

(13)

(7)

(10)

(12)

(10)

(14)

(N)

(Continued)

50

79

71

93

21

64

79

7

36

93

50

71

86

71

100

%

NS T n =14

Variation in conventional expressions 

3 14 3 0

Gotta go

I’m looking for

Other plans

{Have/had/made} plans

Cell phone

Shopping

Decline invitation

R4

R10

I11

14 26

Sorry {I am/I’m} late

Movie

Be quiet

Late (25 mins)

I1

I8

Forgot book

R8a

I9

Offer of help

R2

17

Sorry {I’m/I am} late

34

Late (5 mins)

R7

20

No, {thanks/thank you}

Be careful

Shopping no help

R12a

63

{I am/I’m} (intensifier) sorry

Broken chair

Dog hit by car

R1

11

Adj {to see/seeing} you

0

Closing

I4

14

{I’m/am} just looking

80

Shopping no help

R12b

20

Watch out

%

(0)

(1)

(5)

(1)

(9)

(5)

(12)

(28)

(0)

(6)

(7)

(22)

(4)

(5)

(7)

(N)

3 n = 35

I’m (so) sorry

Bus

I12

Expression

That {’d/would} be + adj

Context

ID

0

3

26

0

48

23

35

71

0

32

32

48

6

35

10

%

(0)

(1)

(8)

(0)

(15)

(7)

(11)

(22)

(0)

(10)

(10)

(15)

(2)

(11)

(3)

(N)

4 n = 31

3

0

23

16

39

19

29

65

6

32

55

42

13

39

16

%

(1)

(0)

(7)

(5)

(12)

(6)

(9)

(20)

(2)

(10)

(17)

(13)

(4)

(12)

(5)

(N)

5 n = 31

0

8

56

20

40

36

44

80

4

48

64

76

16

52

(0)

(2)

(14)

(5)

(10)

(9)

(11)

(20)

(1)

(12)

(16)

(19)

(4)

(13)

(11)

(N)

6 n = 25

44

%

Level

Table 1.  Scenarios with dominant expressions by group and level, ordered by NSP rate of use (Continued)

54

14

54

57

60

60

60

66

66

69

69

71

71

71

71

%

(19)

 (5)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(21)

(21)

(23)

(23)

(24)

(24)

(25)

(25)

(25)

(25)

(N)

NS P n = 35

(6)

(2)

(6)

(7)

(3)

(9)

(9)

(8)

(8)

(10)

(11)

(9)

(9)

(9)

(10)

(N)

(Continued)

43

 7

43

50

21

64

64

57

57

71

79

64

64

64

71

%

NS T n =14

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Save place

More food

Office

Ride in rain

Agree

Get a ride

R5

R19b

R13

R18

R11

I5

6 0

{Can/could} I {get/have} a ride?

{Can/could} you give me a ride?

(0)

0 0

Works for me

Sounds {good/great} 0

0

Thanks

6

49

Thank you

I’ll be there

26

{Thanks/thank you} {so/very} much

I will be there

(0)

0

That {’d/ would} be + adj

(0)

(0)

(3)

(2)

(0)

(0)

(17)

(9)

(0)

(3)

0 10

(0)

Do you have a minute?

0

I’m stuffed

(11)

(3)

(0)

(N)

Do you have {a minute/time units}?

9 31

No problem

I’m (adv) full

0

My place

Invitation

%

3 n = 35

I2

Expression

Context

ID

Table 1.  (Continued)

26

6

3

0

3

0

19

35

16

0

23

10

0

55

6

0

%

(8)

(2)

(1)

(0)

(1)

(0)

(6)

(11)

(5)

(0)

(7)

(3)

(0)

(17)

(2)

(0)

(N)

4 n = 31

19

10

3

0

3

0

13

32

16

0

16

16

0

84

13

3

%

(6)

(3)

(1)

(0)

(1)

(0)

(4)

(10)

(5)

(0)

(5)

(5)

(0)

(26)

(4)

(1)

(N)

5 n = 31

24

16

24

8

8

0

0

1

28

28

0

0

0

0

76

(4)

(6)

(2)

(2)

(0)

(0)

(1)

(7)

(7)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(19)

(6)

(2)

(N)

6 n = 25

8

%

Level

20

31

23

31

14

9

9

29

37

40

17

37

40

43

49

%

(7)

(11)

(8)

(11)

(5)

(3)

(3)

(10)

(13)

(14)

(6)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(17)

(N)

NS P n = 35

(7)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(4)

(4)

(1)

(5)

(4)

(10)

(3)

(7)

(4)

(6)

(9)

(N)

(Continued)

50

28

36

7

29

29

7

35

29

71

21

50

29

43

64

%

NS T n =14

Variation in conventional expressions 

Message

Accept invitation

I13

R14

14 0 0 0 6

{Can/Could} you {give/leave} pro a message?

I’d love to

I’ll be there

I will be there

%

{Can/Could/May} I leave a message?

Expression

(2)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(5)

(N)

3 n = 35

3

0

0

0

32

%

(1)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(10)

(N)

4 n = 31

3

0

6

3

26

%

(1)

(0)

(2)

(1)

(8)

(N)

5 n = 31

8

8

4

0

(2)

(2)

(1)

(0)

(7)

(N)

6 n = 25

28

%

Level

23

20

23

14

%

(8)

(7)

(13)

(5)

(N)

NS P n = 35

36

 7

14

43

%

(5)

(1)

(2)

(6)

(N)

NS T n =14

Note. I= initiating utterance; R=responding utterance; NS P = Native-speaker peers; NS T= Native-speaker teachers; Total= total number of responses that used the target expression. {} show alternation; () indicates an optional element. 

Context

ID

Table 1.  Scenarios with dominant expressions by group and level, ordered by NSP rate of use (Continued)

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig



Variation in conventional expressions 

used in 71–77% of the responses (indicated by horizontal lines), and an additional 7 between 60–69%. The highest use of expressions by learners comes from two of the three expressions with the highest use by the undergraduates, You too in response to Have a nice day! and the next highest use across levels of Nice to meet you; Thanks/thank you for your (help/time), which is also used by undergraduates at 94%, shows gradually increasing use by learners across proficiency levels. Reading down Table 1, we find scenarios that resulted in lower agreement and greater variation (see NSP column). In the fourth band are three scenarios in which ­conventional expressions occurred in 54–57% of the NS undergraduates’ responses (Cell phone, Shopping, and Decline invitation). The next horizontal line shows four contexts with expressions used 40–49% and the band below includes five scenarios in which given expressions are used in fewer than 37% of the responses. These contexts show the greatest variation. The ­following sections examine variation at the speech act, strategy, and actional levels in turn. 4.1  V  ariation at the speech act and strategy levels: Same context, different speech acts, or pragmatic strategies One source of variation in the production of conventional expressions is the association of one context with different speech acts. When speakers realize different speech acts in the same context, they use different pragmalinguistic resources. Five scenarios elicited two speech acts or strategies (Table 2). Learners showed greater variation than NSs. Busy Teacher exclusively elicits expressions of gratitude from NSs (Table 2), whereas the same situation elicits up to 16% apologies from learners including I am sorry for uh (.9) eh:: take your time and (Level 5) and I’m sorry if I bother you (Level 4).6 Not every thanking context elicits apologies; few apologies occur in Make-up Test, for example. A second context that elicited two speech acts was Broken Chair where up to 26% of learners in Levels 3 and 5 and 10% of the NSs offer assistance instead of a warning to a friend standing on a chair with a broken leg. The highest rate of learner variation resulting from the use of different strategies in the realization of the same speech act comes from thanking contexts. Responses to expressions of gratitude include both deflection (No problem) and acceptance (You’re welcome).7 In Party Closing, 83–86% of NSs 6.  First language influence among the Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean speakers in the sample population was investigated by Bardovi-Harlig, Rose, and Nickels (2009). 7.  Schneider (2005) analyzes both as ‘thanks minimizers’ (p. 103); following Aijmer (1996), he categorizes no problem as belonging to “minimizing the favour” and you’re welcome as ­“expressing appreciation of the addressee” (p. 121).

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Table 2.  Scenarios that elicited two speech acts or strategies by group and level ID

Context

Speech act

Level 3 n =35

4 n = 31

5 n = 31

6 n = 25

% (N) % (N) % (N) % (N) I10 Busy Teacher R17 Make-up Test I1

R3

Broken Chair Party Closing

(N)

Thanking

46 (16) 55 (17) 55 (17) 72 (18) 97 (34) 93

(13)

Apology

11

0

(0)

Thanking

77 (27) 84 (26) 97 (30) 96 (24) 100 (35) 86

(12)

Apology

14

Warning

37 (13) 45 (14) 68 (21) 92 (23)

89 (31) 100 (14)

Offer help

26

10

Reciprocal thanking

40 (14) 26

(4)

(5)

6

3

(9) 13

Gave Ride Deflection of thanks

(2) 16

(1)

0

(4) 26

(5) 16

(0)

(8)

0

8

(4)

(0)

(2)

(8) 42 (13) 40 (10) (8) 13

29 (10) 31 (11) 26

(4) 32

(8)

(8) 40 (10)

Acceptance 54 (19) 65 (20) 61 (19) 60 (15) of thanks

%

0

0

(N)

NS T n =14 %

Acceptance 31 (11) 26 of thanks R9

NS P n =35

(0)

(0)

(1)

0

(0)

83 (29) 86

(12)

3

(3)

7

7

(1)

89 (31) 79

(11)

11

(1)

(4) 21

(3)

replied with reciprocal thanking (Thanks/Thank you for having/inviting me and one Glad to be invited) and in two cases an acceptance of thanks, which learners used in 1­ 3%–32% of their responses. In Gave Ride, 89% of undergraduates and 79% of teachers deflected thanks (No problem, My pleasure, and Anytime). In contrast, 54–65% of the learners accepted thanks with You’re welcome (Table 2), an e­xpression used only by one of the seven NSs who accepted thanks (or 2% of all NSs). This section examined contexts in which some participants performed a ­different speech act or used a different strategy from the majority of the NS, revealing one type of variation. Even when speakers perform the same speech act, however, there may be variation at the actional level. This is addressed in the next section. 4.2  Variation at the actional level: Same speech act, different words Variation at the actional level (the linguistic means available for the realization of specific speech acts) occurs at different sublevels. Speakers may use different



Variation in conventional expressions 

expressions (variation across expressions) or they may use the same expressions with alternations (variation within expressions). 4.2.1  Variation across expressions Speakers may use expressions that are unrelated in a single context. Three warning scenarios were presented in the task, a context in which the addressee is standing on a chair that has a broken leg (I1), is about to step in a puddle (I3), and is about to step in front of an oncoming bus (I12) (Table 3). Table 3.  Use of warning expressions by group and level ID Context Expression

Level 3 n = 35

4 n =31

5 n = 31

6 n = 25

NS P n =35

NS T n = 14

% (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)

%

(N)

%

(N)

34 (12) 35 (11) 29 (9) 44 (11)

60

(21)

64

(9)

I1

Broken chair

Be careful Watch out

0

(0) 10

(3) 26 (8) 28

(7)

6

(2)

14

(2)

I3

Puddle

Watch out

0

(0) 13

(4) 19 (6) 36

(9)

86

(30)

50

(7)

(Be) careful

3

(1)

6

(2) 13 (4)

8

(2)

3

(1)

7

(1)

Look out

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

6

(2)

21

(3)

Watch out

20

(7) 10

(3) 16 (5) 44 (11)

71

(25)

71

(10)

Be careful

6

(2) 19

(6) 26 (8) 24

(6)

3

(1)

7

(1)

Look out

0

(0)

(0)

(0)

6

(2)

14

(2)

I12 Bus

0

0 (0)

0 (0)

0

NSs favored Be careful for Broken Chair and Watch out for both Puddle and Bus, with the opposite expression clearly disfavored. A third expression Look out is used by more NSs than Be careful in the Puddle and Bus scenarios. No learner attempted Look out. Although NSs treat Be careful and Watch out as appropriate to different contexts at the group level, learners seem to treat them as functional equivalents in Broken Chair and Bus. Two of the scenarios elicited compound expressions that are comprised of two pragmatic strategies: No thanks, I’m full and No thanks, I’m just looking. The first strategy refuses an offer and the second provides an explanation. In the case of More Food, NSs often reply No thanks, I’m full or No thanks, I’m stuffed and, in the case of Shopping No Help, No thanks, I’m just looking. Table 4 presents the distribution of responses to More Food. Every member of both NS groups used both a refusal and an explanation. These are listed as [decline] and [explanation] in Table 4. Learners provided fewer

[Explanation]

[Decline]

0

Compliment

(2)

6 11

Can’t eat

I’m fine/great/good/OK

(0)

0

Had/ate too/so much

(0)

(0)

(4)

(11)

0 31

I’m stuffed

(2)

(1)

(0)

(0)

I’m (adv) full

6

No

(3)

9 3

Thank you/thanks

0 3

I’d love to, but

Sorry

Thank you/thanks, but

(1)

0

No + ((laugh))

(0) (0)

0 0

Oh, no!

(16)

46

(12)

(20)

(23)

(N)

3 n = 35

Thanks though/anyways

No, {thanks/thank you}

57 34

[Explanation]

[Accept]

% 66

Expression

[Decline]

Strategy

0

3

0

0

55

0

3

6

6

3

0

0

0

0

60

13

81

87

%

(0)

(1)

(0)

(0)

(17)

(0)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(1)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(19)

(4)

(25)

(27)

(N)

4 n = 31

Table 4.  Responses to More food scenario (R19) by group and level

0

0

3

0

84

0

10

10

6

0

0

0

3

0

71

0

97

100

%

(0)

(0)

(1)

(0)

(26)

(0)

(3)

(3)

(2)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(1)

(0)

(22)

(0)

(30)

(31)

(N)

5 n = 31

0

4

0

4

76

0

0

4

8

0

0

0

0

0

76

0

88

96

%

Level

(0)

(1)

(0)

(1)

(19)

(0)

(0)

(1)

(2)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(19)

(0)

(22)

(24)

(N)

6 n = 25

3

6

6

3

40

37

0

0

0

0

0

6

6

13

74

0

100

100

%

(1)

(2)

(2)

(1)

(14)

(13)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(2)

(2)

(4)

(26)

(0)

(35)

(35)

(N)

NS P n = 35

7

0

7

0

29

50

0

0

0

14

14

0

0

0

71

0

100

100

%

(1)

(0)

(1)

(0)

(4)

(7)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(2)

(2)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(10)

(0)

(14)

(14)

(N)

NS T n = 14w

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig



Variation in conventional expressions 

explanations than refusals, which can be said to carry the main illocutionary force. Learners also accepted the offer in Levels 3 and 4 (listed as [Accept] in Table 4) with Yes please and Sure.Acceptances may be an artifact of not comprehending the task or of feeling that accepting is the right thing to do despite one’s own desires. No thanks/No thank you is the most common refusal for both learners and NSs. Two NSs used Thanks though and one learner used Thanks anyways. Similarly, 7 learners used Thanks/Thank you but, which carries a negative reading. Nine learners used Thanks or Thank you as part of their refusal, relying exclusively on the following explanation to carry the illocutionary force as in I’m full and I’m enough. I’m full and I’m stuffed together account for 77% and 79% of the NS undergraduate and teacher responses, respectively; they divide roughly in half in the undergraduate responses, whereas teachers prefer stuffed to full. Full is preferred by learners. By Level 5 (high intermediate) learner production of both pragmatic strategies reflects the NS preferences. Five thanking expressions and their contexts are reviewed in Table 5. The first four scenarios exhibit a clear NS preference. In response to Busy Teacher (I-10), an elaborated thanking expression Thanks/thank you for your time/help is preferred by NSs. Some learners use a simple thank you that diminishes at higher levels. Similarly, in Party Closing (R3), NS undergraduates use Thanks/Thank you for having/inviting me whereas 22–32% of learners use alternative thanking expressions. In Party Closing, Thank + invite indicates that learners have produced interlanguage attempts at the structure such as Thank you for inviting and Thanks to invite me (Level 5), Thank you to invite me (Level 4), and Thank you for invite to me (Level 3). No learner attempted Thank you for having me. Like Party Closing, Offer of Help has a specialized form, That’d be + positive adj. Although a high percentage of learners recognized Offer as a thanking scenario, only three used the formula: two as That’d/would be great! and one as That would be nice from you! Two additional learners use great but not the conditional that’d/would be, instead using will, That will be great, and present tense It’s great!, both of which are acquired much earlier than would (Salsbury & Bardovi-Harlig 2000). The last thanking scenario, Ride in Rain (R18) in which a friend offers a ride to another friend when it is raining, “Hey, want a ride?”, shows no single ­preferred expression dividing between That’d be + adj (37%) and Thanks/thank you + ­intensifier + much (29%) for undergraduates and three ways for teachers adding Thanks to the preferences of the undergraduates. No learner attempts the conditional in this scenario (not even the three from Offer), although three use positive adjectives in sentences whose present tense (that’s (0.5) great!) and modal will (that will be wonderful; I will: be great) are acquired before would, thus reflecting the interlanguage grammar.

Ride in rain

R18 49 0

14

Thanks a lot

Thank you

0

Thanks

26

Thank you (only)

Thanks

26

40

Thank you + intensifier + much

Make-up test

R17

{Thanks/thank you} {so/very} much

(0)

6

0

20

Thank you

Thank you (intensifier)

0

(5)

6

Thank + invite

Thanks {so/very} much

(7)

0

{Thanks/thank you} for {having/ inviting} me

Party Closing

R3

That {’d/ would} be + adj

(2)

0 66

That {’d/would} be + adj

Thank you (only)

Offer of

help

R2

17 26

{Thanks/Thank you} for

Thank you

Busy

(0)

(17)

(9)

(0)

(0)

(9)

(14)

(2)

(0)

(23)

(0)

(9)

(6)

(N)

teacher

%

3 n = 35

I10

Expression

Context

ID

Table 5.  Thank you scenarios by group and level

19

35

16

0

3

13

6

35

29

16

3

3

3

77

0

13

35

%

(6)

(11)

(5)

(0)

(1)

(4)

(2)

(11)

(9)

(5)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(24)

(0)

(4)

(11)

(N)

4 n = 31

13

32

16

0

3

3

3

48

35

10

16

3

6

81

6

10

45

%

(4)

(10)

(5)

(0)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(15)

(11)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(25)

(2)

(3)

(14)

(N)

5 n = 31 %

1

28

28

0

0

0

0

36

56

0

20

4

12

84

4

0

56

Level

(1)

(7)

(7)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(9)

(14)

(0)

(5)

(1)

(3)

(21)

(1)

(0)

(14)

(N)

6 n = 25

9

9

29

37

0

0

0

6

89

0

3

0

74

20

66

3

94

%

(3)

(3)

(10)

(13)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(2)

(31)

(0)

(1)

(0)

(26)

(7)

(23)

(1)

(33)

(N)

NS P n = 35

29

7

35

29

0

0

7

0

71

0

21

0

50

21

57

7

71

%

(4)

(1)

(5)

(4)

(0)

(0)

(1)

(0)

(10)

(0)

(3)

(0)

(7)

(3)

(8)

(1)

(10)

(N)

NS T n = 14

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig



Variation in conventional expressions 

4.2.1.1  A case of high NS variation.  Four scenarios resulted in 30% or greater difference between NS teachers and peers: Office, Get a ride, Puddle, and Movie. The greatest difference between NS teachers and undergraduates appears in Movie in which teenagers are talking loudly (Table 6). Sixty percent of the NS undergraduates say Be quiet whether alone or embedded, as in Could you be quiet. In contrast, teachers use it only 21% of the time. Equally frequent in the teacher production is Keep it down (Table 6). Hold it down and Ssshhh also occur as do one instance each of Shut up and Quiet down. Undergraduates also use Shut up, Keep it down, and Quiet down, together accounting for almost 30% of undergraduate responses. Twenty-six to 48% of the learners use Be quiet, more like the undergraduates. Although 7 learners use shut up (10% and 13% in Levels 4 and 5, respectively), only single learners attempt Keep it down or Hold it down. The remainder of learner production is scattered across a range of highly individual, nativelike and interlanguage forms documented in Table 6. Learners show no clear nexus of production beyond Be quiet. The lexical core quiet is used an additional 16 times by learners: Quiet (8), Keep (it) quiet (4), Quiet down (1), Talk quietly (1), Make quiet (2). Other repeated lexical items include down (8) and loud (9) (but not always in the right direction such as speak loudly). Table 6 shows that the interlanguage production across instructional levels overlaps very little. Expressions that are used by more than one group appear in the table; the unique usages are listed in the fourth row from the bottom of the table. While many are grammatical and interpretable, such as Turn down your talking and Don’t speak loudly, they do not meet the criteria of nativelike selection laid out by Pawley and Syder (1983). Some contributions such as Make quiet, Can you down your talking, Loud down your sound/voice, and Could you loud down? are interpretable but not ­grammatical. Other cases suggest a mismatch of form-meaning either from a lack of comprehension of the scenario or a misalignment of word meaning used in the response, exemplified by Speak slowly, Talk loud, Raise your voice, and Don’t stop your talking. This particular case shows a context where multiple expressions are used by NS. Such variation may influence the low use by learners of any of the NS options. Several contexts yielded a main expression and competitors, revealing variation across expressions. The following section explores variation in the production of the same expression. 4.2.2  Variation within expressions Variation within expressions is found when speakers say the same thing in slightly different ways. The classic example of this variation in pragmatics is Manes and Wolfson’s (1981) identification of NP {is/looks}(really) ADJ as the favored

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Table 6.  Distribution of responses to Movie and alternatives to Be quiet by group and level Expression

Level NS NS Peers Teachers n = 14

n = 35

6

5

4

3

n = 25

n = 31

n = 31

n = 35

%

(N)

%

(N)

%

(N)

%

(N)

%

(N)

%

(N)

Be quiet

21

(3)

60 (21)

40

(10)

42

(13)

48

(15)

26

(9)

Shut up

7

(1)

11

(4)

16

(5)

10

(3)

Keep it down

21

(3)

11

(4)

Quiet down

7

(1)

9

(3)

3

(1)

Hold it down

14

(2)

Ssshhh

3

(1)

All three (multiple)

3

(1)

I can’t hear

3

(1)

3

(1)

14

(2)

Wouldn’t say, 7 too embarrassed

(1)

No response (after shhhhh)

(1)

7

4

4

(1)

(1)

Be (more) silent

2

Speak/talk slowly

1

1

2

Keep (it) quiet

1

2

1

So loudly

1 1

3

3

1

1

Calm down your voice, Speak outside, Don’t make a noise, Speak low(er) (2)

Keep down your voice, Turn down your voice, Can’t speak in the theater, Don’t stop your talkings, Less your voice, Raise your voice.

You’re in the theater, Stop! So loudly speaking, Don’t speak loudly, Could you down loud? Talk quietly, Low down

2

1

7

5

More loudly

3

2

1

Quiet

1

Turn down your voice Expressions unique to one level

No answer

1

Uninterpretable Excuse me as alerter

Talk loud(ly) (2), Could you louds, Loud down of your {sound/voice} (2), Make quiet (2), Excuse me alone (3), Speak loudly, Can you turn down yourtalking

1

4 2

8



Variation in conventional expressions 

c­ ompliment formula in American English. As Table 7 shows, learners and NSs identify Make-up Test as a thanking scenario. Table 7.  Distribution of thanking expressions in Make-up Test by group and level Target expression

Level 3 n = 35

4 n = 31

5 n = 31

% (N) % (N) % (N) All expressions of gratitude

6 n = 25

NS P n = 35

NS T n = 14

(N) % (N) % (N)

66 (23) 65 (20) 87 (27) 92 (23) 94 (33) 71 (10)

Thank you + intensifier + much 40 (14) 29  (9) 35 (11) 60 (15) 86 (30) 71 (10) Thank you very much

26  (9) 13  (4) 23  (7) 36  (9)  6  (2)  7  (1)

Thank you so much

14  (5) 16  (5) 13  (4) 24  (6) 80 (28) 64  (9)

Note. Adapted from Bardovi-Harlig (in press).

But once we consider form, there is less agreement by learners and more variation in contrast to NS who are relatively consistent: 94% of NS undergraduates used thanking expressions and 86% used Thank you + intensifier + much, and 80% used thank you so much. Similarly, of the 10 NS teachers responding with a thanking expression, all used Thank you + intensifier + much, and nine used so much. In contrast, 92% of Level 6 learners used an expression of gratitude, but only 60% used Thank you + intensifier + much and these were divided between very much (36%) and so much (24%). One recurrent alternation, Thanks/Thank you occurs in all five thanking scenarios. NS teachers seem to show a slight preference for Thanks over Thank you in all contexts (Table 8) except Make-up Test, where 10/11 thanking expressions are Thank you (Table 7). Conversely, the undergraduates seem to prefer Thank ­ losing. Taken in the aggregate, however, teacher uses show you in all but Party C no preference (49%-51%, Table 8, last row).8 In the aggregate, undergraduates used Thanks in 32% of their responses and Thank you in 68%. Overall, NS undergraduates show a 1:2 usage ratio of thanks : thank you, and the teachers show a 1:1 ratio. In contrast, learners vastly prefer Thank you. Level 3 and 5 learners show 1:8 and 1:6 thanks: thank you ratios, and Level 6 used Thank you 20 times more often than thanks. Only Level 4 learners show a greater use of thanks compared to other

8.  To study the thank you/thanks alternation in detail among native speakers would require more speakers, additional contexts, and statistical analysis.

R18

R17

82 21 79 15 85 0 100 12 88

Thanks

Thank you

Thanks

Thank you

Thanks

Thank you

Thanks

Thank you

(organizer)

Make-up test

(teacher)

Offer of ride in rain

(friend)

Total

(friend)

R3

Thank you

Thanks

Offer of help

Closing, party

18

Thank you

(teacher)

R2

7 93

Thanks

Busy teacher

%

(92)

(12)

(26)

(0)

(23)

(4)

(11)

(3)

(18)

(4)

(14)

(1)

(N)

3 n = 35

I10

Expression

Context

ID

Table 8.  Thanks vs. Thank you by group and level

69

31

72

28

77

23

50

50

60

40

75

25

%

(69)

(31)

(18)

(7)

(20)

(6)

(4)

(4)

(15)

(10)

(12)

(4)

(N)

4 n = 31

85

15

80

20

89

11

92

8

78

22

87

13

%

(88)

(16)

(16)

(4)

(25)

(3)

(12)

(1)

(21)

(6)

(14)

(2)

(N)

5 n = 31

95

5

94

6

100

0

80

20

(83)

(4)

(17)

(1)

(23)

(0)

(8)

(2)

(21)

(0)

(14)

(1)

(N)

6 n = 25

100

0

93

7

%

Level

68

32

75

25

97

3

44

56

54

46

62

38

%

(94)

(45)

(15)

(5)

(33)

(1)

(12)

(15)

(13)

(11)

(21)

(13)

(N)

NS P n = 35

51

49

36

64

91

9

40

60

43

57

42

58

%

(26)

(25)

(4)

(7)

(10)

(1)

(4)

(6)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(7)

(N)

NS T n = 14

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig



Variation in conventional expressions 

learners, resulting in a 1:2 ratio of thanks : thank you (see especially R2 and R3). The preference for Thank you mirrors second language learners’ preference more generally for full over reduced forms even though thanks is available as input. If the teacher production is any indication, learners are exposed to thanks; they also reported hearing thanks frequently in the recognition task that was administered at the same time (see Bardovi-Harlig 2009). Other variable formulas include That’d/would be + positive adjective, Thanks for inviting/having me, I’m full/stuffed (discussed earlier) and Adj {to see/seeing} you (realized as Good to see you) and {Can/Could} you {get/V} me a glass? ­Seventy-one percent of the undergraduates said either {good/nice/great/glad}to see you or{good/nice/great}seeing you. The dominant choice was Good to see you (40%) followed by good seeing you (11%). In contrast, Nice to meet you used in Introduction shows no variation in form, although it has the same syntax as Nice to see you. NS undergraduates use Nice to meet you 30 times with one additional use of Good to meet you. Only three tokens occur with intensifiers so (2) and very (1). Twelve of 14 teachers use Nice to meet you with no modification or variation. Thank you for {having/inviting} me breaks up into two options thanks/thank you for having me used by 43% of the undergraduates and 21% of the teachers. No learners attempted thanks/thank you for having me (they also reject it on the recognition task; Bardovi-Harlig 2009, 2010). Even the transparent Thanks/ thank you for inviting me is only attempted by six learners. On the other hand, NS undergraduates and teachers use Thanks/thank you for inviting me 31% and 29%, respectively. The response to Reach Glass (I-7) is highly variable with get and hand marginally favored by teachers and undergraduates who display multiple uses of hand, pass, and give, and single uses of reach and grab. 4.2.2.1  Lexical core.  An extreme case of variation within an expression is the recurrence of a single word in the absence of a conventional expression. Although no single expression reaches the 50% mark in I6, the word mess is strongly associated with the scenario in which participants are told, “You had a birthday party in your home yesterday. The apartment is untidy and you are just cleaning up. Your friend, John, comes by. You invite him in” (note that untidy is used, although not colloquial, to avoid priming mess). Eighty percent and 93% of NS peers and teachers, respectively, use the word mess to describe their apartment after the party (Table 1). Thirty-six percent of the teachers use Excuse the mess and 43% of the undergraduates use Sorry {about/for} the mess (evenly split between about and for). Sixteen learners also use mess, half of them at Level 6, showing that they have begun to associate the key word with the context. In the recognition task conducted at the same time, learners reported that they had never heard Excuse the mess, which is used by NS teachers; however, 4 learners do use Sorry about

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

the mess, which undergraduates also used. Learners produce the adjectival form messy, as in My apartment is messy and My apartment is a messy (Level (4) in 10 of the 16 cases (63%), a much higher proportion than used by NS (8% by teachers and 18% by undergraduates). NS and learners alike show variation within expressions. Variation in learner production reflects some of the NS variation as well as the influence of interlanguage development. 5.  Discussion To answer the question, “At what levels of pragmatic analysis does variation in conventional expressions occur in the production of L1 and L2 speakers and what does it look like?”, the results show that variation exists at the level of the speech act performed and the strategies used as well as at the actional level, both across and within conventional expressions. There is greater variation as the level of analysis becomes more specific. Even though these scenarios were based on observation and then piloted to assure contexts that would yield production of conventional expressions, a limited number of contexts still showed variation at the speech-act level, resulting in the use of the anticipated speech act and an alternative. Many studies in interlanguage pragmatics research have compared learners to NSs only at the levels of speech acts and semantic formulas (but see Bardovi-Harlig & ­Hartford 1993, for a four-level approach). However, similarity at the speech-act level does not guarantee similarity at the actional level, and an analysis that is restricted to the speech act performed or strategies used to realize it may mask variation. At the actional level, variation is found at two sublevels. Variation across expressions occurs when speakers use different, unrelated expressions to perform the same speech act. Alternate conventional expressions used by learners are often found in the NS repertoire at lower rates, suggesting that frequency in NS production is not the only determinant of production by learners in the same community. The context that showed the greatest NS variation also showed extensive learner variation, although contexts with high NS agreement can also show a single competing conventional expression. Variation within conventional expressions is found in both syntax and lexicon, although in the set of expressions investigated here, lexical variation was more common. Learners additionally showed variation using full contracted or reduced forms, which is known of learner language more generally (see for example, Brown & Kondo-Brown 2006; Hendriks 2003; Odlin 1978). Additional variation in learner production of conventional expressions, beyond what was



Variation in conventional expressions 

considered here, includes interlanguage forms (some appear in Table 8; see also Bardovi-Harlig 2009; Bardovi-Harlig et al. 2010), pauses, pronunciation, and prosody, as well as volubility (Bardovi-Harlig in press). One area for future investigation is the degree to which NS variation influences learner variation. To the extent that conventional expressions and competitors create multiple targets for learners, does this also create more variation in learner production? Similarly, does high variability in the production of a single expression result in lower rates of use in learner production? In a study of five potentially variable structures in Spanish, Geeslin and Gudmestad (2010) found that advanced learners showed the same range of forms as native speakers, but that the forms occurred at different rates. These questions cannot be answered with certainty by these data, but there were cases of high NS agreement and high learner use, high NS agreement and lower learner use, and low NS agreement on a single target and low use by learners. Whereas target language variation may have some degree of influence on the variation exhibited by learners, there are also intervening variables at play. ­Recognition of conventional expressions by learners influences the targetlike production of conventional expressions (Bardovi-Harlig 2009), as does level of proficiency (Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos 2011; Bardovi-Harlig et al. 2010). Moreover, grammatical development drives the interlanguage forms of conventional ­expressions; such interlanguage forms have only been included in qualitative accounts of the acquisition of conventional expressions and not the quantitative ­descriptions such as those employed here (see for example Bardovi-Harlig 2009; Bardovi-Harlig et al. 2010). 5.1  Methodological issues The cycle of observation of talk in a single community, scenario development, piloting, and revising led to the construction of scenarios, which on the whole promote the use of conventional expressions relevant to both learners and the larger community. An oral production task maintains the mode of authentic production (in contrast to written tasks), and the 7-second response time replicates turn exchanges and encourages the use of conventional expressions. Although the task has many advantages, including controlling contextual variables, one disadvantage is that low-level learners have difficulty comprehending specific contexts. Level 3 learners left more items unanswered than any other group, and they also provided more responses that suggested lack of comprehension. Lower-level learners interacting with other speakers often do not understand what is said to them, but they do understand their own intentions and motivation for speaking. One example of a difficult scenario is Puddle in which some learners did not

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

recognize the word puddle (offering an umbrella instead), whereas they would have recognized a real puddle immediately. This design precludes the participation of novice learners, and thus the study of the acquisition of conventional expressions at the lowest levels of proficiency. On the whole, however, the oral format works very well for intermediate and advanced learners and for native speakers. The oral format is superior to the use of written elicitation that allows for planned production (this does not necessarily simulate the psycholinguistic conditions for formula use) and furthermore does not match the mode of conversational interactions. Since the scenarios were derived from field notes of interactions that were observed in the community, their use balances authenticity and experimental control. The present task had paired a limited number of scenarios to facilitate comparison of the effect of micro-social variables on conventional expressions, but more pairings would be useful for the study of variation. Four comparisons were planned: Introduction and Closing contrasted Nice to meet you with Nice to see you; Shopping Help and Shopping No Help contrasted I’m looking for and I’m just looking; Dog Hit by Car and Father compared condolences I’m + (intensifier) + sorry, with I’m + intensifier + sorry; and 5-Minutes Late and 25-Minutes Late were designed to test severity of offense for apologies, but instead learners found the 25-Minutes Late context to be unpardonable. Modification of 25-Minutes Late to be more similar to the 5-Minutes Late scenario may be warranted, along with addition of other pairs. Because the focus of the original design was to promote the use of conventional expressions, the scenarios are weighted to contexts that elicit a single preferred expression. If more balance is desired for future investigation of the influence of variation on acquisition, then additional observation and item development would need to be pursued. Further studies would ideally include statistical analysis (cf. Geeslin 2003; Geeslin & Gudmestad 2010). A number of analyses have now been conducted on the 5,500 responses to the oral production task, but it is fair to say that there is nothing special about the c­onventional expressions elicited by these 32 scenarios. They were selected because they are common, unremarkable, and above all, present in the input p ­ roduced by the speech community. A reasonable next step would be to expand the list of expressions with continued concern for authenticity, region, and o ­ ccurrence as targets in community use. The list of expressions could be expanded by p ­ ragmatic variables including function (greetings, speech acts, or other ­characteristics of the actional level) or speech context (shopping, ­banking, ­doctor’s office, or others), or by formal variables related to the conventional expressions themselves.



Variation in conventional expressions 

One final methodological observation is warranted. Whether researchers are interested in the macro-social variable of region as an object of investigation or controlling region as a background variable, it is safer to assume local rather than general use of conventional expressions. The impact of this on acquisition research is significant, and should be obvious once we stop to examine it. The importance of considering conventional expressions to be local until proven otherwise is illustrated by comparing the use of thanking expressions. Wong (2010) reported the absence of British thanking expressions cheers and ta in the conversation of Hong Kong English speakers, expressions that are similarly absent in my native (Los Angeles) or adopted (Midwest) dialects of American English. The difference in reporting results quantitatively often hinders cross-dialect comparisons of frequency of occurrence, but reporting non-occurrence is fairly straightforward. Examining variation not only provides a fuller account of the acquisition of L2 pragmatics, it also speaks to the development of elicitation tasks: Conventional expressions selected for investigation must be derived from observation of actual use in the local speech community; pre-selection from textbooks, intuition, or anecdotal accounts is not sufficient to establish levels of community use. Investigating variation is necessary not only to assure the authenticity of elicitation tasks, but also to verify the availability of the expression in input and its value as an acquisitional target. It is possible that the NS data collected for the present study can be used in the future for an exploration of Indiana English and American dialects or perhaps for a study of university community English and a comparison of local varieties. Unlike variational pragmatics or dialect studies that advocate including speakers who have not had significant exposure to other speech areas, however, this study was interested the speech of the current Bloomington community, not restricted to the speech of community members born and raised in this area, some of whom are included in both the peer and teacher groups. This scope underscores the fact that although many types of studies may be interested in variation, their particular interests will necessarily impact the design. 6.  Conclusion The goal of this chapter was to explore the range of variation found in the realization of conventional expressions, to show how different levels of analysis reveal different degrees of variation, and to relate learner variation to native-speaker variation. The results showed that the higher the level of pragmatic analysis, the less likely it is that the analysis will reveal variation; variation increased as the

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

a­ nalysis moved from speech acts, to strategies, to specific conventional expressions. Although it appears that there may be more variation among learners in scenarios where there is also more native speaker variation, this is an area for systematic research in the future. The results also showed that there were some contexts that favored conventional expressions and others that did not – in spite of two pilot tests. Without the careful exclusion of scenarios that did not promote the use of conventional expressions, there would have been more than five contexts in which conventional expressions were not used. The differences between social contexts that favor (or require) conventional expressions and those that do not also bear future empirical investigation. Formulaic language has recently received increasing attention through ­data-based studies in pragmatics (see Bardovi-Harlig 2012 for a review). Interpretations of (or predictions about) the use of conventional expressions or formulaic language in pragmatics – whether in studies of L2 acquisition, variation in pragmatics, or pragmatics more generally – must be supported by empirical studies.

References Aijmer, K. 1996. Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London: Longman. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2006. On the role of formulas in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In ­Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, K. Bardovi-Harlig, J.C. Félix-Brasdefer & A.S. Omar, (eds), 1–28. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2009. Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning 59: 755–795. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2010. Recognition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 12, G. Kasper, H. t. Nguyen, D.R. Yoshimi & J.K. Yoshioka (eds), 141–162. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2012. Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in pragmatics research. ARAL 32. Bardovi-Harlig, K. In press. On saying the same thing: Issues in coding conventional expressions ­ atsuki & in L2 pragmatics. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 13, T. Greer, D. T C. Roever (eds). Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Bardovi-Harlig K. & Bastos M.-T. 2011. Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics 8: 347–384. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Bastos, M.-T., Burghardt, B., Chappetto, E., Nickels, E. & Rose M. 2010. The use of conventional expressions and utterance length in L2 pragmatics. In ­Pragmatics



Variation in conventional expressions 

and Language Learning, Vol. 12, G. Kasper, H. t. Nguyen, D.R. Yoshimi, & J.K. ­Yoshioka (eds), 163–186. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign ­Language Resource Center. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B.S. 1993. Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 279–304. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Rose, M. & Nickels, E. 2008. The influence of first language and level of development in the use of conventional expressions of thanking, apologizing, and refusing. In Selected Proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum, M. Bowles, R. Foote, S. Perpiñán & R. Bhatt (eds), 113–130. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 〈http://www.lingref.com/cpp/slrf/2007/index.html〉. Barron, A. & Schneider, K.P. 2009. Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6: 425–442. Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V. 2004. If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25: 371– 405. Brown, J.D. & Kondo-Brown, K. (eds) 2006. Perspectives on Teaching Connected Speech to Second Language Speakers. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press. Coulmas, F. 1981. Introduction: Conversational routine. In Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, F. Coulmas (ed.), 1–17. The Hague: Mouton. Culpeper, J. 2010. Conventional impoliteness formula. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3232–3245. Dörnyei, Z., Adolphs, S. & Durow, V. 2004. Individual differences and their effects on formulaic sequence acquisition. In Schmitt (ed.), 87–106. Edmonds, A. 2010. On the Representation of Conventional Expressions in L1 English L2 French. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University at Bloomington. Geeslin, K. 2003. A comparison of copula choice: Native Spanish speakers and advanced learners. Language Learning 53: 703–764. Geeslin, K. & Gudmestad, A. 2010. An exploration of the range and frequency of occurrence of forms in potentially variable structures in second-language Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 433–463. Hendriks, H. 2003. The use of nouns in reference maintenance: The seeming contradiction in adult second language acquisition. In Typology and Second Language Acquisition, A. ­Giacolone Ramat (ed.), 291–326. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. House, J. 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 225–252. Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. 1993. Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction. In Interlanguage Pragmatics, G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds), 1–17. Oxford: OUP. Kecskes, I. 2000. Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances. Links & Letters 7: 145–161. Manes, J. & Wolfson, N. 1981. The compliment formula. In Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, F. Coulmas (ed.), 115–132. The Hague: Mouton. . Myles, F., Hooper, J. & Mitchell, R. 1998. Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning 48: 323–363. Nattinger, J.R. & DeCarrico, J.S. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP. Odlin, T.M. 1978. Variable rules in the acquisition of English contractions. TESOL Quarterly 12: 451–458.

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig Pawley, A. & Syder, F.H. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Language and Communication, J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (eds), ­191–226. London: Longman. Roever, C. 2005. Testing ESL Pragmatics: Development and Validation of a Web-Based Assessment Battery. Berlin: Peter Lang. Salsbury, T. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2000. Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality in L2 English. In Social and Cognitive Factors in Second Language Acquisition: Selected Proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum, B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M.E. Anderson, C.A. Klee & E. Tarone (eds), 57–76. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press. Scarcella, R. 1979. Watch up! Working Papers in Bilingualism 19: 79–88. Schneider, K.P. 2005. No problem, you’re welcome, anytime: Responding to thanks in Ireland, England, and the USA. In The Pragmatics of Irish English, K.P. Schneider & A. Barron (eds), 101–139. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schmitt, N. (ed.). 2004. Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use [Language Learning & Language Teaching 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schmitt, N. & Carter, R. 2004. Formulaic sequences in action. In Schmitt (ed.), 1–22. Wildner-Bassett, M.E. 1994. Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: ‘Polite’ noises for cultural appropriateness. IRAL XXXII: 3–17. Wolfram, W. & Schilling-Estes, N. 2006. American English: Dialects and Variation. Malden MA: Blackwell. Wong, M.L.-Y. 2010. Expressions of gratitude by Hong Kong speakers of English: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK). Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1243–1257. Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. Yorio, C. 1989. Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In Bilingualism across the Lifespan, K. Hyltenstam & L.K. Obler (eds), 55–72. Cambridge: CUP.

Appendix: Oral production task Part A instructions: Initiating utterances In this part of the task, you will see a description on the screen. Read along with the speaker. Imagine that you are speaking to a friend. When you see “you say” on the screen, speak to your friend. Say the first thing you think of. You have seven seconds to respond. Speak clearly. Here are two examples. Example A. The phone rings. Yu pick it up. (oral and written). You say: (screen only) NNS respondent: “Hello” (aural only) Example B. You are talking to your friend from a cell phone on a noisy city street. You couldn’t hear something she said. You say: (screen only) NNS respondent: “Could you say that again?” (aural only) Now, let’s begin. This part will take about 10 minutes.



Variation in conventional expressions 

Initiators. All scenarios are followed by a visual prompt on the screen that says You say: The asterisk at I-5 indicates that a key word from the anticipated expression was inadvertently included in the scenario. Item

Context

Scenario

I-1

Broken chair

You see your friend standing on a chair trying to reach a book at the top of a bookshelf. You know that the chair she is standing on has a broken leg.

I-2

Invitation

Your mid-term exams are next week. You and some friends have decided to study together. You have the biggest apartment, so you want to invite everyone to study there.

I-3

Puddle

After class you’re walking to the library with a friend. It’s been r­ aining all morning, and you notice that your friend is about to step into a big puddle.

I-4

Closing

You are in the library and you see an old friend who you have not seen for a long time. You talk for a little while and as you are ­leaving you say,

*I-5

Get a ride

Many of your friends are going to the movies, but you don’t have a car. You ask one of your friends for a ride in his car.

I-6

Mess

You had a birthday party in your home yesterday. The apartment is untidy and you are just cleaning up. Your friend, John, comes by. You invite him in.

I-7

Reach glass

Your roommate is standing in the kitchen by the cupboard. You ask him for a glass.

I-8

Late (25 mins)

You made an appointment with your teacher. Unfortunately you arrive 25 minutes late for the meeting, and the teacher is already leaving.

I-9

Movie

You are in the theater. There is a group of young teenagers sitting behind you. They are talking so loudly that you cannot hear a word.

I-10

Busy teacher

You stop by your teacher’s office to ask a question about the assignment. She takes time to answer your question. You know she is very busy, so before you say good-bye, you say,

I-11

Cell phone

You are at the bus stop. While waiting, you are talking with your friend on your cell phone. The bus arrives and you need to hang up.

I-12

Bus

You and a friend are about to cross the street when you see the campus bus coming. Your friend does not see the bus and is about to step in front of it.

I-13

Message

You call your friend. His roommate answers the phone and tells you that your friend is not home. You would like the roommate to tell your friend something.

 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Part B instructions: Responding utterances In this part of the task, you are talking to your friend, and your friend speaks first. When your friend finishes, you answer. You have 7 seconds to respond. Remember to speak clearly. Here are two examples. Example A. You see your old friend at a party. (oral and written). Friend: How are you? (aural only) You say: (screen only) NNS response: Good, how are you? (aural only) Example B. Your friend needs some help moving a heavy old desk out of her dorm room. Friend: Could you help me move my desk? (aural only) You say: (screen only) NNS response: I’d be happy to. (aural only) Now let’s begin. This part will take about 18 minutes. Replies: All scenarios are followed by an oral turn (given in quotation marks) and visual prompt on the screen that says You say: Item

Scenario

R-1

Dog hit by car

You’re talking outside with your longtime neighbor and she tells you about her dog’s accident. Audio only: “Last Sunday my dog got hit by a truck.”

R-2

Offer of help

You need to pick up a book at the bookstore, but you don’t have any free time today. “I can pick it up for you.”

R-3

Closing, party

There is a reception on campus. The organizer invited you and a few other students as well. It is getting late, and you decide to leave. You go over to the organizer. “Thanks for coming.”

R-4

Shopping

You go to a clothing store and you need to find a new shirt. A salesperson approaches you. You want the salesperson’s ­assistance. “Can I help you?”

R-5

Save place

You are waiting in line at the movie theatre and the person in front of you says, “Could you hold my place in line? I’ll be right back.”

R-6

Have a nice day!

You are in the supermarket. After you pay, you are ready to pick up your bags. The cashier says, “Have a nice day!”

R-7

Late (5 mins)

You made an appointment with your teacher. Unfortunately you arrive five minutes late for the meeting. Your teacher says, “Hello. Come on in.”

R-8

Forgot book

You borrowed a book from your friend, Kate. You promised to return it today. She needs it for her presentation in class tomorrow. However, you left the book at home. You meet her in class. “By the way, did you bring my book? I really need it for my presentation tomorrow.” (Continued)



Variation in conventional expressions 

Item

Scenario

R-9

Gave ride

You give your classmate a ride home. He lives in the building next to yours. He gets out of the car and says, “Thanks for the ride.”

R-10

Decline invitation Your teacher invites the whole class to dinner at her house. The dinner is on Friday evening. You would actually prefer to spend time with your friends that night. She asks you if you can come to her house, “Can you come on Friday evening?”

R-11

Agree

R-12

Shopping no help You go to a clothing store and you need to find a new shirt. A salesperson approaches you. You don’t want the salesperson’s assistance. “Can I help you?”

R-13

Office

R-14

Accept invitation Your teacher invited the whole class to his house next Saturday. You are very happy that he has invited you, and you would like to go. When you are leaving the class, the teacher says, “How about you? Will you be able to join us this Saturday?”

R-15

Introduction

Your friend introduces you to his new roommate. “This is my new roommate, Bill.”

R-16

Father died

You go to ask your teacher if he will be having office hours ­tomorrow, and he tells you about his father. “I won’t be having office hours tomorrow. My father died, and I have to go to the funeral.”

R-17

Make-up test

You have been studying very hard for your test. But on the ­morning of the test, your alarm does not go off and you oversleep. You ask your teacher for a make-up test. “Okay. I’ll give you a make-up test this time, but don’t let it happen again.”

R-18

Ride in rain

It’s raining really hard and you are walking to the bank. A friend pulls his car over to offer you a ride. “Hey, want a ride?”

R-19

More food

You are having dinner at a friend’s house. Your friend offers you more food, but you couldn’t possibly eat another bite. “Would you like some more?”

You and your classmates are deciding where to study for the upcoming exam. After some discussion, everyone seems to agree on the library, which is good for you because you live near there. “So, is the library ok for everyone?”

You need to talk to your teacher. You go to his office during office hours to see if he has time to talk. His office door is open, you knock. “Come in.”

chapter 6

Variation in NS-learner interactions Frames and expectations in pragmatic co‑construction Dale A. Koike

University of Texas at Austin, USA This study examines variation of pragmatic resources seen in native speaker (NS)‑learner dialogue as related to institutional and conversation frames. Following Tannen (1993) and Ensink (2003) who apply several of Goffman’s (1974) ideas of frames to discourse such as narratives and public speech, this investigation focuses on NS-learner dialogue in informal interviews and personal conversations to understand L2 pragmatic co-construction and resources that learners use as the conversation progresses in relation to frames. The analysis shows that the participants’ orientation to frames of different kinds is correlated to the various pragmatic resources they use, such as implicatures, humor, speech acts, feedback, intonation, and discourse markers. The data illustrate that pragmatic variation can stem from differences in expectations and changes in frames.

1.  Introduction In dialogue, talk participants orient their contributions and understanding of the talk to frames of reference, such as an interview situation. This orientation allows them to use past experiences, knowledge, and expectations they have developed from them to know how conversation usually proceeds in such contexts ­(Minsky 1980; Schank & Abelson 1977). Participants in talk need a shared sense of ways the discourse is framed to be able to participate in the overall function of the ­discourse in a given social situation. This chapter explores how the orientation to frames may be key to understanding much pragmatic variation that is observed in examples of native speaker (NS)-second language learner dialogue, collected from various sources. The term ‘pragmatic variation’ is used here to refer to ­variation in the use of pragmatic expressions in the context of language use; in this case, in dialogue.

 Dale A. Koike

By looking at a range of language use, dialogic analysis provides a tool to examine pragmatics (Weigand 2010). Following this notion, this study examines the concept that frames and expectations connected to them are the motivation for at least some of the variation in pragmatic resources used by the interlocutors. ‘Pragmatic resources’ denote any pragmatic realizations (e.g. speech acts, deictic forms, implicatures, discourse markers, humor) that speakers and ­listeners employ to coconstruct their intentions and understand those of others in interaction. Thus the analysis of pragmatics is at the discourse level in this study (­ Arundale & Good 2002; Koike 2010; Weigand 2010), and is based on data drawn from various sources. 1.1  Frames and cognition The idea of ‘frame’ has been used in past research mainly to capture the way ­information is stored in the brain. Early studies were Minsky’s (1980) notion of ‘frames’ and Schank and Abelson’s (1977) idea of ‘scripts’, both of which address the way knowledge is organized in the mind. Specifically, these studies propose that the body of prior knowledge and experiences for each individual influences the way that individual interprets, stores, and accesses information. Regarding frames, when a new situation arises or when one must confront an old situation in a new way, one calls up a frame, or stereotyped situation that is relevant to the situation at hand. This relevant information provides expectations of how the situation is normally handled and how it will transpire. ‘Scripts’, or generalized episodes of memory organized around personal experiences, allow for inferences to be made about the input confronting the individual, based on filling in missing information. This model of memory suggests that events are understood in terms of scripts and other knowledge structures and previous experiences. The key ­element for both frames and scripts is that knowledge of concepts, events, and situations is organized by expectations of main features of those stereotyped situations held in the brain. Givón (1989) expanded on these ideas and noted in reference to speaker and listener roles that “human communication involves an intricate network of conventions concerning what speakers and hearers are entitled to expect of each other when carrying out their respective roles in communication” (pp. 129–130). These studies point to the centrality of expectations in dialogue. More recently, following a multi-dimensional perspective, Ensink and Sauer (2003) proposed that the concept of ‘frame’ invokes ideas related to space, in that a frame, such as a picture frame, structures both an object (the picture) and the way it is perceived. Regarding perception, the frame relates the object to something else – in this case, the wall, and perhaps other objects around it. Their novel approach helps to see that frames are not just a way to describe how information is stored and accessed in similar situations to be able to predict how to respond



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

to a given situation, but they also provide a metaphor for seeing the interaction between the object and a larger whole. This view of ‘frame’, as highlighted by Ensink and Sauer (2003), is aligned with how human beings can take a small amount of input and construct a larger understanding beyond the words, similar to the concept of scripts. They cite Fauconnier and Sweetser (1996), who state that “Our general human c­ ognitive capacities appear to include the ability (and the need) to set up frames, or unstructured understandings of the way aspects of the world ­function” (p. 5). Due to the human ability to construct frames, people connect input with prior knowledge and experiences to create coherence and comprehension and to remember how similar situations were dealt with as they unfolded ­(Baddeley 1990; Bobrow & Norman 1975; Kuipers 1975). In interaction, p ­ eople expect  comprehensible and fairly predictable behavior from the other talk ­participants, a concept reflected in Grice’s (1975) Principle of Cooperation. The expectations for behavior and talk, together with this expectation for cooperation among talk participants, help the participants predict and engage in the interaction. An excellent review of many studies on frames can be found in Bednarek (2005), who also discusses different conceptualizations of ‘frames’ and how they have been applied. Central to this article is the notion of how frames contribute to lending coherence to utterances that one hears, helping to ‘fill in the gap’ where there is a lack of relevant information to construct an understanding. For example, after hearing a report of the outcome of a cricket game, one might apply general background knowledge of the game (or related games, such as rugby) as well as an appropriate context to co-construct comprehension of the message when certain unfamiliar vocabulary related to cricket is used. Bednarek also discusses different types of frames, such as communication frames (e.g. joke) that can be applied to establish coherence. She concludes that frames are important to create coherence and frame conflicts can lead to ‘disturbed coherence’. In such cases, however, other frames of a higher level (‘superordinate frame’; Bednarek 2005, p. 703) help in inferring the meaning. 1.2  Frames and interaction Bateson (1972) discussed ‘frame’ as an interactive concept, claiming that p ­ eople exchange signals to indicate how they interpret others’ behavior. Similarly, Hymes (1974) referred to ‘frames’ as “means of speaking” that a speaker uses, like l­ anguage functions (e.g. joking, chatting), in order for the listener to know how to ­interpret the utterances. Frake (1977), also taking a dynamic approach to the concept, depicted a ‘frame’ as an event that people are doing as they speak to others.

 Dale A. Koike

Bringing in the perspective of linguistics, Fillmore (1975) presented ‘frame’ as a “system of linguistic choices…associated with prototypical instances of scenes” (p. 124). His focus, then, is on the linguistic resources that speakers and hearers use, related to the knowledge structures they have of the context. In a similar vein, Gumperz (1982) stated that “…participants in an exchange assess others’ intentions, and on which they base their responses” (p. 153), which form the basis of the turn sequences that comprise conversation. He also labels the associations of styles of speaking with contextual presuppositions as ‘co-occurrence expectations’, which enable people to relate what they hear in talk to previous experiences. Again, this association facilitates the talk because one can process information more quickly by matching it to previous knowledge and making assumptions as to how to respond best to the situation. Goffman’s (1974) notion of ‘frame’ can be seen in his work on ‘footing’. Suggesting that the two notions are similar, Goffman (1981) stated that a change in footing “implies a change in the alignment we take up to ourselves and the others present as expressed in the way we manage the production or reception of an utterance” (p. 128). Ensink and Sauer (2003), revisiting Goffman’s work, noted that there is a slight difference between ‘frame’ and ‘footing’ (p. 8). They claimed that ‘footing’ “roughly refers to the way in which the communicative participant (speaker or hearer) is involved in the situation”, while ‘frame’ “refers to the overall picture of what the situation is” (p. 8). If we assume a very close relationship between ‘footing’ and ‘frame’, then Goffman’s notion of frame is also a dynamic one, associated with changes and transitions that occur in talk. Goffman (1974) also proposed the notion of ‘keys’, which are frames “that must contain other frames-with-content” (Ensink 2003: 68). Goffman (1974) stated that keys are “transformation… across materials already meaningful in accordance with a schema of interpretation…” (p. 45). By this conceptualization he referred to the embedding of frames within others; a layering of frames. 1.3  Frames and expectations Bringing in the aspect of cultural expectations, Tannen (1993) applied many of these ideas regarding frame and expectations to the analysis of “underlying structures of expectations” in the oral narratives of participants who had viewed a silent film (“The Pear Film”; see Chafe 1980). She compared the narratives produced by Greek and by American women, showing evidence that their culturally-influenced expectations on how the narratives should be structured also guided their production. Blackwell (2001) studied silent-film narratives as well, as recounted by native Spanish speakers in Spain. She used the same silent film as in the Tannen (1993) study, but looked at the results by applying both Tannen’s frame analysis and



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

also Wierzbicka’s (1994) concept of ‘cultural scripts’. Like Tannen, B ­ lackwell’s ­analysis indicates that these speakers indeed use culturally-specific knowledge structures and rules of speaking in the narratives.1 1.4  Changes in frames Ensink (2003) elaborated on Goffman’s (1974) concept of ‘keys’ and frame embeddings. He pointed out instances in which the frame shifts are not perceived by the hearer, leading to fundamental misunderstandings. He discussed three types of frames: cognitive, interactional, and transformational. The first two were proposed by Tannen and Wallat (1993) and Lee (1997). ‘Cognitive frames’ refer to knowledge structures in the brain, also known as ‘schemas’ (e.g. Rumelhart 1975; Schank & Abelson 1977), while ‘interactional frames’, following a more sociolinguistic perspective, are those that form the basis of interpretation and have a connection to discursive practices (Lee 1997: 340). Ensink, however, argued that there is a third type of frame within the set of interactional frames, called ‘transformational frames’, in which the interactional frame is modified (such as in playing or imitating another action). He shows examples from both personal and public discourse in which such transformations are done. Although he does not identify them as such, many of the resources he identifies to make the shifts are pragmatic in nature, such as ambiguous and multifunctional utterances and the use of strategic repetitions. Both Tannen (1993) and Ensink (2003) take Goffman’s (1974) idea of ‘keys’ to illustrate the embedding of frames and the dynamic nature of frame shifts. In the current study, I also look at the embedding of frames, but it is studied as applied to pragmatic expression in the context of NS-learner talk, which has not been examined before. The talk reflects institutional as compared to personal conversation frames and illustrates how the participants orient to various embedded frames. Following Ensink (2003), some of the frames seen are transformational in nature. Within those frames, the pragmatic resources they use also reflect their orientation to the roles adopted and assigned by the participants. 1.5  Goals of the study and organization My objective is to look at pragmatic variation in NS-learner dialogues, focusing on the ways that L2 learners co-construct meaning with NSs by adjusting

1.  See Blyth, this volume, for a discussion of ‘stance-taking’, a concept related to frames. In my view, once a frame has been co-constructed by both speaker and hearer, it forms the basis for a stance to be taken, expressed, and interpreted by the hearer.

 Dale A. Koike

their talk through pragmatic resources. As stated earlier, these resources include ­various pragmatic realizations such as implicatures and speech acts. They are considered resources because, following Young (2009), they are part of the linguistic and ­non-linguistic means that learners employ to communicate, called up when required by “the interactional demands and processes and meanings of the community in which local action occurs” (p. 2). Pragmatic variation in general closely reflects contextual variables, including who has control in the talk, the sequencing of turns according to feedback, the background characteristics of the participants, and the relationship between them (Holmes 1995; Schneider & Barron 2008, Chapter 1). This study will look closely at the cognitive variable of frames of institutional and personal talk to which the participants orient as they talk ­(Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford 2005; Tannen 1993), and which, I argue, guide the variation of their pragmatic production. By identifying how and why talk participants vary their pragmatic usage, we can learn more about pragmatic variation in conversation as well as ways learners work toward achieving intersubjectivity with the NS according to how the conversation unfolds. This chapter is organized as follows. After reviewing the theoretical framework for analysis of the data (Section 2), the methodology of data collection (Section 3) and the subsequent results (Section 4) are presented. The discussion regarding pragmatic variation in connection with frames and expectations is p ­ resented next, as well as methodological issues (Section 5), followed by the conclusions (Section 6).

2.  Theoretical background 2.1  Communication, common ground, and frames of talk In conversation, which is a dynamic context in which participants “assess, ­interpret, and influence each other on multiple levels” (Ensink & Sauer 2003: 1), they seek to find common ground, or some point in common that can be referenced – c­ ognitively, socially, or linguistically – in the interaction (Clark 1996). This common ground is needed for the participants to converse more easily by sharing some point(s) of reference. As Ensink and Sauer (2003: 1) and others point out, conversation is both social and cognitive. It is social in that it functions to connect participants by engaging them in talk. It is cognitive because in order for conversation to unfold, much information has to be processed, including ­calculating what the other participant knows and has experienced, what the common ground includes, and what the other’s orientation to that common ground might be.



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

2.2  The frame of institutional talk One frame of talk is that of institutional contexts, such as a courtroom interrogation (Drew & Heritage 1992), or an Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) to determine the level of one’s proficiency in a foreign language (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford 2005). In these contexts, the talk is framed by goals of an institution. Such talk is usually centered on the gathering of information by one party and the provision of the information by the other participant (Drew & Heritage 1992; Prego-Vásquez 2006). In the present study, two such institutional scenarios are a language interview of an OPI, and also a class-assigned interview. Both participants expect that one person is the initiator of the interview and generally has the control over topic nomination, turn length and turn-taking, while the other interlocutor understands that the expectation is to provide information that the interviewer seeks. At times the institutional frame is realized by the orientation to the frame without a true representative of the institution present, as when a learner assumes the role of an ‘expert’ or ‘teacher’ (representing a role, or even a linguistic standard) while talking to another learner. Such is an extension of the concept of ‘institution’. In an interview, the length of the turns at talk is mainly determined by the interviewer. This institutional context and goal are an overriding factor in the language that is produced, and they evoke a different set of expectations of what, how, why, and when something should be said than, for example, in a personal conversation. 2.3  The frame of personal talk Another primary frame is that of personal conversations, which have been described at length in studies largely following Conversation Analysis (CA – see Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974; Schegloff 2007). Following this framework, details such as the turn structure, length, and overlap, and participant orientations – mainly to roles such as expert and novice – are revealed. The concept of sequentiality in talk is central to CA. In the context of SLA, one of the topics of study has been how L2 learners’ sequences differ from those of NSs when speaking to NS interlocutors. For example, Kurhila (2006), investigating L2 learners of Finnish, found that the organization of sequences is shaped by the participants’ orientations to their identities of learner or expert speaker. Their talk showed that both the social and the communicative goals are important in the conversations. As in every context, certain expectations for the talk accompany both the institutional and the personal talk frames. I propose that participants’ orientation to frames motivates variation in their use of pragmatic resources as they interact with others. The frames are dynamic and may change according to the exchange of utterances by the interlocutors, along with a corresponding change of expectations in connection with those changes. These expectations, derived from the frames,

 Dale A. Koike

are central to guiding the talk participants to select pragmatic utterances from among the many variations that are available to them. I identify the pragmatic resources that these L2 learners of Spanish use in informal conversations with NSs in which they are simply trying to converse together in informal, first-time exchanges, and show how they are used in sequences according to the expectations they have of the frames within which they are speaking. In all the examples, the data show that the identities of the participants are a key factor in shaping the talk. The deference to the NS in Spanish creates an imbalance in expectations regarding who will speak more and will probably have the last word, especially since the learners are all Spanish students. For this reason, the analysis focuses on the participant identities in relation only to the Spanish language. 2.4  Expectations Expectations thus are also an important factor in the pragmatic variation seen in these contexts, as stated above. Expectations are the product of an individual’s background knowledge and world experience. They shape how one attends to and feels about whom and what one encounters, and they are partial representations of one’s world as it is perceived at that moment. Expectations vary from one individual to the next, since all individuals vary in their capabilities, knowledge, and experiences. It is possible, however, that a group of individuals who share similar backgrounds also can share similar expectations about language and linguistic behavior. There are several kinds of expectations. Caffi and Janney (1994) refer to “anticipatory schemata”, among which are various sub-types such as ‘linguistic’, ‘contextual’, and ‘cotextual’ schemata. Linguistic schemata “consist of common assumptions about language, its vocal, kinesic, graphological, and other supporting systemics, and their ‘usual’ manifestations and meanings in everyday discourse” (p. 351). Contextual anticipatory schemata include “expectations about kinds of communicative behavior that different types of speakers or writers are likely to produce in different discourse situations… [they] imply global assumptions about human values, feelings, desires, motivations, interpersonal attitudes… and assumptions about how these are typically communicated in different situations” and also “assumptions about how specific partners may be likely to act in the immediate situation” (p. 352). Cotextual anticipatory schemata consist of “expectations about types or successions of verbal and/or nonverbal activities that are likely to occur in particular stretches of discourse, given the communicative event preceding them” (pp. 352–353). Clearly, these are categories of expectations that address the various ­facets of communication among interlocutors that facilitate interaction. All these



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

a­ nticipatory schemata, and others not recognized by Caffi and Janney (e.g. social and cultural expectations), help speakers and listeners to determine what is expected or unexpected in communicating and interpreting meaning. Linell (1998), who deals broadly with expectations in dialogue, states that every contribution to a dialogue is “framed by expectations, entitlements, and obligations with respect to possible meaning attributions and actions” (p. 83). He goes on to say that each contribution presents a new “micro-situation with specific conditions on relevant continuations (and partly new expectations, entitlements, and obligations)” (p. 83). Similarly, from the perspective of ­Arundale (1999) and Weigand (2006, 2008), each contribution in talk represents a dialogically-oriented speech act that is embedded in the sequence either as an ‘initiative’ or ‘reactive’ speech act. By the initiative speech act the speaker makes a pragmatic claim or manifestation and expects a reactive speech act by the listener that fulfills this very claim, in an active-reactive process. Expectations play an important role in the sequentiality in talk, which, as we have stated earlier, is a cornerstone of CA. Arundale and Good (2002) discuss the notion that dyadic conversation involves a “conjoint, dynamic psychological activity we identify as ‘dyadic cognizing’” (p. 122), where the ‘cognizing’ refers to the interdependent dynamic processing that occurs in individuals engaged in interaction, creating what Clark (1996) calls “common ground” between them. In the process of cognizing, the acts of interpreting and assessing, invoking expectations as well of the other interlocutor’s future interpreting of what the elected speaker is saying, occur to form the basis for co-constituting discourse: Recipient design involves projecting both one’s own and other’s sequential interpreting, together with how that interpreting may be employed in retroactive assessing. Sequential interpreting involves not only retroactive assessing of one’s own and other’s interpreting of future utterances. Recipient design and sequential interpreting, projecting and retroactive assessing, are all tightly entwined.  (Arundale & Good 2002: 133–134).

In sum, CA and work on expectations and frames inform this study. What has been studied relatively little in the previous literature is the importance of frames in pragmatic variation. Thus this study addresses aspects of pragmatic ­co-construction between NS and learners in talk, specifically in institutional, transformational, and personal conversation frames. 2.5  Research questions With the previously discussed research in mind, the research questions addressed in this study are the following:

 Dale A. Koike

1. What pragmatic variation can be seen in the L2 pragmatic co-construction that occurs in NS-learner talk in the two larger frames of interviews and personal conversations? 2. Is the pragmatic variation tied to primary and/or transformational frames, following Ensink (2003)? My general hypothesis is that the pragmatic variation to be observed reflects the frame orientations and changes in frames in some way, although the pragmatic resources used may differ between the NS and the learners.

3.  Method A CA methodology is generally followed along with that of Ensink (2003) in this study. Ensink (2003) identified various levels of frames (i.e. primary, keys) and illustrated a notational system that can be used to represent them. Like Tannen (1993), he identified instances of the various levels of frames in storytelling but also in public speech. This current study employs his ideas regarding the types of frames but does not use his notational system. In the current investigation, features of the talk that indicate an orientation to frames are identified. These data were gathered from various sources, and represent two types of contexts: interviews and personal conversations. In all cases, the six learners were of approximately the intermediate mid to high Spanish proficiency levels, Spanish majors or minors and current L2 Spanish students at the time of collection. All data were audiotaped, except for the Dings (2004) data, which were videotaped. In all cases the NSs were unfamiliar, with the exception of the class-assigned interviews in which the learners selected the NSs to interview from among people they knew. The gender of the NS and the learner varied according to the study, as shown in Table 1. Table 1.  Interview data Source

Description

Pair

Liskin-Gasparro and Koike (1999)

Sample OPI interviews; unfamiliar NS interviewers chat with learners in training OPI interviews.

Female NS-female learner; Female NS-male learner

Sample 4th-year Spanish conversation class assignments

Two learner-interviewers chat with familiar NS to complete a class assignment that elicited opinions and narratives.

Female NS-female learner; Male NS-female learner



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

The data gathered from interview situations reflect in general an institutional frame, and certain outcomes based on expectations associated with that setting. The data are from interviews in which either the NS or the learner was the initiator. In those interviews where the NS was the initiator, the goal was to elicit a language sample from the learner, in a practice Oral Proficiency Interview setting. In the interviews where the learner was the initiator, the learner was trying to induce the NS, in these cases someone whom they knew at least somewhat beforehand, to answer some predetermined questions on their personal opinions and past experiences as part of a class assignment. The two interview situations are not the same, since in the second class assignment context, the learners were also told they should feel free to express their opinions on the matters discussed. We will see in the data where, although the general expectations for interview behavior were in place for all participants, the second class assignment context allowed for more changes in those expectations since the learners were less clearly oriented to a primary interview frame. The other data are gathered from informal conversations between a completely unfamiliar NS and a learner. Here the outcomes are mainly guided by the interlocutors trying to find common ground. In the data from Koike (2010), the learners had the opportunity to react to their encounter with the NS in a postchat conversation with the researcher. Tables 2 shows the two contexts and their sources. Table 2.  Personal conversation data Source

Description

Pair

Dings (2004)

Videotaped longitudinal study with same NS and learner over nine months; NS becomes more familiar with learner over time as they meet for informal encounters. Excerpt here is from the second encounter.

Male NS-female learner

Koike and Ramey (2001)

Unfamiliar NS and learner meet in an informal chat during conversation hour for the first time, to meet NSs and to practice language.

Male NS-female learner

Koike (2010)

Informal chat during study abroad. Unfamiliar NS and learner (2) meet in an informal chat for the first time, to meet NSs and to practice language. To initiate the conversation, both were asked to find 5 things they liked and disliked in common. Learner reacted to the encounter after the chat in a conversation with the researcher.

Male NS-female learner; Male NS (same)-female learner

 Dale A. Koike

The excerpts in these contexts are transcribed using basically a notational system described in Atkinson and Heritage (1984), but they deviate somewhat from a purely CA system. A list of notations used here can be seen in the Appendix. Linguistic errors by the learner are not signaled in the data transcriptions. In looking for evidence of frames, I rely on the details of the talk to signal an orientation to a given frame. For example, a one-sided line of questioning by one participant and the provision of responses to them by another would signal an institutional frame, while jokes, questions and comments by both participants, and laughter would seem to indicate a conversational frame. 4.  Results In order to answer the research questions regarding the pragmatic variation that can be seen in the co-construction that may occur in the NS-learner talk, the analysis is generally divided first by type of frame (interview and personal conversation), followed by the primary and/or transformational frame within the two larger types. 4.1  Interview dialogues: NS is initiator Since the variable of who initiates the interview is important in these interactions, first we examine interview data where the NS is the initiator of the interview; in this case, a practice OPI interview.2 In a few instances, the NS, working in a primary interview frame, takes the dominant role of questioner and turn-giver. However, at times the inexperienced NS interviewer withholds giving much verbal feedback to what the learner was saying in response to the NS queries. The result, as shown in Excerpt (1), is that the learner searches for common ground on which to build the conversation, but is usually unsuccessful. Excerpt (1): Lack of NS feedback on which to build conversation   (Liskin-Gasparro & Koike 1999) 01 L: yo tengo que encontrar mi espacio= ‘I have to find my space’ 02 NS: mhm. ‘mhm’ 2.  I thank Salla Kurhila for pointing out that the fact that the situation was a practice interview for the interviewer (with a volunteer participant who was a language student), and not a true OPI interview, creates a situation of a frame within a frame as Ensink has described. Such a context makes the expectations for the talk less clear (especially for the interviewee), which could explain why, for example, the talk in Excerpts (1) and (2) is so different, yet the situation is the same.



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

03 L: =mi hueco, ¿ah? ((small, nervous laugh)) ‘my niche, ah?’ 04 NS: mhm. sí sí. entonces ¿por qué viniste a (X university)? ‘mhm. Yes yes. So why did you come to (X university)?’ 05 L: porque, um, hace muchos años que estudio la lengua y: nunca, nunca tenía que hablar, o comunicarme en el español y, parece un, um, gasto↑ = ‘because, um, I have been studying the language for many years and, never never did I have to speak, or communicate in ­Spanish and, it seems a, um, waste↑’ 06 NS: mhm. ‘mhm’ 07 L: =si no podía, comunicarme.= ‘if I couldn’t, communicate’ 08 NS: mhm. ‘mhm’ 09 L: =entonces ((small laugh)) ‘so’ ((small laugh)) 10 NS: mhm. ‘mhm’ 11 L: estoy aquí para = ‘I’m here to’= 12 NS: mhm. ‘mhm’ 13 L: =aprender más. ‘to learn more’ 14 NS: uh-huh. ‘uh-huh’ 15 L: es todo ((small laugh)) ‘that’s all’ ((small laugh))

Excerpt (1) shows that the NS orients to her dominant role as interview initiator, while the learner seems to be trying to elicit some meaningful response from the NS, in a kind of transformational frame toward conversation. When the NS does not give any verbal response other than ‘OK’, the learner’s answers become shorter and repeat what she said earlier. That is, in the NS’s drive to accomplish the goal of getting the particular types of responses from the learner, the talk becomes much less a conversation, and much more an interview, as also documented by Young and He (1998). However, the learner stays in the one-sided interview frame, following her expectations of how she is supposed to behave in this frame. As Excerpt (1) illustrates, the NS can opt not to provide much feedback to the learner short of a

 Dale A. Koike

head nod and a smile, or an “mhm” to encourage the learner to talk more. Such a minimal second pair-part in answer to a statement does make the learner continue talking while she awaits more of a reaction from the NS so that she can scaffold onto something that the NS says to continue developing the talk. She eventually runs out of things to say. The talk cannot develop without the kinds of responses from the NS interlocutor that provide a ‘thread’ by which the talk can continue in a meaningful way. When she does not hear the kinds of responses she needs to develop the talk, she resorts to nervous laughter, which is discussed below. Excerpt (2) shows some embedded conversation in the form of a humorous exchange within the same practice interview frame as described for Excerpt (1). The example illustrates a transformational frame, which has the function of establishing a rapport between the interlocutors. Excerpt (2): Learner’s use of humorous implicature to build a joke  (Liskin-Gasparro & Koike 1999) 01 NS: para qué estás aquí en [college], [learner’s name]? ‘why are you here in [college], [learner’s name]?’ 02 L: uh ‘uh’ 03 NS: quieres ganar dinero. ((laugh)) ‘you want to earn money’ ((laugh)) 04 L: sí, estoy ganando dinero. ¿no puedes ver? ((laugh)) ‘yes, I am earning money, can’t you see? ((laugh)) 05 NS: sí, es obvio. ((laugh)) ‘yes, it’s obvious’ ((laugh)) 06 L:

uh – te gusta la [shows clothing] ‘uh – do you like the’ [shows clothing]

07 NS: sí, es elegante, elegantísima. ‘yes, it’s elegant, very elegant’ 08 L: sí, uh [((laugh)) ‘yes, uh’ [((laugh)) 09 NS: [((laugh)) [((laugh)) 10 L: bueno, yo, uh, continuar con mis estudios de: de: de literatura inglés, y: ‘well, I, uh, to continue with my studies of, of, of English literature, and’ 11 NS: inglesa, ¿verdad? ‘English, right?’ [correcting learner’s grammar] 12 L: sí, y en la universidad de [name], era una necesidad [talk continues] ‘yes, and in the University of [name], it was a necessity’ [talk continues]



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

This excerpt is from the beginning of their encounter, and in turn 3 the NS, in commenting on the learner’s clothing, provides an answer to her own question and also makes a little joke about his appearance, followed by her own laughter to signal it was said in jest. This comment transforms the frame to one of personal talk. The learner orients to the humor implicature with his own humorous comments, and the two share laughter and an exchange about his apparent lack of money that lasts for 6 more turns. They are able to establish common ground right away and dispel any feelings of anxiety, if there were any. In many other examples from these datasets, humor was often attempted by the learner to establish some kind of alignment with the NS, indicating a transformational frame. 4.2  Interview dialogues: Learner is initiator We now examine the interview data in which the learner is the initiator of the interview, as part of a class assignment. For both excerpts, the question that both NS and learner were to answer was “¿Cuál fue la experiencia más conmovedora de su vida?” ‘What was the most moving experience of your life?’ In these examples, one can observe how the learner is oriented to the primary interview frame in her sequence of questioning, guided by her expectations as to how an interviewer should keep the conversation moving forward. The learner in Excerpt (3) asks questions that elicit more information on the topic, even when she herself knows the answers. Excerpt (3): Learner continues asking questions, and provides appropriate reactions in assessments (Class assignment data). 01 L: ¿cuál fue la experiencia más conmovedora de su vida? ‘what was the most moving experience of your life?’ 02 NS: tener a mis tres hijos. ‘to have my three children 03 L:

(softly) aww. y: qué más pero, er, de este. (softly) ‘aww. And, what more but, er, about this’

04 NS: el nacimiento, verlos crecer. [sí. ‘the birth, to see them grow up. [yes’ 05 L: 

[y: uh, cómo se llama, tus hijos [‘and, uh, what is his name, your children’

06 NS: Dav-, I mean, David= [said with English pronunciation} ‘Dav-, I mean, David’ 07 L: aww ‘aww’

 Dale A. Koike

08 NS: =Drake, y Scott. ‘Drake, and Scott’ 09 L: y: cuántos años tiene. ‘and, how old is he’ 10 NS: David tiene treinta, y Scott, I mean Drake tiene mm, veintisiete, y uh Scott tiene catorce. David is 30, and Scott, I mean Drake is, mm, 27, and uh Scott is 14’ 11 L: catorce, [uh? ‘fourteen, huh?’ 12 NS: [((laughs a little)) sí. [(laughs a little)) ‘yes’ 13 L: su cumpleaño es el 27, [sí? ‘his birthday is the 27th, yes?’ 14 NS:

[ayer. ayer fue. [el veintiséis. [‘yesterday, it was yesterday.  [the 26th’

15 L:

[ayer, ay. [‘yesterday, ay’

16 NS: uh huh. ((laughs a little)) ‘uh huh’ ((laughs a little))

The learner indicates in turn 03 that she wants the NS to expand on her answer given in turn 02, and probes for more details. When the NS provides little further information in turn 04, the learner asks for more information about her children themselves – their names and ages – even though she is already familiar with the children. She even provides herself the approximate birthday of the youngest child. At the same time, in what can be seen as a transformational frame, the learner orients to her role as a caring friend, providing evaluative reactions to the NS’s statements about her sons in turn 03, but the reactions are expressed as a native speaker of English would do in a conversation frame (e.g. ‘aw’, as in ‘aw, how cute’).3 This mix of a conversational marker as an assessment in an interview frame could be due to the mixed expectations created in the assignment itself: to do an interview with a familiar NS, but also for both parties to express opinions. Such a mix could have created unclear interview expectations, as reflected in the results

3.  Another aspect of these assessments that makes them seem odd is that ‘aww’ would ­normally be used in reaction to someone speaking about their young children, and not about their sons who are 30, 27, and 14, especially considering that the learner herself is only about 20 years old.



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

mixing conversation with interview talk. In any case, as noted by Dings (2004), the expression of assessments is culturally specific, indicating an area in which teacher intervention could benefit the learners. Assessments are important to keeping the talk moving forward because they indicate understanding and emotional interest in the talk. These assessments are not entirely congruous in this interview frame, which may be the cause of the NS’s chuckle in turns 12 and 16. Another example of the mixing of frames with a different NS-learner pair responding to the same interview assignment shows a learner who reacts minimally to what the familiar NS says, and ends up losing control of the interview when she expresses her own views. Excerpt (4): Mixing of frames in class interview assignment with familiar NS (Class assignment data). 01 NS: creo que la experiencia más conmov – conmovedora de mi vida ha sido: cuando: me he, me he ido a Barcelona? ‘I think that the most mov – moving experience of my life has been, when, I wen – I went to Barcelona?’ 02 L: mhm ‘mhm’ 03 NS:  porque: estaba: eh: cuando acaba, cuando he acabado con el colegio, eh, he ido bueno me he ido a Ginebra y me he ido a estudiar en ­Barcelona. entonces me he cambiado completamente de la vida porque: he ­pasado de vivir con mis padres, a vivir solo, mi: nada pues ha sido una ­experiencia muy, muy importante para mí: y, y ha sido, pues ha sido uno una de las cosas más importantes que me ha pasado, me ha pasado. ‘because, I was, uh, when it finishes, when I finished with high school, eh, I went well I went to Geneva and I went to study in Barcelona, so I changed my life completely because, I went from living with my parents, to living alone, my, no well it was a very very important experience for me, and, and it was, well it was one one of the most important things that happened to me, happened to me’ 04 L:

mhm, sí sí qué bueno. pues para mí creo que, uh, fue el mem – fue el momento cuando mi hermano se casó con, su novio. um, ‘mhm, yes yes, how nice, well for me I think that, uh, it was the mem – it was the moment when my brother married, his boyfriend. Um’

05 NS: w – ah! ‘w – oh!’ 06 L: sí, ella es [mi ‘yes, she is [my’

 Dale A. Koike

07 NS:

[tu hermano? [‘your brother?’

08 L: m – hermana! lo siento [((laughs)) ‘m – sister! I’m sorry’ [((laughs)) 09 NS:

[vale. [‘OK’

10 L:  porque, ella es mi amiga mejora allí. y, era muy emocional para mí y, porque, yo fui la dama de honor y, me puse de pie a su lado= ‘because, she is my my best friend there. And, it was very ­emotional for me and, because, I was the maid of honor and, I stood beside her’ 11 NS: ah! ‘ah!’ 12 L: y, y era era muy emocional y, también me me me dio la el sentido de que yo puedo tener esa, eso, amor en mi vida un día. ‘and, and it was it was very emotional and, also it gave me me me the feeling that I can have that, that, love in my life one day’ 13 NS: sí? y mm, ¿cuándo fue eso? ‘yes? And mmm, when was that?’ 14 L: ahm, fue, eh, dos años, hace dos años. ‘ahm, it was, eh, two years, two years ago’ 15 NS: ah, hace dos años. ah vale vale. ‘ah, two years ago. Oh OK OK’ 16 L: sí y um ‘yes and um’ 17 NS: entonces ((laughs)) ‘so’ ((laughs)) 18 L: um ‘um’ 19 NS: entonces ¿te vas a querer casar también? ‘so you want to get married too?’ 20 L:

n – ah, y-yo quiero. [((laughs)) ‘n – ah, I-I do want to’ [((laughs))

21 NS:

[sí [‘yes’

22 L: quiero que. um, o – otra pre[gunta. ‘I want. Um, another ques[tion’ 23 NS:

[sí [‘yes’



24 L:

Variation in NS-learner interactions 

(reading from paper) ¿qué opina usted sobre la importancia de la religión en la vida de uno. (reading from paper) ‘what do you think about the importance of religion in one’s life?’

25 NS: e: pues, (talk continues) ‘eh, well,’ (talk continues)

In turn 04, the learner hardly reacts at all to the lengthy response by the NS on what the most moving experience of his life was, saying only “mhm, sí sí qué bueno” ‘yes yes how nice’ with a hurried delivery and flat intonation, and ­immediately ­launching into her own response to the same question. When the learner tells of her emotional experience as her sister’s maid of honor in turn 10, the NS, f­ ollowing expectations of sequencing in a personal conversation, reacts by ­asking details of when it happened in turn 13. In effect, he initiates a ­transformational, ­embedded conversation frame. The learner provides little response, so the NS again picks up the thread of the talk and asks about her feelings regarding ­getting married in turn 19. She says only that she wants to, and then moves on awkwardly in turn 22, without transition, to the next question that was assigned to her. Thus the c­ onversation on this topic stops here. The primary frame to which the p ­ articipants are ­orienting changes from interview to conversation, again possibly due to the unclear nature of the assignment. As the talk continues, it is mostly the NS who keeps the talk moving forward, as he takes control of the talk. This e­ xample also highlights again the importance of the speech act of appropriate evaluative ­comments (assessments) in the interview frame to what was said in the previous turn. In sum, these interview data show that the primary interview frame and the institutional goal of the interview play a large part in the way the interview is handled when either the NS or the learner is the initiator. The participants are aware of their roles and the expected types of talk. In institutional talk, the recognized goal is the gathering of information by one interlocutor representing or orienting to institutional goals from another person. In order to break from this frame, interlocutors may use pragmatic resources to change the frame so that the talk may proceed like a personal conversation, with more give and take by both participants. In Excerpt (2), a NS-initiated interview, the learner was able to gain a more equal footing as a conversation partner via a humor implicature that was scaffolded from the NS’s utterances. In Excerpt (3) where the learner was the initiator of the interview, the learner seemed to be guided by her expectations of the interview frame, continuously pressing for details and controlling the topic. At the same time, the talk reflected some conversational elements, probably due to the mixing of frames in the class assignment, as seen in her assessment feedback to the NS’s responses. Excerpt (4) shows that the learner does not control the interview frame as she runs

 Dale A. Koike

out of things to say, so the NS takes over the talk and moves into a transformational frame, asking questions, using interjections as assessments, and advancing the talk toward personal conversation. The learner, however, abruptly moves back to the primary interview frame. This frame mixing could be an artifact of the class assignment that elicited the data, but we have a glimpse into how the transitions between frames are achieved via pragmatic expression. 4.3  Informal conversations In this next set of data, different L2 learners and unfamiliar NSs of Spanish were paired in an informal conversational encounter in which the learners were told they could simply practice their Spanish with a NS. The NS participants in the Koike and Ramey (2001) study were newly-arrived students of L2 English in the U.S. who had come for a conversation exchange with native English-speaking L2 Spanish learners in which the talk would be half in Spanish, and half in English. In the Dings (2004) data, the same NS participant met repeatedly with a particular learner over the course of 9 months in a study abroad setting to converse in Spanish. The NS did so because he enjoyed speaking with foreigners and was also repaying a favor to the researcher of that study. Thus this NS was at first unfamiliar to the learner but became less so over time. The data seen here are from the second encounter with the learner, so the NS was still relatively unfamiliar at the time these data were collected. In Excerpt (5), the learner tries to learn more about the NS’s ex-girlfriend in turn 01 but when he fails to understand her grammatically-garbled question, the primary frame of the conversation shifts to a transformational one that orients to language negotiation and their different roles as expert and novice. However, in this case, the learner unexpectedly uses a strategy of trying to make the NS understand by offering options in turns 05, 07, and 09 that he could use to answer her question. She employs an intonation pattern that speakers often use to list options in an attempt to help their interactants respond with the correct answer. Excerpt (5): Learner uses intonation to imply options for the intended meaning  (Koike & Ramey 2001) 01 L: y: ¿qué, qué piensas tus amigos de tu novia? ‘and, what what do you think your friends about your girlfriend?’ 02 NS: eh: ‘uh’ 03 L: er, su ex-novia. ‘er, your (formal) ex-girlfriend’ 04 NS: ¿qué piensan, quién? ‘what do they think, who?’



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

05 L: um, ella es simpática= ‘um, she is nice’ 06 NS: sí sí sí. sí es simpática. ‘yes yes yes. Yes she is nice’ 07 L: =es bonita= ‘she’s pretty’ 08 NS: uh huh. ‘uh huh’ 09 L: =es inteligente. ‘she is intelligent’ 10 NS: de hecho, ganó, ganó un premio en- un premio? ¿sabes lo que es? ‘as a matter of fact, she won, she won a prize in, a prize? Do you know what that is?’ 11 L: ¿qué es un premio? ‘what is a prize?’ 12 NS: mm. award? ‘mm. Award?’ 13 L: un awar? ‘an awar?’ 14 NS: award ‘award’ 15 L: awar? ‘awar?’ 16 NS: like yeah award? like trofeo. like mm ‘Like yeah award? Like ‘trophy’. Like mm 17 L: what’s trofeo? ‘What’s ‘trofeo’? 18 NS: trophy. ‘Trophy’ 19 L: a trophy girlfriend? ‘A trophy girlfriend?’ 20 NS: no no no no no. no dat. the, of the face? de la cara más bonita? ‘no no no no no. no dat. The, of the face? ‘of the prettiest face?’ 21 L: oh okay ‘Oh okay. 22 NS: de méxico. de Kodak. ‘of Mexico. Of Kodak’ 23 L: y: quién? ‘and, who?’

 Dale A. Koike

24 NS: mi novia. yo no. ((laugh)) m-hm. ‘my girlfriend. Not me. ((laugh)) m-hm. 25 L: wow. ‘Wow.’ 26 NS: sí. es hermosa. ‘yes. She is beautiful’ 27 L: es bonita. ‘she’s pretty’

Thus, the learner uses several implicatures to convey what she means, changing the roles they had previously occupied. The NS comes to understand the implicature and the learner’s intention, as reflected in his response, although the frame shifts from a conversation to an embedded one on language negotiation (from turns 05 to 24) to elicit the learner’s understanding and reaction finally in turn 25. The two instances of language negotiation are transformational frames, away from the primary conversation frame. Their use reflects a shift in roles, and the pragmatic resource of an intonation pattern that denotes the offering of options reinforces the expert role that the speakers assume. An interesting point in this excerpt is how quickly the roles shift from one participant to the other. When the learner does not understand the lexical item premio ‘prize’, referring to the prize that the NS’s ex-girlfriend had won for her beauty (turns 10 and 11), the NS then takes the expert role and begins to offer optional synonyms, one of which is trofeo ‘trophy’ with the same intonation pattern of listing options that the learner had used earlier when she provided options of how his girlfriend might be characterized. The learners in some of these samples tried to resist a change in the frame, though they generally stayed in the primary frame. Some learners in informal first encounters with NSs used discourse markers, often in English, as a filler to keep control of a turn. In Excerpt (6) from the Koike (2010) data set, the learner and the NS were asked to sit down and have a conversation. The learner expressed some anxiety that she would not be able to think of things to say, so the researcher asked both participants to find five likes and five dislikes that they both shared. The NS immediately oriented to an expert-novice speaker role in an institutional frame and wanted to push the talk toward some topic that could provoke an interesting discussion of different opinions. The learner, on the other hand, followed her expectation that NSs (Spanish men, in particular) often overreact to anything that may be even slightly controversial and do not always allow her to express herself in Spanish before cutting her off, as she reported to the researcher after the encounter. Her talk was oriented to a conversation frame, even though it was embedded within an institutional frame of completing a task. In this excerpt, the learner does



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

not use English markers in particular until she begins to show much hesitancy in her speech about 10 minutes into their fifteen-minute encounter, coinciding with the first time that she begins to qualify her speech to be more specific and what she believes to be more acceptable to the NS. She reported after the chat that she had begun to sense that the NS wanted to make the conversation more interesting by finding something they would disagree on to create more conversation, but she was wary of saying anything that could cause a conflict. Excerpt (6): Learner in study abroad setting begins using English discourse markers as fillers and displaying hesitancy (Koike 2010) 01 NS: bueno cuéntame, ¿qué qué has conocido/diferente que no conocías antes? ¿has estado en méxico? ‘well tell me, what what have you known/different that you didn’t know before? Have you been in Mexico?’ 02 L: uh no. ‘uh no’ 03 NS: ¿no has visitado méxico? ‘you haven’t visited Mexico?’ 04 L: no, todavía, well4 uh Tijuana. ‘not yet, well, uh Tijuana’ 05 NS: ah, Tijuana. ‘ah Tijuana’ 06 L: sí pero es/((laughs)) hablan inglés mucho allá. ‘yes but it is ((laughs)) they speak English a lot there’ 07 NS: hablan inglés. ‘they speak English’ 08 L: well, es una ciudad, uh uh pueblo de ir de compras er – Well, ‘it is a city, uh, uh town for going shopping er –’ (more talk here) 09 NS: o ¿qué echas de menos? ¿qué echas de menos de tú país? ¿qué cosas dices tú “me gustaría que fueran iguales”? ‘or what do you miss? What do you miss of your country? What things do you say “I wish they were the same?”’ 10 L: ¿que no hagan aquí? ‘that they don’t do here?’ 11 NS: sí, que no hagan aquí. ‘yes, that they don’t do here’

4.  Note that the ‘well’ was phonetically realized as ‘wuhl’.

 Dale A. Koike

12 L: uh, well, es el mismo me gusta jugar deportes y jugar el futbol, well, es más um, (.3) ellos ju – juegan más aquí, el futbol [pero me gusta también. ‘uh, well, it’s the same I like to play sports and play football, well, it is more um (.3) they pl – play more here, football [but I like it too’ 13 NS: allí [ha= ‘there the – 14 L: en América también. well = ‘in America also’ well 15 NS: allí haces deportes, sí ¿no? ¿qué deportes practicas, en América? ‘there you play sports, right, no? What sports do you play, in America?’ 16 L: baloncesto y uh, béisbol er-, béisbol. y: fútbol. ‘basketball and, uh baseball er, baseball. And, football’ 17 NS: en la universidad. ‘in the university’ 18 L:  y el ténis. sí. well, no no no en un equipo, pero. well, baloncesto en un equipo. pero es sólo para divertir. Y nada – nadar. ‘and tennis. Yes. Well, not not not on a team, but. Well, basketball on a team. But it is only to have fun. And to sw – swim’

The discourse markers were an effective way for the learner to keep her turn by filling in gaps and perhaps indexing her status as an English speaker since she used ‘well’ instead of pues or bueno. But they also implicitly signaled her increased ­hesitancy in response to the NS’s push to change the simple ­question of finding likes and dislikes in common into an institutional frame that could start a ­discussion of cultural differences. As this learner kept talking, she also found ­various ways to avoid the cultural comparison sought after by the NS, such as turning the ­questions back to the NS for him to respond first. In this sense, this excerpt shows the different frames used or invoked by the two ­interlocutors (expert-novice, disagreement, conversation), in addition to an ­institutional one, which the researcher unwittingly encouraged by ­providing the ­interlocutors with a set of questions to stimulate conversation. The talk reflects the NS’s ­pursuit of that institutional frame, and how the learner, using a ­transformational frame, tried to use pragmatic resources to keep the talk from becoming an interview while perhaps misunderstanding the rapid-fire and ­constant questioning by the NS, and also avoiding any controversial statements. There were also instances in the conversation frames in which the learner knew how to engage in the talk by responding appropriately to the NS’s statements



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

in an embedded frame, which led to expansions on the part of both speakers. Excerpt (7) is from the longitudinal Dings (2004) study that tracked one learner over the course of 9 months. Here, in her second encounter with the NS, the learner is able to use humor to align with the NS. The NS had just mentioned that he liked to eat cocido ‘stew’ with morcilla ‘blood sausage’, so the learner immediately expressed her opinion of the latter. This particular learner also was adept at understanding the NS’s humorous implicatures, and was able to engage in a type of language play as she contrasted the NS’s enthusiasm for morcilla with her own distaste for it in a point-counterpoint exchange. Excerpt (7): Learner and NS in humorous exchange (Dings 2004) 01 L: no me gustan, me gusta morcilla. blech. ‘I don’t like (plural), like blood sausage. Blech’ 02 NS: a mí me encanta. ‘I love it’ 03 L:

um, ugh. ((laughing)) ‘um, ugh’ ((laughing))

04 NS: me vuelve loco, pero [loco.] ‘I go crazy, but [crazy]’ 05 L:

[no puedo] verlo, uck. ‘[I can’t] look at it, uck’

06 NS:  yo yo al principio, fíjate, me dijer- me dijeron esto es sangre de: sangre de cerdo. Y al principio decía qué asco. Dios mío. Pero oye, te juro que para mí es una pasión, [es que] ‘I I at first, just think, they tol – they told me this is blood of – pig’s blood. And at first I said how sickening. My God. But listen, I swear to you that for me it is a passion, [it’s just that]’ 07 L: [no puedo] comerlo [‘I can’t] eat it’ 08 NS: no me gusta comer pero eso es que me vuelve loco, Dios mío, que qué cosa más buena. ((laughs)) ‘I don’t like to eat but that makes me go crazy. My God, what a delicious thing’ ((laughs)) 09 L: la [primera vez] ‘the [first time]’ 10 NS: [me están entrando] los dolores ‘[my stomach is] rumbling’ 11 L: que yo lo vi ugh, ¿qué es eso? ugh. blood sausage. ‘that I saw it ugh, what’s that?’ Ugh. Blood sausage.

 Dale A. Koike

The two participants keep this banter going over eleven turns in total. As the NS becomes more emphatic in expressing his passion for it, she keeps repeating her disgust, but both laugh at some point, indicating that they recognize the play going on. This kind of language play is, in my view, illustrative of a fairly high level of competence in understanding L2 implicatures and also in the ability to play off of words. Note that the participants stay in the conversation frame, and that the learner uses English interjections (‘blech’, ‘ugh’, ‘uck’) throughout to express her assessments of the blood sausage, possibly due to ignorance of how to express them in Spanish (e.g. ‘agh’, ‘buagh’, ‘uy’, ‘buf ’, in Peninsular Spanish).5 She also uses the words “blood sausage” instead of morcilla in her last turn, which may be a pragmatic device to highlight that her disgust is connected to the implicature of eating blood as food. This meaning is not denoted in the word morcilla itself. Excerpt (8) from the casual conversation context in the Koike and Ramey (2001) dataset, but with different participants than in Excerpt (5) seen earlier, shows the learner in a conversation frame pursuing the same topic over 4 turns (01, 03, 09, 11), not counting two other language-negotiating turns (05, 07) where he is correcting an incorrect lexical item and confirming it again with the NS as in an expert-novice frame. This aggressive attempt to pursue a topic on the part of the learner, similar to Excerpt (5), was not seen frequently in the conversation data and could be viewed as almost an interview frame. It could also represent a learner strategy to stay in the conversation for lack of other options to do so. Excerpt (8): Learner using directness to pursue topic

(Koike & Ramey 2001)

01 L: y um, ¿tienes planes para halloween? ‘and um, do you have plans for Halloween?’ 02 NS: no creo. el sábado, es la semana ( ) y un amigo tiene una ( ) fiesta el veintiocho, sábado. ‘I don’t think so, Saturday, is the week ( ) and a friend has a ( ) party the 28th, Saturday’ 03 L:

uh, ¿va, vas a, uh, llevar un costumbre? ‘uh, are you go – going to, uh, wear a custom?’

04 NS: you mean un disfraz? costume? disfraz? [disfraz? ‘you mean a costume? Costume? Costume?’ [costume?

5.  Interjections vary dialectally, as seen for example in Montes (1999) and in various textbooks on Spanish grammar. In any case, the interjections produced by the learner contain sounds that are not used in Spanish (e.g. ‘uh’ and word-final -ch).



05 L: what is it, difrás? what is it, “difrás”?’

Variation in NS-learner interactions 

[sí, oh “disfraz”. [‘yes, oh, “disfraz”

06 NS: disfraz. ‘costume’ 07 L: disfraz? ‘costume?’ 08 NS: m-hm. ((laugh)) ‘m-hm’ ((laugh)) 09 L: ¿qué? ‘what?’ 10 NS: no sé. hace tiempo, estoy pensando, todavía no sé, lo que= ‘I don’t know. For a long time, I’ve been thinking, I still don’t know, what’ 11 L: ¿no tienes los ideas? ‘you don’t have the ideas?’ 12 NS: no, ah, es que no voy no voy a comprar uno, me voy a pintar, maquillar, pintar el pelo. pero no voy a comprar uno. [((laugh)) ‘no, ah, it’s just that I’m not going, I’m not going to buy one, I’m going to paint myself, put on make-up, dye my hair, but I’m not going to buy one’ [((laugh)) 13 L: [((laugh)) no sé qué o no um no tiene (que uh, que uh,) mi disfraz. pero voy a, voy a, voy a pensar. [((laugh)) I don’t know what or not um he doesn’t have (that uh, that uh) my costume. But I’m going to, going to think’ 14 NS: no sabes qué qué qué te vas a ( ) ‘you don’t know what what what you are going to ( )’ 15 L: no sé. no sé ahora. voy a ‘I don’t know, I don’t know now. I’m going to’ 16 NS: pero vas a comprar em un disfraz? ‘but you are going to buy um a costume?’ 17 L: no quiero que comprar algo. ‘I don’t want to buy something’

Again, similar to Excerpt (5), the learner begins in the conversation frame but, when the learner produces an erroneous lexical item, the NS changes to an

 Dale A. Koike

e­ xpert-novice, ‘teaching’ frame in turns 04 to 08. After this set of exchanges, the learner shifts back to the conversation frame in turn 09 and asks again about the costume. In turn 10, when the NS responds that she doesn’t know what she will do, the learner again presses in turn 11, asking no tienes los ideas? ‘don’t you have the ideas?’ Both turns 09 and 11 are very direct question forms. Any possible negative effects, however, are dispelled by both interlocutors in turns 12 and 13 when they both laugh, even though no humor was offered. The learner then offers in turn 13 no sé qué or no um no tiene (que uh, que uh,) mi disfraz, which is practically the same message that the NS had said in turn 10 previous to this one. The laughter and repetition both align their exchanges in the conversation frame. The data from the personal conversations indicate that the main communicative goal is to achieve intersubjectivity and alignment with the NS in the conversation frame, and the discourse has embedded frames often initiated with pragmatic expressions. Laughter was frequently seen, in some cases where humor was not attempted. As Jefferson (1984) and Haakana (2001) point out, laughter is multifunctional, at times serving to address an emotional or communication difficulty. Implicatures, and ways to stay in a frame through devices such as discourse markers and interjections, are used in these data, many times signaling changes in the discourse frames.

5.  Discussion 5.1  Overall results In summary, Tables 3 and 4 present the pragmatic variation by the speaker and the response by the interlocutor in the two frames of interviews and conversations that have been discussed in the excerpts examined to this point, along with occurrences of transformational frames. In general, Table 3 indicates that in NS-learner discourse, the pragmatic variation within the primary interview frames is often connected to a transformational frame or a change to another primary frame, usually that of conversation. These changes in frame are accompanied by changes in learner (and NS) expectations derived from their schemata connected with the particular frame. The expectations elicit the use of a variety of pragmatic expressions to help them pursue their communicative goals and keep the talk flowing cohesively, including expansions of speech acts (action sequences), humor, role-related expectations, and a sense of appropriate sequencing and feedback in reaction to what the NS says. Thus the linguistic, contextual and cotextual expectations described by Caffi and Janney (1994) are operating here, according to an institutional frame (Drew & Heritage 1992; González-Lloret 2010).



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

Table 3.  Summary of findings from interview/institutional frame: speaker initiator ­variable NS as initiator

Reaction by interlocutor

Learner as initiator

Reaction by interlocutor

NS wants learner to talk; gives minimal or no feedback; interview frame (Ex. 1).

Learner knows expectations of sequencing in interviews but wants to move to conversation frame; use of repetition, nervous laughter.

Learner has expectations for interview sequencing: seeks topic control and continuation through questioning; gives assessment feedback toward conversation frame (Ex. 3).

NS stays on topic in interview frame; laughs at conversational assessments.

NS wants learner to give information but responds to learner’s humor (Ex. 2).

Learner knows expectations of interview: use of humor and change to conversation frame.

Learner has expectations for sequencing in interview, but loses track of talk and turn control (Ex. 4).

NS changes to conversation frame through humor implicature.

Table 4.  Summary of findings from conversation frame: speaker dominance NS dominance

Reaction by interlocutor

Learner dominance

Reaction by interlocutor

NS signals lack of comprehension in conversation (Ex. 5 and 8).

Learner uses intonation patterns for implicature to aid understanding; embedded transformational teaching frame.

Learner pursues the topic in embedded institutional frame with continuous questioning and increased directness (Ex. 5 and 8).

NS responds and stays on topic; transformational frame.

NS does most of talking; orients to institutional frame (Ex. 6).

Learner uses discourse markers to orient to conversation frame; avoids conflict.

NS exaggerates talk in embedded transformational frame of language play (Ex. 7).

Learner also uses humor in play frame.

NS says something not understood by learner in conversation frame (Ex. 5 and 8).

Learner guesses at meaning in transformational expert-novice frame; humorous implicature.

 Dale A. Koike

Table 4 indicates that in the conversation frame, these learners show a drive for alignment with the interlocutor by reacting positively (since the NS is dominant in nearly all the interactions), keeping the talk flowing without m ­ isunderstanding and as little repair or breakdown as possible, and not c­ reating conflict. The pragmatic resources we see here are implicatures, discourse m ­ arkers, and humor, also found by Kurhila (2006). Excerpt 6, where the learner and the NS were operating in different frames, showed that the learner’s goal was to maintain alignment with the NS, while the NS believed he had to achieve an institutional goal. The learner did not answer the questions as the NS expected. Returning to the research questions posed at the beginning of this chapter, we now attempt to answer them on the basis of the data analyzed: Research Question #1: What pragmatic variation can be seen in the L2 ­pragmatic co-construction that occurs in NS-learner talk in the two larger frames of interviews and personal conversations? The variation of pragmatic resources observed here seems to derive from the participants’ expectations regarding the two types of primary frames examined here – institutional (specifically, the interview) and personal – which operate at the discourse level. These frames and the expectations and schemata of how talk is sequenced and expressed in them guide the co-construction of meaning between the learner and NS. The pragmatic realizations, in particular, are a resource used by the learner to establish or respond to a new footing in the talk, often leading to a transformational or new primary frame, seen for example in the use of expansions, humor, implicatures, intonational patterns, discourse markers, and varying levels of directness. Research Question #2: Is the pragmatic variation tied to primary and/or transformational frames, following Ensink (2003)? The data suggest that the variation of pragmatic resources in connection with frames is sometimes used to transition to or signal a change, or occurs in transformational frames. The analysis here has indicated that, when learners either want or reject a change in frame, they often use implicatures, discourse markers, and other pragmatic realizations to initiate that change. Whether or not they are successful depends on the uptake by the interlocutor. In this sense, the frame guides interlocutors in their selection of which pragmatic options they could use in the interaction; on the other hand, pragmatic resources can also be used to signal frame changes or transitions (‘keys’, cf. Goffman 1974), or to refuse to accept a change. The discursive layering may be seen as another resource used to facilitate talk. 5.2  Methodological issues A collection of data from various sources raises the issue of a lack of control over the variables of individuals who were recorded, and leads to the question of



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

whether or not generalizations can be made about the conversational behavior of learners and NS. All we can extrapolate are observations of pragmatic behavior that occurred in these contexts. In addition, the use of secondary data from other sources raises questions about the accuracy of interpretation of those data. When possible, the analysis should be verified with the original investigator. Another issue that was seen from the data is that, at least when dealing with frames, the investigator truly has no control over how the frame is finally conceptualized. For example, although one may impose a primary frame of ‘OPI Interview for assessing linguistic proficiency,’ the way that the participants modify that frame or choose to move away from the usual expectations connected with that frame create an entirely new set of variables. Of course, while this fact was one of the main findings in relation to pragmatic variation, it also creates methodological issues that were unforeseen. Finally, the use of videotaped data is always superior to audiotapes, since they yield a much richer picture of the interaction. However, videotaping is more intrusive than audiotaping, leading to less willingness to participate and less spontaneity on the part of the participants. If the participants agree to be filmed in multiple tapings (as in Dings 2004), the anxiety and spontaneity issue can be overcome, but it then leads to a more ethnographic analysis.

6.  Conclusions If future research supports the notion of the relationship between use of pragmatic resources and frames, then one issue for L2 acquisition would be to examine those intercultural exchanges in which there are differences in the way frames are ­conceptualized in the respective cultures, and where there are differences in expectations in the use of pragmatic resources related to the frames. For these situations, is there an increased opportunity for misunderstandings? If so, how are misunderstandings resolved? Such studies would clarify further the relationship between frames, expectations, and variation in use of pragmatic resources. These questions warrant study in future investigations.

References Arundale, R. 1999. An alternative model and ideology in communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics 9(1): 119–153. Arundale, R. & Good, D. 2002. Boundaries and sequences in studying conversation. In Rethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 103], A. Fetzer & C. Meierkord (eds), 121–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 Dale A. Koike Atkinson, J. & Heritage, J.M. 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. Baddeley, A. 1990. Human Memory. Theory and Practice. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. (eds). 2005. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Exploring Institutional Talk. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York NY: Ballentine. Bednarek, M. 2005. Frames revisited – the coherence-inducing function of frames. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 685–705. Blackwell, S. 2001. Spanish scripts, frames, and schemata: Linguistic evidence of structures of expectations and cultural rules of speaking. Pragmatics and Language Learning 10: 222–250. Bobrow, D. & Norman, D. 1975. Some principles of memory schemata. Representation and  understanding. In Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, D.G. Bobrow & A.M. Collins (eds), 131–149. New York NY: Academic Press. Caffi, C. & Janney, R. 1994. Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 325–373. Chafe, W. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Clark, H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. Dings, A. 2004. Developing Interactional Competence in a Second Language: A Case Study of a Spanish Language Learner. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (eds). 1992. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: CUP. Ensink, T. 2003. Transformational frames: Interpretative consequences of frame shifts and frame embeddings. In Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 7], T. Ensink & C. Sauer (eds), 63–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fauconnier, G. & Sweetser, E. (eds). 1996. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Fillmore, C. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, C. Cogen et al. (eds), 123–132. Berkeley CA: University of California. Frake, C. 1977. Plying frames can be dangerous: Some reflections on methodology in cognitive anthropology. The Quarterly Newsletter for the Institute for Comparative Human Cognition 1: 1–7. Givón, T. 1989. Mind, Code and Context. Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York NY: Harper & Row. Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. González-Lloret, M. 2010. Conversation analysis and speech act performance. In Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues [Language Learning & Language Teaching 7], A. Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (eds), 57–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantic, Vol 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York NY: Academic Press. Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP.



Variation in NS-learner interactions 

Haakana, M. 2001. Laughter as a patient’s resource: Dealing with delicate aspects of medical interaction. Text 21(1–2): 187–219. Holmes, J. 1995. Women, Men, and Politeness. New York NY: Longman. Hymes, D. 1974. Ways of speaking. In Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (eds), 433–451. Cambridge: CUP. Jefferson, G. 1984. On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In Structures of Social Action, J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds), 347–369. Cambridge: CUP. Koike, D. 2010. Behind L2 pragmatics: The role of expectations. In Dialogue in Spanish: Studies in Functions and Contexts [Dialogue Studies 7], D. Koike & L. Rodríguez-Alfano (eds), 257–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Koike, D. & Ramey, A. 2001. Collaborative discourse in the Spanish second language acquisition context. Paper presented at TEXFLEC 2001, University of Texas at Austin. Kuipers, B.J. 1975. A frame for frames: Representing knowledge for recognition. In Representation and Understanding. Studies in Cognitive Science, D.G. Bobrow & A. Collins (eds), 151–184. New York NY: Academic Press. Kurhila, S. 2006. Second Language Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 135]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lee, D. 1997. Frame conflicts and competing construals in family argument. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 339–360. Linell, P. 1998. Approaching Dialogue. Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives [Impact: Studies in Language and Society 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Liskin-Gasparro, J. & Koike, D. 1999. ‘We have ways to make you talk’: Interrogating, interviewing, and conversing in the OPI. Paper presented at American Association of Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Stamford CT. Minsky, M. 1980. A framework for representing knowledge. In Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding, D. Metzing (ed.), 1–25. Berlin: de Gruyter. Montes, R. 1999. The development of discourse markers in Spanish: Interjections. Journal of Pragmatics 31(10): 1289–1310. Prego-Vázquez, G. 2006. The recycling of local discourses in the institutional talk: Naturalization strategies, interactional control, and public local identities. Estudios de ­sociolingüística 7(1): 55–82. Rumelhart, D. 1975. Notes on a schema for stories. In Representation and Understanding. Studies in Cognitive Science, D. Bobrow & A. Collins (eds), 211–236. New York NY: Academic Press. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50: 696–735. Schegloff, E. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analyis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: CUP. Schank, R. & Abelson, R. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schneider, K. & Barron, A. (eds). 2008. Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 178]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tannen, D. 1993. What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Framing in Discourse, D. Tannen (ed.), 14–56. Oxford: OUP.

 Dale A. Koike Tannen, D. & Wallat, C. 1993. Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: ­Examples from a medical examination interview. In Framing in Discourse, D. Tannen (ed.), 57–113. Oxford: OUP. Weigand, E. 2006. Argumentation: The mixed game. Argumentation 20(1): 59–87. Weigand, E. 2008. Rhetoric in the mixed game. In Dialogue and Rhetoric [Dialogue Studies 2], E. Weigand (ed.), 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Weigand, E. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game [Dialogue Studies 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wierzbicka, A. 1994. ‘Cultural scripts’: A new approach to the study of cross-cultural communication. In Language Contact and Language Conflict, M. Pütz (ed.), 67–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Young, R. 2009. Discursive Practice in Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell. Young, R. & He, A. (eds). 1998. Talking and Testing: Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency [Studies in Bilingualism 14]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Appendix 1: Notations used in the transcriptions (based in part on Atkinson & Heritage 1984) =

: Link between different parts of a single speaker’s utterances that may or may not be contiguous. (( )) : Vocalizations. ↑ ↓ : Rising or falling intonation shifts. [ : Overlaps with other turns. () : Lengthened syllabus or sound. ____ (underline) : Emphasis or stress. bold : Use to call reader’s attention to a given word or utterance. ( ) : Unintelligible. . : Fall in tone. , : Continuing intonation. ? : Rise in intonation.

chapter 7

Pragmatic variation in learner perception The role of retrospective verbal report in L2 speech act research Helen Woodfield

University of Bristol, UK The present study examines pragmatic variation in learner perception, exploring the role of retrospective verbal report (RVR) in L2 speech act research. RVRs consist of the verbalized thought processes of participants after completion of a task and aim to provide insights into the reasoning behind learners’ written or spoken behaviors during language production (Gass & Mackey 2000). The RVR data for the present study were elicited at the final stage of an eight-month longitudinal investigation of the speech act development of graduate learners at a UK higher education institution (Woodfield 2011). Results of the study regarding the value of RVRs and learners’ metapragmatic awareness are discussed together with implications for employing such methodology in ILP research.

1.  Introduction1 In recent decades, research in interlanguage pragmatics (henceforth ILP) has generated a wealth of knowledge on how language learners perform a range of speech acts in a variety of research contexts (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper 1989; Economidou-Kogetsidis 2009; Félix-Brasdefer 2003, 2008; Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993; Safont Jordà 2008). Extensive research studies of learner production have examined how learner performance compares with that of native speakers (Vilar-Beltrán 2008; Woodfield & Economidou-Kogetsidis 2010), while developmental studies have examined the acquisition of pragmatic competence both through crosssectional approaches (Félix-Brasdefer 2007; Otcu & Zeyrek 2006; Rose 2000; 1.  I am grateful to the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this chapter. Any remaining errors are my own.

 Helen Woodfield

Trosborg 1995) and longitudinal designs (Barron 2007; Ren 2011; Schauer 2004, 2007, 2009; Woodfield 2011). Pragmatic variation relates to the variation of ­language use in context and has been investigated in studies of pragmatic production with regard to cross-cultural and situational differences (Blum-Kulka  & House 1989), and in relation to intralingual variation (Félix-Brasdefer 2010b; P ­ lacencia 2005). However, fewer studies in the ILP literature have examined pragmatic variation with regard to the cognitive processes and perceptions of learners in the performance of speech acts (Cohen & Olshtain 1993; Félix-Brasdefer 2006, 2008; Hassall 2008; Robinson 1992; Widjaja 1997; Woodfield 2010). The present study aims to contribute to the existing body of research on pragmatic variation in learner perception and investigates the role of verbal report in examining such variation in cognitive processes and perceptions in relation to speech act performance. The study formed part of a wider longitudinal investigation into pragmatic development in advanced learners’ requesting behavior (Woodfield 2011). Specifically, the present investigation examines the role of retrospective verbal report; that is, “verbal reports obtained from the participants immediately after the completion of a task” (Félix-Brasdefer 2010a: 50). Verbal reports as a form of introspection consist of the verbalized thought processes of participants during and immediately after completion of a task and aim to provide insights into the reasoning behind learners’ written or spoken behaviors during language production (Cohen 1998, 2011 [also this volume]; Gass & Mackey 2000). Retrospective verbal reports subsequent to the task represent a form of metalinguistic verbalization in which the researcher may ask for specific information (for example, reasoning or explanation) in order to prompt learners to report on the thoughts they had during task completion (Jourdenais 2001). Although information attended to while participants are engaged in a task (concurrent reporting) is thought to be reportable and veridical, Kasper (2008) observes that “veridical report is also possible immediately after task completion, when the attended information is still in short-term memory” (Kasper 2008, p. 298). Previous studies in L2 speech act research (Félix-Brasdefer 2008; Cohen & Olshtain 1993; Hassall 2008; Robinson 1992; Woodfield 2010) have provided insights into the role of RVRs in accessing cognitive and sociocultural information in the planning of speech act production. A key issue in establishing the validity of retrospective verbal reports is veridicality, “the accuracy of verbal protocols as a reflection of their cognitive processes” (Egi 2004: 245). In this regard, the presentation of recall cues (Gass & Mackey 2000) such as video or audio cues of participants’ performance may support the retrieval of thoughts on task from short-and long-term memory “depending on the length of the task performed and the amount of time between the end of the task and the beginning of the verbal report” (Camps 2003: 203). Kasper and Rose



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

(2002) have emphasized that “it is vital for researchers to understand what kinds of information (native and) nonnative participants attend to, what and how they report” (p. 111). Thus the employment of verbal report in speech act research may contribute to researchers’ understanding of respondents’ perceptions of the discourse situation and the influence of such perceptions on their responses and the planning of their responses (Cohen 2004: 321). The objectives of the present investigation are two-fold: (1) to examine the role of retrospective verbal reports in examining pragmatic variation with regard to learner perception in the production of status-equal/unequal requests; and (2) to examine methodological issues around the employment of RVRs in speech act research. Results of the study relating to the value of RVRs in revealing insights into learners’ metapragmatic awareness are discussed with regard to implications for methodology in ILP research. The chapter is structured as follows: first, the literature on RVRs in ILP research is reviewed, followed by a brief overview of the speech act of requests. The method and findings of the present investigation are then presented, followed by discussion of the findings and of the methodological issues arising, together with implications for further research employing RVRs in interlanguage pragmatics.

2.  Theoretical framework 2.1  Retrospective verbal reports in ILP research In one of the first investigations employing RVRs in ILP research, Robinson (1992) examined the role of introspective methodology in examining speech act knowledge in refusals by twelve Japanese learners of American English at intermediate and advanced levels. The study combined single-subject concurrent verbal reports (henceforth CVRs) with RVRs. Learners completed a six-item written discourse completion task while CVRs were audio recorded. Immediately following completion of the CVRs and written task, the audio recordings were replayed prior to the retrospective interviews, which were conducted in the target language. An inductive analysis of the data (i.e. where categories emerged from the data) revealed nine categories of verbal report features including utterance planning, pragmatic and linguistic difficulty, and knowledge sources. In this study, RVRs were shown to be facilitative in clarifying responses from the CVR: RVRs emphasized the reasoning behind the subjects’ thoughts and showed that sociocultural considerations influenced learner difficulty in refusing in certain situations. In addition, RVRs in this study were instrumental in revealing formal and experiential ­learning as sources

 Helen Woodfield

of pragmatic knowledge. Methodological difficulties reported by ­participants included inability to recall thoughts from the CVRs by the time the interviews were conducted due both to the length of the DCT and researcher failure to replay parts of the concurrent session (Robinson 1992: 64). The second study reviewed, that of Cohen and Olshtain (1993), is distinguished methodologically from Robinson’s (1992) investigation both in the employment of role-plays to elicit production data and in the utilization of video recordings of the role-plays as a stimulus to the RVRs. Moreover, unlike Robinson’s study, the RVRs in Cohen and Olshtain’s investigation were conducted in the learners’ native or near-native language and were produced after each two (of six) speech act situations. These authors argue that such distinguishing features of the methodological design provided “richer linguistic information” than that provided in Robinson’s earlier study (Cohen & Olshtain 1993: 49). Cohen and Olshtain (1993) investigated the assessment, planning, and execution of three speech acts (apologies, complaints, and requests) by fifteen mixed-L1 EFL learners. The RVRs were instrumental in revealing the extent of the learners’ attention to grammar and pronunciation, together with learner uncertainties regarding the choice of forms for polite requests. These uncertainties were reflected in the RVRs in the form of evidence of learner considerations of alternative forms both prior to and after the speaking task, and in those cases where learners reported not saying what they had intended (Cohen & Olshtain 1993: 41). The combination of RVRs with videotaped role-plays was also the chosen form of investigation by Widjaja (1997) in a study of date-refusals with ten Taiwanese female ESL learners and ten American female college students. In this study, three equal-status role-plays were employed and the videotaped role-plays were replayed to participants as a stimulus to the retrospective interviews that immediately f­ollowed. Unlike the studies by Robinson (1992) and Cohen and Olshtain (1993), the learners in Widjaja’s study were instructed to use either English or their first language (Mandarin) during the retrospective phase (Widjaja 1997: 8). The RVRs were seen to be instrumental in revealing the influence of L1 pragmatic knowledge on learners’ choice of refusal strategies and in providing evidence of incorrect L2 pragmatic knowledge in assessing appropriate levels of directness. Finally, learner perceptions of social distance with the male interlocutor were shown to be influenced by sociocultural considerations, which affected their ways of speaking (Widjaja 1997: 23), while cultural differences between the two participant groups were also revealed in the retrospective interview data. The role of RVRs in revealing information on learner perceptions in ILP studies has been further demonstrated in Félix-Brasdefer’s (2006, 2008) research with advanced American learners of Spanish as a foreign language in status-equal/ unequal role-plays eliciting refusals. The studies combined role-plays with RVRs



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

to examine learner perceptions of refusals to invitations with respect to cognition, the language of thought for planning and executing a refusal, and perceptions of insistence after refusing an invitation. In these investigations, advanced learners of Spanish were asked fixed and probing questions immediately following a replay of the audio-recorded role-plays for each situation. Among the findings regarding cognition, Félix-Brasdefer (2006: 21) reports that most learners focused attention on grammar and vocabulary rather than the message during refusals, suggesting that learners had not yet acquired complete control of speech act forms. Further, RVRs were seen to reflect learner difficulty in accessing pragmalinguistic information evidenced through lexical self-repairs in the role-play data (Félix-Brasdefer 2008: 8). Moreover, RVRs in this (2008) study provided information regarding learner concerns for the feelings of the interlocutor when refusing politely. Taken together, both studies demonstrated the role of RVRs in generating valuable metalinguistic data that provided information on learner perceptions in speech act production, including those related to the sociocultural aspects of the discourse situation. The combination of role-plays with RVRs was also the form of investigation by Hassall (2008) in a study of the mental processes underlying pragmatic performance (two requests and two complaints) in Australian undergraduate learners of Indonesian at low and upper intermediate proficiency levels. Role-plays were video and audio-recorded, with the former providing a stimulus to recall (­Hassall 2008: 77). Methodologically, the study was distinctive in two ways: first, participants were asked to report what they were thinking immediately following the delivery of the speech act. Second, during replays of segments of the role-plays, participants were given the opportunity to pause the video if they wished to contribute a reflection. Referring to the former of these procedures, Hassall (2008) recommends discarding this step in future investigations, due to the difficulties participants experienced in recalling “an extended sequence of thoughts that might represent their mental processes from start to finish of that task” (p. 90). Overall the RVRs in this study indicated a range of thoughts, including verbal planning, pragmatics, conversational management, and emotion/affect (Hassall 2008: 78). Reports of pragmatic thoughts related to assessment of social variables and the selection of appropriate degrees of politeness and of semantic content. The RVRs also evidenced current states and sources of learners’ sociopragmatic knowledge. Regarding pragmalinguistic knowledge, low-level learners were seen at times to have difficulty in producing complex pragmalinguistic forms and, where learners were seen to abandon initial linguistic strategies in favor of less complex ones, verbal reports were instrumental in revealing learners’ original pragmatic intentions. In a more recent study, Woodfield (2010) investigated the role of paired ­concurrent and retrospective verbal reports in examining the cognitive processes

 Helen Woodfield

of advanced ESL learners on a written discourse completion task (WDCT) that elicited status-unequal requests in English.The RVRs immediately followed the WDCTs and audio-recorded CVRs and incorporated both fixed questions focusing on intentions, cognitions, planning, and evaluations (Ericsson & Simon 1993), and data-driven questions based on responses in the concurrent phase (Woodfield 2010: 9). Unlike Hassall’s (2008) study, the RVRs in Woodfield’s (2010) investigation were entirely dependent on researcher probes. These RVRs revealed the extent of the influence of participants’ sociocultural considerations and the role of the target language environment on speech act planning. Learner assessment of such influences were seen to mediate pragmalinguistic choices while RVRs also provided learner perspectives on reasons for thinking in L1 (for example in lexical search and retrieval strategies in planning an appropriate request), and on evaluations of linguistic choices for politeness and evaluations of the research methodology. In sum, studies employing RVRs in interlanguage pragmatic research to date have been shown to be instrumental in revealing variation in learner perceptions of pragmatic performance; such variation has been shown to relate to sociocontextual and sociocultural influences on speech act performance and perceptions of politeness in a range of research contexts. 2.2  The speech act of requests An extensive range of studies in the interlanguage pragmatics literature (Achiba 2003; Barron 2003; Ellis 1992; Hill 1997; Schauer 2007, 2009; Trosborg 1995; Woodfield & Economidou-Kogetsidis 2010) has documented the range of linguistic resources (for example, lexis, syntax, modals) from which learners may select in formulating requests in relation to the sociopragmatic parameters of a discourse situation. Requests, as inherently face-threatening acts belonging to Searle’s category of directives (Searle 1979: 13), are pre-event acts “made in an attempt to cause an event or change one” (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984: 206). Given the potentially face-threatening nature of such acts (Brown & Levinson 1987), learners need to gain control over a range of pragmalinguistic resources for communicating indirectness in request production and for internally and externally modifying the speech act (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989; Usó-Juan & ­Martínez-Flor 2007). In terms of their structure, requests comprise the head act, or core of the request, together with “peripheral elements which mitigate or aggravate the force of the request” (Safont-Jordà 2008: 43). Modification strategies that are internal to the head act may be further subdivided into those lexical/phrasal devices (e.g. ­downtoners: ‘could you possibly open the window?’) and syntactic



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

devices (e.g. aspect: ‘I was wondering if it’s possible to have an extension for the assignment’).2 External modification devices are “optional clauses that soften the threatening or impositive nature of the request head” (Safont-Jordá 2008: 50). Unlike internal modification, “external modification does not affect the utterance used for modifying the act, but rather the context in which it is embedded and thus indirectly modifies the illocutionary force” (Woodfield & Kogetsidis 2010: 95). In addition, requests may incorporate a range of perspectives (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989), including hearer dominance (‘could you tidy up the kitchen’); speaker dominance (‘do you think I could borrow your notes?’); joint perspective (‘could we begin now?’); and impersonal perspective (‘can one ask for a little quiet?’). In this regard, Blum-Kulka (1991) observes that “choice of request perspective is another source of variation for manipulating the request’s degree of coercive force. Choice of perspective is one of the ways in which the native speaker signals his or her estimate of the degree of coerciveness required situationally” (p. 266). The challenge for learners in developing pragmatic competence is thus acquiring both pragmalinguistic knowledge, the knowledge of the “range of linguistic resources for conveying particular illocutions” (Leech 1983: 11), together with the sociopragmatic knowledge that informs them of the sociocultural appropriateness of the speech act, in relation to the discourse situation. Moreover, learners need to gain control over attention to such knowledge. For example, Bialystok (1993) maintains that: “adults make pragmatic errors, not only because they do not understand forms and structures, or because they do not have sufficient vocabulary to express their intentions, but because they choose incorrectly” (1993, p. 54). In this regard, recent research (Hassall 2008; Woodfield 2010) has demonstrated the role of verbal report data in shedding light on learners’ attentional control over pragmatic knowledge. Moreover RVRs, as a measure of learner cognition and perception, have the potential to reveal learner variation in learner perceptions of pragmatic performance in the speech act of requests. Specifically, the study aims to answer the following three research questions: a. To what extent do RVRs reveal insights into noticed or attended features of requesting in advanced L2 English request production? b. To what extent are RVRs instrumental in revealing such learners’ perceptions of the development of their pragmatic knowledge? c. What is the nature of the linguistic difficulties experienced by advanced ­learners of L2 English in the production of requests in role-plays, as revealed by RVRs? 2.  See Safont-Jordà (2008) and Woodfield and Kogetsidis (2010) for taxonomies of modification devices employed in requests.

 Helen Woodfield

3.  Method 3.1  Participants The small-scale exploratory study reported in the present chapter formed part of a wider study (Woodfield 2011) that examined acquisition in ILP request production in a higher education context in the UK over a period of eight months and incorporated native speaker participants as a control group. These latter participants did not participate in RVRs and will not be referred to further in the present chapter. A total of eight graduate student learners (ESL learners) participated in the retrospective interviews and role-plays. These learners included three students from Korea, one from Japan, and two learners from China and Taiwan respectively who, at the first point of data elicitation (Phase 1), were enrolled in a fiveweek pre-sessional course in English for Academic Purposes to prepare them for graduate study in a British university. Students enrolling on such courses would normally have an IELTS score of 6.0–6.5, thus the ESL learners were of advanced proficiency and had on average 8–9 years of formal education in English. The use of such standardized tests for determining the proficiency levels of learners helps enhance the generalizability of research as “the content of standardized tests is available for public scrutiny and their validity is subject to ongoing investigation” (Thomas 1994: 324). The mean age of the group was 27.75 years. The extent of the learners’ sojourns in an English-speaking community ranged from 0 months to five years.3 Seven of the learner participants (excluding S3) had spent on average 8.4 months in other English-speaking communities before arriving in the U.K. The group comprised seven females and one male and all except one participant (S8) had been in the UK for 3–4 days at the time of the first data collection in Phase 1. A summary profile of the ESL student participants is provided in Table 1. All students completed consent forms prior to taking part in the study. The learners also completed a background questionnaire to establish the profile summarized in Table 1. 3.2  Instrument and procedures for data collection The RVR data for the present study were elicited at the final stage of a longitudinal investigation of the speech act development of graduate learners at a UK higher education institution. This methodological decision was based on the intention to probe learners’ present pragmatic perceptions rather than their cognitive

3.  Learner 3 had spent five years studying in International schools in English speaking ­communities as part of her formal education.



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

Table 1.  Profile of ESL learners (L = Learner) Formal English Education (yrs)

Months in TL Community

Age Years

Time in the UK at Phase 1

Country of origin

L1

6.5

0

26

3 days

Korea

L2

6

0

29

3 days

Taiwan

L3

8

60

27

4 days

Korea

L4

10

4

27

3 days

Taiwan

L5

9

12

28

4 days

China

L6

10

1

27

4 days

Japan

L7

10

14

27

4 days

Korea

L8

10

11

31

11 months

China

processes experienced during the performance of the role-play tasks. The study employed open role-plays (Félix-Brasdefer 2010a; Kasper 2008; Kasper & Dahl 1991) to elicit data in face-to-face interaction. All role plays were audio-recorded. In contrast to closed role plays, open role plays facilitate interaction over multiple turns and represent different discourse phases (Kasper 2008), enabling the observation of discourse aspects of requesting behavior as the interaction unfolds (Hassall 2003). Such elicitation measures have been shown to elicit rich data in ILP studies (Félix-Brasdefer 2007; Hassall 2001) and allow the researcher to control those social-contextual parameters of the discourse situation, which may influence strategy choice (Brown & Levinson 1987). The present study incorporated two discourse situations (Appendix A) representing one status-unequal request (to a tutor) and one status-equal request (to a fellow student). Both situations were considered to be familiar to graduate students studying in higher education ­contexts. The request to the tutor for an extension on a written assignment (‘Extension’) was conducted with the researcher as interlocutor. As the researcher was a senior member of the academic staff at the same institution as the learners, a clear asymmetric relationship was established in keeping with the design of the role-play task. Participants interacted with a doctoral student in the equal-status scenario (‘Notes’). In responding to the initial requests, both the researcher and doctoral student displayed a consistently resistant stance (Cohen & Olshtain 1993) throughout the role plays. The role-play data were collected at three points during the course of the academic year. Phase 1 was completed in August when the ESL learners had just arrived for the pre-sessional course prior to the graduate program. Phase two was completed at the end of January the following year, while the role plays for Phase

 Helen Woodfield

three were carried out approximately three months later in April that year. Thus data were elicited a few days after the learners’ arrival in the UK (Phase 1), after another five months (Phase 2) and still another additional three months (Phase 3) in the target language community. In sum, the collection of role-play data was conducted over an eight-month period. Retrospective interviews were conducted only after the third phase of data collection for reasons noted above. Each of the audio-recorded role plays from all three phases of the data collection was replayed in sequence to individual learners prior to the individual retrospective interviews: it was thought that such a procedure might serve to capture learners’ perceptions of changes in metapragmatic knowledge (cf. ­Barron 2003). Thus this research procedure, in relation to the timing of the RVRs, aimed moreover at capturing learners’ present pragmatic perceptions (i.e. at Phase three) of changes to their pragmatic knowledge. In the present study, the design of the retrospective interview closely followed Barron (2003) (Appendix B). Interview probes focused on noticed or attended features of the situation, utterance planning, evaluation of alternative utterances, development of pragmatic knowledge, and linguistic difficulties. 3.3  Data analysis The categories from the interview probes formed the basis of the qualitative analysis of the interview data. Given the small-scale nature and limited scope of the study (eight participants), inter-rater reliability measures were not established. For reasons of space, this chapter is restricted to a focus on three of these themes: 1. Noticed or attended features of the situation; 2. Development of pragmatic knowledge; and 3. Linguistic difficulties. In the examples that follow, the role-play data are included for illustration in addition to data from the RVRs. In the extracts from the role-play data, the two interlocutors are indicated by ‘X’ (‘L’ for the learner and ‘R’ for the researcher).

4.  Results 4.1  Noticed or attended features of the situation (cognition) The present section addresses research Question (a) above: To what extent do RVRs reveal insights into noticed or attended features of requesting in advanced L2 English request production?



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

In the present study, the evidence from the RVRs suggested that learners attended mainly to (4.1.1) grammar and vocabulary and (4.1.2) sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge during the role-play tasks. 4.1.1  Grammar and vocabulary Of the retrospective interviews with the eight learners, three of the learners referred to grammar as a focus of attention during the role-play task. In Example (1), the RVR suggests that the learner (L1) is aware of her grammar error in the role-play but perceives that she is inconsistent in her self-repair behavior. Such perceptions were not, however, supported by evidence in the role-plays (Examples (2), (3), and (4)). (1) RVR, Learner #1 I found one obvious grammar mistake, borrow and lend…sometimes I ­correct my errors but sometimes I didn’t..it’s a bit embarrassing.

It is important to note that these data represent reports of pragmatic perceptions formed while listening to the audio-recordings of the role-plays, rather than reports of cognitive processes that the learners experienced during the performance of the role-play tasks.4 This is also the case with Example (7) below. This methodological observation is further discussed in Section 6. The difficulty L1 reports in (1) reflects her uncertainty in choosing appropriate lexico-grammatical forms in the service of a request to a fellow student. While these uncertainties are reflected in the role-play data for the ‘Notes’ situation in each of the three phases of data collection (Examples 2, 3, 4), these role-plays demonstrate that L1’s perceptions regarding self-repair (as indicated in Example 1) are unfounded. The role-plays rather support the notion that the learner is successful in her self-repair. (2) Role-play, Phase 1, Notes, Learner #1 (four lines of transcript omitted) 05 ..yesterday I was a little bit sick so I didn’t take notes but 06 I think that is very important for our assignment. 07 So if possible can you.. can you.. 08 can I borrow your notes?

In the role-play for Phase 1 ‘Notes’ (Example 2), L1 begins to formulate her request (line 7) with a hearer perspective (‘can you’), entailing the utilization of ‘lend’ as the target verb form. The learner then substitutes this utterance for a speaker perspective (‘can I’) in combination with ‘borrow’ (line 8). It is possible that L1 was not able to retrieve the lexical form ‘lend’ in this instance, which may suggest lack of control in online interaction over the combination of lexico-grammatical forms

4.  I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this insight.

 Helen Woodfield

with the request perspective implicit in such forms. In the present study,­Example (3) demonstrates a further successful self-repair in Phase 2 from the same learner (line 13) while in Example (4) (Phase 3 of the data collection), although L1 appears hesitant (line 16) in selecting the appropriate verb form, she is again successful in selecting an appropriate lexical item (‘can I borrow’) in relation to the formulation of speaker perspective (‘can I + VP’) of the request. (3)

Role-play, Phase 2, Notes, Learner #1 (eight lines of transcript omitted) 09 L: So uh I’m sorry about..I heard that. that that on that 10 day we learn quite important thing 11 R: Ah 12 L: and it might be relate with our assignment so can you 13 borrow me your – can you lend me your note?

(4)

Role-play, Phase 3, Notes, Learner #1 (eleven lines of transcript omitted) 12 L: so you know I missed some lectures (X: oh) and 13 I think this time we 14 have to do assignment (X: Mm) about that lecture 15 I missed. 16 So if possible can I ..can I bor…can I borrow 17 your notes for one day?

Learner difficulties with lexico-grammar items were also reported by L5 (­Example 5). In this example, the learner’s reported attention to grammar in the RVR relates to the source of her difficulties (the need to simultaneously focus on form and meaning during the role-play) rather than her perceptions of self-repair. (5) RVR, Learner #5 Before talking to you and X I have to understand the two paragraphs uh clearly.. maybe I need more time to read it and understand it. so sometimes even I started to talk to you but I was still thinking about the meaning of the topic…need to consider the grammar it’s correct or not so it’s difficult when I talk to you there were two things in my mind.

The disfluencies and hesitations in the role-play from Phase 3 (Example 6) reflect this learner’s difficulties in focusing on both form and meaning and her lack of attentional control to pragmalinguistic resources in speech act production. Unlike the learner in Example (1), L5 in Example (6) does not self-repair non-target forms (line 10) and the role-play data do indeed reflect her perceptions of difficulties as reported in the RVR (5): (6) Role-play, Phase 3, Notes, Learner #5 01 L5: Hi ‘X’ 02 R: Hi



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

03 L5: Hi. uh. sorry. I . maybe c.could you help me . uh. 04 because uh. my assignment one 05 assignment. uh . I. I need your notes . uh . yesterday because .. 06 R: Uh why do you need my notes? 07 L5: uh . Because I want to write . uh . one assignment 08 uh . in the unit but uh . I think I 09 missed part of uh . the notes in class so 10 could you borrow yours to me?

Interestingly, in her response to Question 4 of the retrospective interview (­Example 7), L5 did reveal her awareness of the non-target forms evident in the Phase 3 role play (Example (6) line 10): (7) RVR, Learner #5 01 L5: But I still think it’s not good enough. 02 R: What makes you say that – why do you feel it’s not good enough? 03 L5: Because in the final one I still have the wrong grammar for ­example ‘could I borrow – could you borrow yours to me’ but it’s wrong I should say ‘could I borrow yours’.

In this instance, the learner’s awareness of non-target forms in the role-play was only evident from further probing in the RVR. Kasper (2001: 510) notes that certain ungrammatical features in pragmatic production (as in Example 6, line 10) may make expressions less effective but such features are not pragmalinguistic errors. Thus in Example (7), variation in learner perception related more to grammar, rather than pragmatics, and was evident only at a later stage of the RVR. The final example of a learner’s reference to grammar in the RVR data in this study (Example 8) relates to learner perception of focus on form during the formulation of the reason for the request, reflected in the role-play data in the third phase of data collection (9). Grammar is reported by this learner as being the focus of her attention only at the second phase of data collection. (8) RVR, Learner # 4 L4: I noticed my grammar and the excuse that I use is different every time. The first time I’m focusing on the reason – what kind of excuse should I use because I don’t have this kind of experience before but then the second time I started focusing on some details about my grammar.. R: OK could you say a little more about the point about the grammar? L4: Yes like ‘ed’ past tense or present tense or since like ‘interested’ or ‘­interesting’ this time.

 Helen Woodfield

(9)

Role-play, Phase 3, Extension, Learner #4 (two lines of transcript omitted) 03 L4: Um excuse me um I have some trouble with my assignment 04 R: uh huh 05 and I think I 06 need more time to finish it 07 R: Oh ok what’s the problem? 08 L4: Well I . I sort of start to do some literature review recently 09 (R: Mm) and I find out some more area that was really 10 interesting (R: Mm) and I think 11 if I can include this part into my assignment 12 then it will make the assignment more complete 13 and more…interesting.

For this learner, the RVR in (8) suggests that her attentional focus in the first phase of the role-plays was on the content of the grounder due to her lack of familiarity with the discourse situation; it is not until the second phase that the learner focuses on form. In addition to grammar and vocabulary, half of the learners reported focusing on the sociocontextual aspects of the discourse situation and the choice of linguistic forms in relation to politeness. 4.1.2  Sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge There was evidence in the present study from the RVRs by four of the learners that their focus of attention was on the sociocontextual aspects of the role play and the need to select appropriate pragmalinguistic forms in the service of politeness. These perceptions are illustrated respectively in Examples (10), (11), (12), and (13) below: (10) RVR, Learner #7 R: Was there anything you were considering when deciding what to say? L7: Ah the first role play I was I am considering the relationship between you and me and I should be more polite than the second one. (11) RVR, Learner #4 L4: I think it feel like real so I need to come up with some good excuse to convince my professor and it says the relationship is strictly academic so then I think I need to be more like formal so it’s difficult, not like just talk to your friends not like the second time. (12) RVR, Learner #8 L8: For the first role plays I was thinking about is it uh is it a polite way to ask these things to the professor. (13) RVR, Learner #6 L6: Because role-play A is an interaction with my tutor which is uh I mean have the authority or which I have to show respect for so I tried to use



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

more polite phrases for example ‘could’ or ‘would’ but I found that in the first phase I used the same phrases to both of the, I mean to both tutors and friends who are very friendly so while paying attention to such uses but I found that I wasn’t able to do very well actually. R: Did you feel you made a distinction between the two role plays in the language you used? L6: Yeah gradually because even in daily life in the UK I came to have more opportunities to uh use those pragmatic aspects according to the person I talked with so I think it has become easier to distinguish such uses.

Examples (10)–(13) above provide evidence of the state of these learners’ sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic (in Example 13) knowledge: they perceive the need to choose polite forms that indicate respect in status-unequal academic contexts. In the present study, and with regard to S6, the evidence from the RVR in (13) demonstrates that this learner’s sociopragmatic knowledge is intact: he is aware of the need to select appropriately from the pragmalinguistic repertoire to show respect for his interlocutor and distinguish pragmalinguistically in the two scenarios. However, L6 also perceives that he does not achieve this distinction in the Phase 1 role-play. A close inspection of this role play (Examples 14 and 15) suggests that his perceptions of request formulation in (13) (i.e. not distinguishing between the two interlocutors in his pragmalinguistic choices) are indeed accurately reflected in his role-play requests. (14) Role play, Phase 1, Extension, Learner #6 L6:  could you please accept my..uh..request . that . please postpone the d ­ eadline (15) Role-play: Phase 1, Notes, Learner #6 L6:  could you please . uh . borrow me your notebook ‘cos I want to copy your note.

The evidence from the Phase 1 role-plays for L6 might suggest that this learner is operating with a limited range of pragmalinguistic forms (‘could you + politeness marker + verb’), a point that he explains in the RVR (16) in response to Q ­ uestion 3 relating to the evaluation of alternative utterances. The RVR data (16) thus shed light on the reasons for the choice of forms in the role-play in (14) and (15) and reveal the influence of formal learning experiences on this learner’s pragmatic choices. (16) RVR, Learner #6 L6: I think I have several choices but I think I used the phrases that I often see through for example textbooks, L2 learners’ materials and so on. So maybe I could have said for example ‘if you don’t mind’, ‘could you please’ or alternative phrases but I don’t know ‘could you’ or ‘I’d like

 Helen Woodfield

you to’ are the most popular and familiar sentences for me because these phrases were emphasized when I was a student at junior high and ­senior high schools so I am aware of another phrase I use the one which I am familiar with most.

A further examination of this learner’s role play for Phase 3 (Example 17) ­suggests that although L6 continues to use the pragmalinguistic forms with which he reports being most familiar in (16) (‘could you’, ‘I’d like you to’), he may not have developed full attentional control (Bialystok 1993) over the selection of pragmalinguistic forms in status-unequal requests. (17) Role play, Phase 3, Extension, Learner #6 L6: so I’d like you to accept some extension of my coming assignment.

In this example, the utilization of a direct want statement (‘I’d like you to’ + VP) and lexical non-target forms (‘accept some extension’) combined with a coercive ‘speaker’ perspective in formulating a request to his tutor for an extension produces a non-target effect overall. Moreover, in the present study, because the pragmatic difficulties evident in (17) were not reflected in the RVR data (16), it seems that L6 may not have been aware of the non-target forms in the request to his tutor. Thus, pragmatic variation in the perceptions of the participants in relation to noticed or attended features of the situation were linked to their uncertainties with regard to the selection of appropriate forms, evidence of individual variation in the different degrees of awareness of non-target forms in the role-play data, together with a focus on sociocontextual aspects of the discourse situation. Moreover, there was evidence that for some learners, learner perceptions of performance did not necessarily correspond to their production. 4.2  Development of pragmatic knowledge This section addresses research Question (b) that examined the extent to which RVRs are instrumental in revealing learners’ perceptions of the development of their pragmatic knowledge. In the present study, learners were invited to report on anything that they consciously did differently in Phase 3 of the role-plays, having enacted the situation on two former occasions (Question 4). Learner variation was evident in the responses from the participants; however, in response to Question 4, only two of the eight learners (L6 and L3) referred in the RVRs to perceptions of development in their pragmatic knowledge, illustrated in Examples (18) and (19) below. In (18), the RVR indicates that L6 perceives that he distinguishes pragmalinguistically between status-equal/unequal interlocutors during the role-plays.



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

(18) Role play, Phase 3, Notes, Learner #6 L6: Yes I tried to make a difference between these positions, especially in role play B because he is my good friend and so our relationship is very uh not very formal so we can chat we can create informal ­relationships so I intentionally used ‘can you’ not ‘could’ or ‘would’ because the relationships are very close and we are friends so I tried to make some difference between these two positions.

This learner expands on the development of his pragmatic knowledge in response to Question 7 (R: ‘Did you have any other comments on your learning or role-play performance?’): (19) RVR, Learner #6 L6: I think because my major is TESOL which deals with language learning or language nature I think I came to more internalize these pragmatic aspects and I try to intentionally make differences according to the person I interact with so ah thanks to my major I think I know more and have much deeper knowledge about language use and language learning it might influence some differences between each phase’.

Regarding (18), the role-play data for Phase 3 confirm the perceptions of L6 regarding his use of the modal ‘can’ in status-equal scenarios (‘so if possible, can I – can I bor- can I borrow your notes for one day?’). However, in contrast to his perceptions regarding how he distinguishes between the two interlocutors, he also employs such forms in the Phase 3 request to the tutor for an extension (‘can you give me more time..if it’s possible’). A closer examination of the role-play data in the first two phases of data collection for this participant suggests that the production data only partially support the perceptions of L6 as evidenced in (18) above and that the pragmalinguistic distinction referred to in the RVR (18) is made only in Phase 2. Thus the sociopragmatic distinction is not consistent across all phases of data collection: (Phase 1/Extension: ‘could you please accept my. uh.request. that. please postpone the deadline’; Phase 1/Notes: ‘could you please. uh.borrow me your notebook ‘cos I want to copy your note’; Phase 2/Extension: ‘could you please accept my extension if possible?’; Phase 2/Notes: ‘can you give me some notes of that lectures’. With regard to (19), the RVR provides evidence of L6’s ­perceptions of pragmatic development and that formal contexts of learning are perceived by this learner as significant in this development. In the second example of learner perceptions of the development of pragmatic knowledge in (20), the RVR data for L3 in response to Question 4 are indicative of her perception of such development with regard to the utilization of tense and aspect as syntactic modifiers in request mitigation; these mitigating forms are indeed evident in the role play data for Phase 3 (21) but absent in Phases 1 and 2.

 Helen Woodfield

(20) RVR, Learner #3 L3: I think most of the part not really but that phrase ‘I was wondering’ I didn’t really use that much before but after I had a lectures I think I’m using it quite often than before..and it wasn’t consciously. (21) Role play, Extension, Learner #3 L3: Hello, actually I came here um to ask for an extension. Um . I was just wondering if I could get some ah extension so I could finish my – I could finish my assignments in better way?

In the present study there were limited data regarding learner perceptions of pragmatic development. These data are indicative, first, of learner perceptions of the potential influence of formal contexts of learning on pragmatic development. Second, it was revealed from one learner (L6) in the present study that learners’ perceptions of pragmatic development as evidenced in RVRs may not reflect their production. Finally, given the limited data in the present study, the issue of how to capture learner perceptions of pragmatic development through RVRs is one that needs to be addressed in the research design in future studies. 4.3  Linguistic difficulties The findings reported in the present section respond to research Question (c), which focused on the nature of the linguistic difficulties experienced by the advanced learners in the study. This section examines the linguistic difficulties reported by participants in the RVRs in response to Question 5 (‘Did you have to alter what you would have wished to say in any way due to language difficulties?’). Learner variation was evident in the participants’ responses to this question and participants reported a range of responses relating to: (a) translation (L6: ‘sometimes I still tend to think some English words or phrases from Japanese translations and sometimes I mean Japanese translations doesn’t apply to English…’); (b) vocabulary (L3: ‘if I can’t think of the vocabulary…at the moment that I have to then I. rather go for another sentence’); (L2: ‘I do not have enough vocabularies to express myself ’); (c) simultaneous focus on form and meaning (L4: ‘I want to express more formally more politely and also I want to make sure my grammar is correct so it’s like simultaneously and it’s really difficult so I probably will only focus on the grammar but I forgot to say it more formally or more politely’); (d) the selection of linguistic forms appropriate to the academic context (L8: ‘I tried to use the words uh academically because this environment is an academic environment and I tried to use the words in a polite way’). Among the linguistic difficulties participants reported, a limited pragmalinguistic repertoire was mentioned by two participants, L7 and L5, illustrated in (22) and (23):



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

(22) RVR, Learner #7 L7: Probably I’m not familiar with asking something in English so my pattern are limited ‘I was wondering’ or ‘can I borrow something’, ‘can I lend you something’ probably there are some more . structures that I can use but R: but you feel you are not aware of them? L7: yeah, yeah. (23) RVR, Learner #5 L5: I think it’s really difficult for me especially... in the initial sentence I mean to ask someone something I don’t know how to use the ­appropriate sentence to ask. R: And was that the problem in each of the three phases? L5: Yes – I think I could only use ‘could you help me’ or ‘could I ask you something’ ..but I think in English there should be an oral sentence or oral use to ask someone.

In sum, the findings in the present study concerning linguistic difficulties thus related to challenges in translation between L1/L2 during the planning process, the selection of appropriate vocabulary in requesting in academic contexts of higher education, and a perceived limited repertoire of pragmalinguistic resources to perform the request appropriately.

5.  Discussion In this small-scale study, RVRs subsequent to role-plays indicated a wide range of variation in learners’ perceptions regarding pragmatic performance and of their metapragmatic knowledge. In relation to research Question (a), for some learners, the RVRs indicated that their attentional focus was on grammar, vocabulary, and pragmatics when formulating requests in status-equal/unequal scenarios. First, regarding grammar, there was some evidence that learners had difficulty choosing appropriate lexico-grammatical forms and in combination with request perspective. In this regard, Cohen (2005: 277) identifies retrieval strategies (“calling up information about the language already stored in memory”) as part of a learners’ repertoire of language use strategies in speech act production. Difficulties in retrieving appropriate forms in the service of speech acts have been identified elsewhere in the ILP literature (Eisenstein & Bodman 1986, 1993; F ­ élix-Brasdefer 2008; Hassall 2008; Woodfield 2010). In addition, Cohen and Olshtain (1993: 43) document instances of lexical abandonment or avoidance in the RVR reports of their EFL learners in the production of speech acts in role-plays, and ­Félix-Brasdefer (2008: 203) observes how self-repairs in role-play

 Helen Woodfield

data may validate learner ­perceptions of grammar focus in RVR reports. Learner attention to grammar during role-play performance has been noted elsewhere in the ILP literature. Cohen and Olshtain (1993: 43) report learner focus on grammar in many of the situations investigated; these authors identify ‘metacognizers’ (Cohen & Olshtain 1993: 45) as a speech production style of those learners who have a “highly developed metacognitive awareness”, while Félix-Brasdefer (2006, 2008) observes the majority of the advanced learners of Spanish in his investigations focus on grammar and vocabulary, relating this finding to overuse of the monitor (2008: 207). Second, evidence from the present study suggests that in some cases, learners struggled with attention to form and meaning. Hassall (2008) observes that some learners: “even when performing pragmatically sensitive tasks, pay more attention to expressing their propositional message with adequate clarity than they do to being adequately polite” (p. 79). Such a focus on form, even in relatively advanced learners, may be related to a concern for propositional clarity (Edmondson et al. 1984; Koike 1989; Kasper 1989) and to the effects of learning environment where traditional classroom settings may engender concern for accuracy (Hassall 2008), and where learning materials in traditional textbooks may not fully provide learners with adequate input to develop pragmatic competence (Boxer & Pickering 1995; Usó-Juan 2008; Kasper 2001). Third, there was evidence from the RVRs in the present study of states of learners’ sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge. The former may have stemmed from transfer from the first language culture and may have developed during their eight-month sojourn in the second language academic community. In those ESL learning contexts where learners have opportunities for extended interactions in the host environment, pragmatic awareness and sensitivity may be heightened (Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei 1998). Woodfield (2010: 11) notes that “considerations of status differences are considered to be important in collectivist cultures” (Triandis 1994). In such cultures, distinctions between in-group and out-group members may be significant and these sociolinguistic considerations may have influenced the learners’ perceptions in the present study. Evidence of sociopragmatic knowledge in RVR data has been documented elsewhere in the literature with regard to awareness of respect terms in L2 Indonesian (Hassall 2008), in perceptions of refusals in Japanese learners of American English (Robinson 1992), and of status-unequal requests in British English (Woodfield 2010). Evidence of learners’ pragmalinguistic knowledge in the present study was evident in the RVRs in the form of alternative linguistic options for communicating pragmatic intent in an appropriate manner. Despite the evidence of sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge in the verbal reports, learners in the present study at times evidenced difficulty in selecting appropriate forms to communicate pragmatic intent during production.



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

Such instances of accurate pragmatic knowledge accompanied by weak control in production have been documented elsewhere (Hassall 2008; Woodfield 2010) and lend further tentative support for the notion that in developing pragmatic competence, learners need to gain control over attention and selection of appropriate forms (Bialystok 1993). Furthermore, in the present study, some learners in the RVRs were observed to demonstrate little awareness of inappropriate forms employed in the role-play and at times learner perceptions of self-repair did not correspond to production; learners’ perceptions of performance, as reported in the RVRs, were thus not always aligned with their production. One explanation may be related to pragmatic awareness; that is, relatively advanced learners may experience difficulty in identifying weaknesses of form (Bardovi-Harlig & Griffin 2005). Bardovi-Harlig (2001: 19) notes that form is one of the ways in which non-native production may differ from the native-speaker norm. Moreover, in a study of pragmatic awareness, and in relation to (17), Bardovi-Harlig and Griffin (2005) note that: “learners might recognize the string would like as potentially polite and be unable to recognize the force of the full expression” (p. 412). Evidence from this former study suggests that it may be harder for learners to “recognize and change grammatical, but inappropriate form” (p. 411). Further, Hassall (2008: 86) documents instances of learners’ accurate sociopragmatic knowledge in RVRs but ‘deviant’ knowledge of appropriate address terms in role-play production. Second, incompleteness of reporting in verbal reports (Matsumoto 1994; Nisbett & Wilson 1977) may be related to issues of research methodology; namely, (a) the time between retrospective reporting and task performance (where informants tend to forget some information that was originally available while being engaged in the task); and, (b) automaticity of responses. That is, once informants are proficient in the target language, it is unlikely that they are able to report fully the cognitive processes employed in the planning and production of responses to linguistic tasks. If information in focal attention is available for verbal report (Ericsson & Simon 1993), it would seem that learners who notice (Schmidt 1993, 1995) may be positioned to report on the information in their focal attention. Where processing has become automatic, reports of such processes may be incomplete (Jourdenais 2001). In relation to research Question (b), while the learners in the present study reported their perceptions of a range of linguistic difficulties in pragmatic performance (selection of vocabulary, limited pragmalinguistic resources, choice of polite forms, appropriateness concerning academic context), with regard to learner perceptions of the development of pragmatic knowledge, there was evidence in the RVRs from only two participants of awareness of such development. While metapragmatic data from previous longitudinal studies (Barron 2003) has documented cross-cultural differences in offer-refusal exchanges, little evidence

 Helen Woodfield

has been documented in the RVRs of learner pragmatic development. In relation to research Question (c), the RVR data in the present study evidenced a range of linguistic difficulties relating to translation during the planning process, selection of lexical items, and the appropriate use of linguistic forms with respect to the academic context. 6.  Implications for RVR methodology in ILP research The main objective in employing retrospective verbal reports in speech act studies to date has been to investigate the cognitive processes and perceptions of learners engaged in pragmatic production tasks. Central to concerns with such methodology is the issue of veridicality, as Egi (2004) points out: “protocols are n ­ on-veridical if they fail to capture participants’ thoughts or include cognitive processes that actually did not take place” (p. 245). In terms of procedure, certain steps may be taken to ensure valid and reliable reports. The first issue is the timing of the RVRs in relation to the task. In immediate retrospection (Faerch & Kasper 1987; Ericsson & Simon 1987) or ‘consecutive recall’ (Gass & Mackey 2000) the retrospection is immediately consecutive to the task and “traces of the original cognition are still in short term memory” (Faerch  & Kasper 1987: 15), and are therefore accessible for reporting. With regard to reliability, Cohen and Olshtain (1993) observe that “respondents have been found to provide more reliable retrospective reports on their cognitive processes if the reporting takes place shortly after the mental events themselves” (p. 36). Further, Gass and Mackey (2000: 90) recommend conducting recall sessions ‘as soon as possible’ after the original task. Jourdenais (2001: 356) notes that delayed collection of retrospective protocols may result in learners no longer recalling their behaviors on-task, which in turn may result in over-reporting (Nisbett & Wilson 1977; Kormos 1998). In relation to the issue of timing of RVRs, it is important for researchers to distinguish between (a) those thoughts that participants experience while performing a task and (b) thoughts from a ‘here and now’ perspective (Gass & Mackey 2000); i.e. thoughts experienced at the time of eliciting the verbal reports.5 In the present study, the RVRs were conducted immediately consecutive to the third phase of role play production but several months after the first two phases of data collection; thus despite the audiorecorded recall cues, there were threats to veridicality. In order to address this issue, future studies might follow that procedure followed by previous studies

5.  I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this insight.



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

combining RVRs and r­ ole-plays: Cohen and Olshtain (1993), Hassall (2008), and Félix-Brasdefer (2008) have employed RVRs immediately consecutive to the task. The challenge for those studies investigating learner perceptions of pragmatic development is one of valid data capture through RVRs and the timing of these in relation to production tasks. A second issue in research methodology employing RVRs is the nature of the elicitation procedure. First, this issue relates to whether retrospection is researcher-initiated or learner initiated (cf. ‘self-initiated v. other-initiated’; ­Ericsson & Simon 1987, p. 17). A combination of both approaches has been employed in ILP research (e.g. Hassall 2008) but with the caveat that interruption of the role play immediately following the speech act should be discarded in future studies due to constraints on short-term memory (Hassall 2008: 90). Researcher-initiated RVRs (Félix-Brasdefer 2006, 2008; Woodfield 2010) have been shown to elicit rich data on learner cognitions and perceptions of speech act production while native-speaker perceptions on performance and on research methodology have also been documented through this approach (Woodfield 2008). Second, the nature of the cues is an important consideration. Researchers are recommended to use “focused yet open-ended questions” (Jourdenais 2001: 357); similarly, leading questions should be avoided in order to “minimize the effects of researcher bias” (Kormos 1998: 357). The issue of what type of verbal prompts can legitimately be used to elicit RVRs has generated some controversy in the literature. For example, ­Ericsson and Simon (1987) recommend against asking subjects to report specific information that “might bias subjects towards accepting low-confidence memories or even towards fabricating such thoughts” (p. 42) and Gass and Mackey (2000: 59) also implicitly support this approach, employing non-directed verbal prompts. Kasper and Rose (2002) suggest that participants “should not be asked to describe, explain or hypothesize because such requests will prompt different cognitive processes than those required by the [original] tasks and will interfere with the task-related processes” (p. 108). However, Cohen (1996: 16) supports the utilization of more directive probes in RVRs as such probes may avoid the threats of incompleteness in reporting. In the present study, the employment of directive probes led to (a) participants providing further evidence of the reasons for their responses (­Example 7), and (b) participants expanding on their reasoning (Example 8). Such probes also resulted in (c) participants commenting on the influence of sociocontextual variables on speech act production (Example 13) and (d) p ­ articipant reflections on their pragmatic development (Example 19 and Example 22), in participant perceptions of linguistic difficulties across the research period. There is, moreover, the issue of the selected language of retrospective verbal reports. Both second language verbal reports (Félix-Brasdefer 2008; ­Robinson

 Helen Woodfield

1992; Woodfield 2004, 2010) and reports in learners’ first language (Cohen  & Olshtain 1993) have been employed in previous studies. The evidence from the present study suggests that while learners at graduate level have the verbal facility to articulate their perceptions of speech act production, further probes may be deemed necessary during the interview process for clarification of reported thoughts. Finally, the study has a number of limitations and thus findings should be taken as tentative rather than conclusive. First, the study was limited in scope to eight learner participants; future studies on a larger scale would be valuable in establishing patterns of learner cognition on interlanguage pragmatic production tasks. Second, verbal reports were collected only after the third phase of learner production: this separation of verbalization from task cognition may have influenced the nature and extent of the reports, particularly with regard to the tasks in Phases 1 and 2 of the investigation. Further, and in relation to research procedure, future investigations (as observed in Section 6 above) might collect RVR data at the end of each audio-recording. The research requirement that participants listen to all three recordings before providing RVR data may arguably place an unnecessary burden on memory.6

7.  Conclusion The present study examined the role of retrospective verbal report as a means to investigating learner perceptions and cognitions on speech act performance in role plays. The study lends some support to previous work in ILP that combining retrospective verbal reports with an instrument eliciting learner production may shed light on learner perceptions of performance and the nature and extent of variation in such perceptions. The present study suggests that RVRs may be instrumental in revealing how learners at graduate levels reveal sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge when planning status-equal and status-unequal requests in academic contexts, that such learners experience a range of linguistic difficulties in formulating appropriate requests in such contexts and, finally, that learner perceptions, as evidenced by their retrospective verbal reports, may reflect performance in varying degrees. The extent of this variation, and that of their verbal reporting, might usefully be the focus of future studies.

6.  I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this insight.



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

References Achiba, M. 2003. Learning to Request in a Second Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & Kasper, G. (eds), 13–32. ­Cambridge: CUP. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dornyei, Z. 1998. Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly 32: 233–262. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Griffin, R. 2005. L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classrooom. System 33: 401–415. Barron, A. 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How To Do Things With Words in a Study Abroad Context [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 108]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barron, A. 2007. “Ah no honestly we’re okay”: Learning to upgrade in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 129–166. Bialystok, E. 1993. Symbolic representations and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In Interlanguage Pragmatics, G. Kasper & Blum-Kulka, S. (eds), 43–57. Oxford: OUP. Blum-Kulka, S. 1991. Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In Foreign/Second ­Language Pedoagogy Research: A Commemorative Volume for Claus Faerch, R. Phillipson, Kellerman, E., Selinker, L., Sharwood Smith, M. & Swain, M. (eds), 255–272. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Blum-Kulka, S. & House, J. 1989. Cross-cultural & situational variation in requesting behaviour. In Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (eds), 123–154. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics 5:196–213. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (eds). 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Boxer, D. & Pickering, L. 1995. Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. English Language Teaching Journal 49: 44–58. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. Camps, J. 2003. Concurrent and retrospective verbal reports as tools to better understand the role of attention in second language tasks. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 13(2): 201–221. Cohen, A.D. 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London: Longman. Cohen, A.D. 2004. Assessing speech acts in a second language. In Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning, D. Boxer & A.D. Cohen (eds), 302–327. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cohen, A.D. 2005. Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 2(3): 275–301. Cohen, A.D. 1996. Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Applied Language Learning 7(1–2): 5–24. Cohen, A.D. 2011. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. (2nd ed.) Harlow: ­Pearson Education. Cohen, A.D. & Olshtain, E. 1993. The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL ­Quarterly 27: 33–56.

 Helen Woodfield Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. 2009. Interlanguage request modification: The use of lexical/ phrasal downgraders and mitigating supportive moves. Multilingua 28(1): 79–112. Edmondson, W., House, J., Kasper, G. & Stemmer, B.1984. Learning the pragmatics of discourse: A project report. Applied Linguistics 5: 113–127. Egi, T. 2004. Verbal reports, noticing and SLA research. Language Awareness 13 (4): 243–263. Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J. 1986. ‘I very appreciate’: Expressions of gratitude by native and non- native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics 7: 167–185. Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J. 1993. Expressing gratitude in American English.In Interlanguage Pragmatics, G. Kasper & Blum-Kulka, S. (eds), 64–81. Oxford: OUP. Ellis, R. 1992. Learning to communicate in the classroom. A study of two language learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14: 1–23. Ericsson, K.A. &. Simon, H.A. 1993. Protocol Analysis. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, H.A. 1987. Verbal reports on thinking. In Introspection in Second ­Language Research, C. Faerch & Kasper, G. (eds), 25–53. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. 1987. From product to process – introspective methods in second language research. In Introspection in Second Language Research, C. Faerch & Kasper, G. (eds), 5–23. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2003. Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in Latin American Spanish and American English. Multilingua 22: 225–255. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2006. Speech act perception in interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring the minds of foreign language learners. Series A: General & Theoretical Papers No. 652. Essen: Universitat Duisburg. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2007. Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A crosssectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 253–286. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2008. Perceptions of refusals to invitations: Exploring the minds of foreign language learners. Language Awareness 17: 195–211. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2010a. Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, roleplays and verbal reports. In Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues [Language Learning & Language Teaching 26], A. Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (eds), 41–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2010b. Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in Mexico City and San José, Costa Rica: A focus on regional differences in female requests. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2992–3011. Gass, S. & Mackey, A. 2000. Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. ­Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hassall, T. 2001. Modifying requests in a second language. International Review of Applied ­Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL) 39: 259–283. Hassall, T. 2003. Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1903–1928. Hassall, T. 2008. Pragmatic performance: What are learners thinking? In Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, E. Alcón Soler & Martínez-Flor, A. (eds), 72–93. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hill, T. 1997. The Development of Pragmatic Competence in an EFL Context. Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University, Japan. Jourdenais, R. 2001. Cognition, instruction and protocol analysis. In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, P. Robinson (ed.), 354–375. Cambridge: CUP.



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

Kasper, G. 1989. Variation in interlanguage speech act realization. In Variation in Second Language Acquisition Discourse Pragmatics, S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston & L. Selinker (eds), 37–58. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kasper, G. 2001. Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics 22: 502–530. Kasper, G. 2008. Data collection in pragmatics research.In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, 2nd edn, H.Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 279–303. London: Continuum. Kasper, G. & Dahl, M.1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(2): 215–247. Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (eds). 1993. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP. Kasper, G. & Rose, K.R. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Malden MA: Blackwell. Koike, D.A. 1989. Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal 73(3): 279–289. Kormos, J. 1998. The use of verbal reports in L2 research. TESOL Quarterly 32: 353–362. Leech, G.N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Matsumoto, K. 1994. Introspection, verbal reports and second language learning strategy research. The Canadian Modern Language Review 50(2): 363–386. Nisbett, R. & Wilson, T. 1977. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 84: 231–273. Otcu, B. & Zeyrek, D. 2006. Requesting in L2: Pragmatic development of Turkish learners of English. Paper presented at the 31st Intercultural Pragmatics LAUD Symposium. Intercultural Pragmatics: Linguistic, Social and Cognitive Approaches. Landau/Pfalz, Germany. Placencia, M.E. 2005. Pragmatic variation in corner store interactions in Quito and Madrid. Hispania 88(3): 583–598. Ren, W. 2011. A longitudinal investigation on L2 pragmatic development of Chinese speakers of English. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference. Chicago, IL March 2011. Robinson, M.A. 1992. Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In Pragmatics of Japanese as a Native and Target Language [Second Language Teaching & ­Curriculum Center Technical Report 3], G. Kasper (ed.), 27–82. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Rose, K.R. 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 27–67. Safont Jordà, M.P. 2008. Pragmatic production of third language learners: A focus on request external modification items. In Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning, E. Alcon-Soler & M.P. Safont Jordà (eds), 167–189. Dordrecht: Springer. Schauer, G.A. 2004. May you speak louder maybe? Interlanguage pragmatic development in requests. In EUROSLA Yearbook 4, S.H. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace & M. Ota (eds), 253–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schauer, G.A. 2007. Finding the right words in the study abroad context: The development of G ­ erman learners’ use of external modifiers in English. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 193–220. Schauer, G.A. 2009. Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: The Study Abroad Context. London: Continuum.

 Helen Woodfield Schmidt, R. 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Interlanguage ­Pragmatics, G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds), 21–42. Oxford: OUP. Schmidt, R. 1995. Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning. Honolulu HI: ­University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Searle, J.R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP. Thomas, M. 1994. Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research. Language Learning 44: 307–336. Triandis, H.C. 1994. Culture and Social Behaviour. New York NY: McGraw Hill. Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Usó-Juan, E. 2008. The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in textbooks: Focusing on modifiers. In Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning, E. Alcón-Soler & Safont Jordà, M.P. (eds), 223–243. Dordrecht: Springer. Usó-Juan, E. & Martinez-Flor, A. 2007. Teaching learners to appropriately mitigate requests. English Language Teaching Journal 62: 349–357. Vilar-Beltrán, E. 2008. The use of mitigation in role-play activities: A comparison between native and nonnative speakers of English. In Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context, E. Alcón-Soler (ed.), 127–42. Berlin: Peter Lang. Widjaja, C. 1997. A study of date refusal: Taiwanese females vs. American females. University of Hawaii Working paper in ESL 15: 1–43. Woodfield, H. 2004. Requests in English: A Study of ESL and Native Speaker Responses to Discourse Completion Tasks. PhD dissertation, University of Bristol. Woodfield, H. 2008. Problematizing discourse completion tasks: Voices from verbal report. Evaluation & Research in Education 21(1): 43–69. Woodfield, H. 2010. What lies beneath?: Verbal report in interlanguage requests in English. Multilingua 29(1): 1–27. Woodfield, H. 2011. Pragmatic development in graduate learners: Request modification in university settings. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference. Chicago IL, March. Woodfield, H. & Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. 2010. ‘I just need more time’: A study of native and non-native students’ requests to faculty for an extension. Multilingua 29(1): 77–118.

Appendix A Role plays Extension

You have just begun your postgraduate studies in the UK. As part of your assessed work, you have been given a written assignment to complete within the next week but you need more time. You do not know your tutor very well and your relationship is strictly academic. It is important that you have more time as you want to do the best you can and get the best grade possible. You go to your tutor’s office to ask for an extension. What do you say?



Pragmatic variation in learner perception 

Notes

You normally take good notes in class but have missed a couple of lectures recently as you have not been well. The notes are important in preparing your next written assignment. You have a good friend, (name) who you know very well and you are sure that he will be able to lend you his notes. You catch (name) one day at the university as he is preparing his next assignment and ask to borrow his notes. What do you say?

Appendix B Retrospective interview (adapted from Barron 2003 & Robinson 1992) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

What went through your mind while you were doing the role play? (Noticed or attended features of the research situation) How did you decide to say what you did? (Utterance planning) Did you consider alternatives to what you said? Why did you reject them? (Evaluation of alternative utterances) You have enacted this situation three times now in the past year. Is there anything you consciously did different this time? (Pragmatic difficulty/pragmatic knowledge) Did you have to alter what you would have wished to say in any way due to language difficulties? (Linguistic difficulties) Did you discuss any of the role play or questionnaire situations with native speakers during the year? If so when? What? (Degree of heightened awareness of pragmatic issues). Did you have any other comments on your learning or role play performance?

chapter 8

Variationist sociolinguistics, L2 sociopragmatic competence, and corpus analysis of classroom-based synchronous computer-mediated discourse Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

Carnegie Mellon University, USA / University of North Texas, USA This chapter explores a number of issues related to analyzing second language (L2) sociopragmatic variation in a corpus of classroom-based synchronous computer-mediated discourse (SCMD) from a variationist sociolinguistic perspective. Building on our previous work in this area, we examine variation between the second-person pronouns tu and vous among US university learners of French at different instructional levels who engaged in a series of six small-group SCMD tasks.We have two main goals: (1) to explore whether, and to what extent, selected external (social) and internal (linguistic) factors influence learners’ use of tu and vous; and (2) to problematize the methodological and theoretical assumptions of the application of variationist sociolinguistics to L2 sociopragmatics and SCMD.

1.  Introduction Research on second language (L2) pragmatic competence has adopted a number of research methodologies and analytic traditions (Bardovi-Harlig, ­Félix-Brasdefer & Omar 2006; Kasper 2001, 2004; Kasper & Dahl 1991; Kasper & Rose 2002; ­Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan 2010). Data sources range from comprehension tasks and perception interviews, to multiple choice and written questionnaire tasks (e.g. discourse completion tasks), to more spontaneous discourse data produced during role plays and naturally occurring (i.e. nonelicited) speech and/or writing. Data analysis methods include quantitative statistical tests, various coding schemes and typologies, and qualitative approaches to discourse analysis (e.g. conversation analysis). The heterogeneity of research designs and analytic methods used in L2 pragmatics research reflects, on the one hand, the complexity of the object of study

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

and, on the other, the diversity of theoretical perspectives on L2 acquisition and development extended to it. In this chapter, we explore an emerging approach to analyzing and evaluating L2 sociopragmatic competence; namely, the analysis of classroom-based synchronous computer-mediated discourse (SCMD) that includes a variationist sociolinguistic perspective.1 Variationist-inspired methods for analyzing a corpus of SCMD can enable researchers to identify large-scale patterns of pragmatic variation on the basis of relatively spontaneous, naturally occurring discourse from a ­multivariate perspective. Following the methodological path outlined in van Compernolle, ­Williams, and McCourt (2011), we examine alternation between the second-person pronouns tu and vous among US university learners of French (N = 60) at different instructional levels (first, second, and third semester) who engaged in a series of six small-group (3 students, one from each instructional level) SCMD tasks over the course of one academic term. The objective of the present study is twofold: (1) to replicate the study reported in van Compernolle et al. (2011) in order to determine whether, and to what extent, both external (social) and internal (linguistic) factors influence learners’ use of tu and vous in a new corpus of learner-produced SCMD; and (2) to problematize the methodological and theoretical assumptions of the application of variationist sociolinguistics to L2 sociopragmatics and SCMD. Although different models of communicative competence (e.g. Canale & Swain 1980; Celce-Murcia 2007; Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei & Thurrell 1995; Hymes 1972) define and label the type of competence explored in the present study in different ways (e.g. sociocultural, sociolinguistic, pragmatic), we prefer the term sociopragmatic competence, and our own conception of this construct coincides, in principle, with the basic definition of sociocultural competence provided by Celce-Murcia (2007): “Sociocultural competence refers to the speaker’s pragmatic knowledge, i.e. how to express messages appropriately within the overall social and cultural context of communication. This includes knowledge of language variation with reference to sociocultural norms of the target language” (p. 46). The chapter begins with an overview of variationist sociolinguistics, ­classroom-based SCMD, the French tu/vous system, and the results reported in van Compernolle et al. (2011). Next, we describe the data and methods used in the present study. Then, the results of the study are presented and compared to those reported in van Compernolle et al. Our discussion and conclusion center on the methodological and theoretical implications of this research, including a description of the limitations of the approach and recommendations for future studies.

1.  For another study that examines SCMD, see Blyth, this volume.



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

2.  Background 2.1  Variationist sociolinguistics Variationist sociolinguistic theory and methodology, as pioneered by Labov (1972b), examines the influence of internal (linguistic) and external (social) variables on speakers’ realization of linguistic variants, which are the various ways in which speakers can say “the same thing” (p. 271). Internal factors often include morphosyntactic and/or phonological environment, utterance type, and word type. External factors may include the age of speakers, their socioeconomic status, their level of education, geographical location, and the register or context of communication. Analyses of sociolinguistic variation thus attempt to explain the distribution of linguistic variants within a given population through correlational analyses, typically presented as probability scores. The methods of variationist sociolinguistics have had a relatively long history in L2 acquisition research, beginning with Tarone’s (1979, 1983, 1988) and Ellis’s (1985) investigations into interlanguage (IL) variation. This research demonstrated how IL variation had a probabilistic relationship with such factors as task type, interlocutor (e.g. peer vs. teacher), and linguistic context. Specifically, Tarone, Ellis, and others working in a variationist paradigm contended that attention to form played a major role in IL variation, whereby the more learners’ attended to their language production, the more accurate their speech became. Tarone linked this observation to Labov’s (1972b) concept of style: learner L2 competence was seen as a continuum ranging from a ‘vernacular’ style (i.e. the most natural, fluent style produced with little to no conscious attention to form) to a very ‘careful’ style where much conscious attention is paid to form. Within this perspective, IL change (i.e. development) involves variation between native-like and n ­ onnative-like forms as learners acquire probabilities of language patterns (see Tarone 2007). Put another way, IL development may be evidenced by the concomitant increase in linguistic accuracy (i.e. less variation between native and nonnative forms) and decrease in conscious attention to form. Another strand of variationist SLA theory has investigated the acquisition of native speaker sociolinguistic norms by L2 learners (e.g. Mougeon, Nadasdi, & Rehner 2010; Regan, Howard, & Lemée 2009). This research has been primarily interested in documenting how learners come to incorporate not only formally accurate (i.e. textbook-like) speech forms, but also the less formal, everyday phonological, grammatical, and lexical variants commonly used by native speakers. Claims about the acquisition of sociolinguistic competence are based on the distribution of native-like linguistic variables in the speech of learners. Factors such as contact with native speakers in noneducational contexts and study abroad

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

have been found to correlate with frequencies of everyday linguistic variants in learner speech. Although variationist sociolinguistics has had an influence on IL v­ ariation and change as well as research into the acquisition of native-like informal variants, it has had little impact in the domain of L2 pragmatics. In fact, Barron (2005) and Clyne (2006) are among the few researchers to suggest that variationist methods might be suitable for intercultural and L2 pragmatics research, with specific focus on the influence of external variables such as geography, age, and formality of context on pragmatic variation. For our part, we propose extending variationist methods in order to tease out some of the probabilistic features of L2 sociopragmatic performance in a corpus of SCMD (van Compernolle et al. 2011). Such an approach has the potential to elucidate some of the general patterns of sociopragmatic variation and interactions between factors not observable through other means. 2.2  Where indeed does the sociolinguistic variable stop? At this point, some additional contextualization of the variationist tradition as it relates our study is in order. As indicated in the previous section, Labov’s foundational work in variationist analysis (e.g. 1963, 1966, 1969, 1972a, 1972b) involved identifying phonetic variables that could represent “two ways of saying the same thing” (Labov 1972b: 271). This issue of identifying and defining valid (socio)linguistic variables has led to considerable debate over, among other things, the problem of sameness, which emerges when the variationist enterprise is extended to include non-phonological variation (see Terkourafi [this volume]). Lavandera (1978), for example, viewed the issue in the following way (­primarily as a response to Sankoff ’s 1972 proposal for moving above and beyond phonology): While the analysis of variation in phonology by defining phonological variables can be accepted as contributing to a better understanding of the kinds of information that differences in form may be conveying, the parallel extension of the notion of variable to non-phonological variation may in many cases be unrevealing. (Lavandera 1978: 171)

Nonetheless, Lavandera (1978) also maintained that work on syntactic variation could contribute to a better understanding of language variation and change, “in part because it makes possible this examination of the different nature of phonological versus non-phonological variation” (p. 171). In a response to Lavandera, Labov (1978) contended the following: “linguistic variables or variable rules are not in themselves a ‘theory of language’. They are all heuristic devices. But it is not accidental that linguistic theory has profited from



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

the analysis of variable ways of saying the same thing” (p. 1). He concluded his reply to Lavandera by reinforcing the claim that “a variable rule analysis is not put forward as a description of the grammar, but a device for finding out about the grammar. Some results support the initial model, others discredit it” (p. 12). For Labov, it is clear that “the result of an analysis of syntactic variation is not in itself an interpretable finding. It is the explanation of the variable constraints that lead[s] us to conclusions about the form of the grammar” (p. 13). Romaine (1981) then extended this discussion with a reply to both L ­ avandera and Labov in which she reviewed various “approaches to understanding grammatical structure which provide a framework within which syntactic (and indeed other kinds of) variation can be accounted for” (p. 25). These include the following: i.

the logical structure of utterances (i.e. truth-value) and surface syntactic form (cf. for example, Keenan 1975 and Barsch & Vennemann 1972); ii. perceptual processing and syntactic process (cf. for example Bever & ­Langendoen 1972 and Lightfoot 1979); and iii. conversational organization/interaction and syntactic structure. (Romaine 1981: 25–26) For Romaine, the crux of the debate rests on whether we are willing to accept a theory which cannot handle all the forms/ uses in which variation may manifest itself in a given community over time and which cannot provide a coherent account of how these particular functions, uses and kinds of variation develop within particular languages, speech communities, social groups, networks and individuals. (Romaine 1981: 27)

Romaine’s response to Lavandera and Labov concludes with a sketch of “what one can do with a theory which recognizes the importance of the third perspective [that she had] mentioned and which also sees grammar in terms of the imbrication of the ideational, textual and interpersonal components of the semantic ­system discussed by Halliday and Hasan (1976)” (p. 27). This overview of what could be considered a collective opening salvo in this lively debate has only touched the surface of this topic due to our limited space. Readers interested in the notion of the linguistic variable and related issues can consult, among others, Eckert (2000), Fasold (1991), Kiesling (2011), Milroy and Gordon (2003), Romaine (1982), Rosenbach (2002), Tagliamonte (2006), ­Terkourafi (this volume), and Wolfram (1991). Also of interest in this debate is a recent study by Terkourafi (2011), who argues that “[r]ecasting the core meaning of pragmatic variables in procedural terms allows us to co-examine alternating forms that may express different

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

r­eferential meanings, remaining true to the spirit of Labov’s proposal, who saw linguistic variables as socially motivated clusterings of forms” (p. 343). According to Terkourafi, “the notion of procedural meaning [is] the theoretical tool that was missing twenty years ago and that can supply a unifying basis for defining pragmatic variables, [as demonstrated in] three recent analyses of pragmatic variation in the literature” (p. 345). It is important to note that for the present study, our ultimate goal is not to produce variable rules of tu and vous use. Instead, we use variationist-inspired analysis as a diagnostic or heuristic tool in order to develop or enhance pedagogical materials and interventions. Moreover, this single type of quantitative analysis is one stage or component of what we view as a back-and-forth or symbiotic method. This is not merely a combination of quantitative and qualitative analyses resulting in so-called mixed methods research. Our long-term investigation of second-person pronoun use and acquisition involves using one type of analysis (either quantitative or qualitative) to inform another, which, in turn, can inform a different quantitative or qualitative perspective, and so forth. Coding tokens of tu and vous as appropriate or inappropriate (i.e. the dependent variable) in a learner corpus certainly has its challenges; nonetheless, it is still possible (and can reveal patterns that would not be discernable otherwise) since there is ample evidence that for our anglophone participants learning French, tu and vous are basically two ways of saying the “same thing” (i.e. you). Although a quantitative variationist analysis of tu and vous use can be carried out with discourse produced by learners, we recognize that it would be impossible to do the same with a native speaker corpus since L1 (adolescent/adult) speakers of French would already understand pronoun use as it relates to the concept of social indexicality. 2.3  Classroom-based synchronous computer-mediated discourse Classroom-based SCMD (e.g. text-based chat) between learners has attracted interest from SLA scholars since the 1990s. Reasons for this interest are many. Early studies pointed to SCMD’s potential to reduce communication anxiety, to promote egalitarian participation among learners, and to encourage increased and more varied linguistic output compared to face-to-face interactions (e.g. Chun 1994; Kern 1995; Warschauer 1996). More recently, interactionist SLA scholars have argued that SCMD makes linguistic input and output more salient to interactants, thereby providing an optimal context for the negotiation of meaning (e.g. Ortega 1997, 2009; Salaberry 2001; Smith 2004, 2009). In our own previous research (e.g. van Compernolle & Williams 2009a, 2009b, 2011, 2012; van Compernolle et al. 2011), we have used learner-produced corpora of SCMD as a



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

means of ­evaluating learners’ sociolinguistic and pragmatic performance abilities (see also Belz & Vyatkina 2008). Corpus analysis of SCMD is particularly useful for investigating pragmatic variation for a number of reasons. On a practical level, transcripts of learners’ interactions are automatically archived as text files. This enables teachers and researchers to have access to learners’ contributions to in-class tasks as soon as they are completed without the need to transcribe audio/videorecordings, or to digitize handwritten data, making computerized analysis of large amounts of data relatively efficient. In addition, classroom-based SCMD provides data regarding how learners interact with each other in a relatively spontaneous, naturalistic setting – albeit in an educational context – which may help to minimize the effect of being directly observed as in the case of elicited discourse tasks.2 At the same time, because learners are interacting with each other, asking and responding to each others’ questions, engaging in playful language use, and so forth, a far greater number of address forms are typically produced than in elicited discourse tasks (McCourt 2009; van Compernolle et al. 2011). This production is important because the higher the number of tokens produced, the more reliable statistical analyses can be. Finally, because SCMD takes place in a virtual space, learners from different class sections and instructional levels may interact with each other without the need to be physically co-present. In the present study, 60 learners (20 small groups) enrolled in a number of different classes participated in semi-weekly chat tasks over a period of three months, which would not have been possible to do with face-to-face interactions. 2.4  French tu and vous Several decades ago, Gilman and Brown (1958) and Brown and Gilman (1960) centered their analyses of tu and vous (henceforth, T and V) around the notions of power and solidarity. According to Williams and van Compernolle (2009), “[o]ne of the drawbacks of their work is that the majority of it is based on participants’ self-reported survey data instead of a corpus of actual language use, which might have revealed more levels or types of variation among contexts and

2.  By ‘naturalistic’, we specifically mean ‘in an educational context’. In other words, ­classroom-based SCMD enables us to observe how learners interact with each other in the L2 in an environment that is an extension of the classroom. It should also be noted that many of the students who participated in this study commented on the fact that their teacher and the researcher (Williams) would be reviewing the transcripts, and thus were certainly aware that they were being indirectly observed.

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

participants” (p. 365). A more recent approach, advocated by Morford (1997), includes orders of indexicality (Silverstein 1992, 1996). This framework allows any feature in the immediate context of the communicative act or setting to be viewed as more or less dominant or important (or perceived as such by one or more interlocutors) in relation to a second set of factors that are always present (e.g. age, gender, social class, gender, group membership), which Morford refers to as ‘macrosociological variables’ (1997, p. 7).  (Williams & van Compernolle 2009: 365)

Other recent work has served to highlight French second-person pronoun use as part of a complex system that indexes a wide range of social identities and qualities of interpersonal relationships in various communication environments (Clyne, Norrby & Warren 2009; Coveney 2010; Gardner-Chloros 1997; Silverstein 2003; van Compernolle 2011a; Warren 2006; Williams 2009). In French, T can point to youthfulness, casualness, and social closeness, while V can be used to maintain a more formal, distant stance and to index a more conservative social identity. And although there are noticeable tendencies to use, hear, and experience one second-person pronoun in more contexts than the other in one or more particular regions of the francophone world (e.g. widespread, generalized use of T in Québec), both T and V are available in the singular as meaning-making tools for all francophones. Unfortunately, textbooks used in second and foreign language classrooms do not typically provide learners with explanations of the meaning potentials of T and V (e.g. creating or reducing social distance, enacting particular social identities and group memberships), but instead privilege such simplistic rules as “use T with friends” and “use V with strangers” (van Compernolle 2010). Without explicit instruction focusing on the indexical meanings of T and V and/or opportunities to interact with more competent persons (e.g. native speakers), learners of French often demonstrate a lack of awareness of the social-relational and identity-relevant consequences of T/V use (Belz & Kinginger 2002; Dewaele 2004; Kinginger 2008), and they may even perceive the choice of one pronoun or the other as relatively inconsequential (van Compernolle 2012). Classroom instruction focusing on the sociopragmatic dimensions of the T/V system can help to raise learners’ awareness of the social consequences of the choice of one or the other of these pronouns (Liddicoat 2006; Lyster 1994; van Compernolle 2010). To be sure, awareness of the meaning potentials of T/V use does not equate to control over the pronouns in performance. Learners may, on the one hand, demonstrate relatively consistent control over T/V without awareness or, on the other, develop awareness without control in performance (Dewaele 2004; ­Kinginger 2008; van Compernolle 2012). In other words, awareness of ­meaning



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

potentials and control over the forms in performance can develop independently of one another. Our focus in the present chapter is on the variable performance aspect. As described in the following section, van C ­ ompernolle et al. (2011) documented a number of internal and external factors influencing the choice of T or V in a corpus of classroom-based SCMD. The principal finding of this research, replicated in this chapter, is that lexicogrammatical motivations and habituated, or ingrained, constructions involving T and V may in many cases override awareness of so-called sociopragmatic ‘rules’ or an u ­ nderstanding of the meaning potentials of these pronouns (see also van Compernolle 2012). 2.5  Summary of van Compernolle et al. (2011) The study reported in van Compernolle et al. (2011) examined variation between T and V in a corpus of SCMD produced by 81 US university learners of French at three instructional levels (i.e. first, second, and third semester). The learners were assigned to small groups – including one student from each instructional level in each group – who met online semi-weekly over a 12-week period. This design was adopted in order to explore the extent to which peers (or near peers) would be able to provide assistance with sociolinguistic features of language (e.g. T/V use) in comparison to similar research on native speaker-learner telecollaboration (e.g. Belz & Kinginger 2002), and to examine what patterns of sociolinguistic and pragmatic performance might emerge over the course of the academic term. The authors identified instances of T/V use in the corpus (n = 1,182) and coded them as appropriate or inappropriate.3 T was counted as appropriate when used as a singular pronoun, while V was appropriate if used as a plural pronoun, which aligns with expected sociolinguistic patterns among students (Kinginger 2000; van Compernolle 2010). Next, each instance of T and V was coded for grammatical function: subject pronoun in a declarative or interrogative sentence, imperative verb form, tag, or object of a preposition (object pronouns were too infrequent to code for statistical analysis, and most were used in reflexive structure in which the subject pronoun has already been counted). The rationale for coding

3.  For both the original analysis (van Compernolle et al. 2011) and the replication (the present study), the authors independently coded all tokens of T and V. Tokens for which interrater agreement did not occur were excluded from each analysis. Most tokens were ­retained since in some cases, only two participants were present, and in others, participants used names, nicknames, or other linguistic devices to indicate a specific addressee.

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

for grammatical function was motivated by the apparent ‘free’ alternation between T and V forms in different grammatical slots, as shown in (1): (1) 01 Katy 3: →

Ou habitez-vous?4 ‘Where do you live?’

02 Dan 3:

J’habite à Big Town non loin de l’université. ‘I live in Big Town not far from the university.’

03 Dan 3: → 

Et toi, Ou habitez-vous? ‘And you, where do you live?’ (van Compernolle et al. 2011: 75)

In this example, Katy used a V form in her inverted question structure (line 01). However, Dan used a T form in his tag, but then switched to V in his follow-up question (line 03). Van Compernolle et al.’s preliminary overview of the corpus suggested that this variation might not be free at all, but in fact motivated by lexicogrammatical factors. A distributional analysis revealed a number of quantitative patterns. Overall, T and V were used appropriately 66.7% of the time (T = 88.1%; V = 43.2%). They also found that instructional level did not straightforwardly correlate with appropriate use of T and V. Incidentally, the authors found only one example where a student explicitly questioned the use of V, which suggested that the variation and high frequencies of inappropriate V use were inconsequential for the learners. In addition, the authors reported that the majority of T/V tokens (64.3%) were produced in interrogative sentences. However, levels of appropriateness varied across the specific interrogative structures available in French. This observation led van Compernolle et al. (2011) to explore this dimension of the variation in greater detail from a variationist perspective. The authors coded interrogative sentences as one of three structures: ­subject-verb (or in situ) syntax (SV), questions with the periphrastic interrogative marker est-ce que (ES), or subject-verb inversion (VS). These structures are illustrated in (2–4): (2) SV Tim:

Tu etudies? ‘Are you studying?’

(3) ES Samantha: qu’est-ce que vous faites le week-end d’habitude? ‘what do you usually do on the weekend?’

4.  All excerpts in this chapter are represented as they were produced by learners, verbatim et litteratim et punctatim.



(4) VS Sarah: 

L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

Ou habitez-vous? ‘Where do you live’?

(van Compernolle et al. 2011: 78)

The data were then analyzed using multivariate linear regression, specifically VARBRUL, a program designed to explore the influence of multiple independent variables on linguistic variation (see Paolillo 2002; Tagliamonte 2006). VARBRUL provides univariate and multivariate probability scores, as well as information regarding which independent variables significantly impact the variation. The major finding reported by van Compernolle et al. (2011) was a correlation between interrogative structure and appropriate pronoun use. The SV structure favored appropriate pronoun use, followed by the ES structure. However, the VS structure strongly disfavored appropriate pronoun use. The authors interpreted this result as an indication that learners may appropriate specific lexicogrammatical ‘chunks’ (or supra-word constructions) without necessarily being aware of the units that comprise them, including T and V forms. In other words, a learner may appropriate the subject verb sequences tu es ‘you-T are’ (SV) and êtes-vous ‘are you-V’ (VS), but not their alternatives: es-tu ‘are you-T’ (VS) and vous êtes ‘you-T are’ (SV). This claim was supported by a secondary analysis of T/V collocations in the corpus, which revealed that specific lexicogrammatical motivations may override awareness of the T/V system. 3.  Data and method for the present study Sixty learners of French enrolled in first-, second-, and third-semester courses (20 learners from each level) at a large, public northeastern US university participated in this study. Each student was assigned to one of 20 groups consisting of one ­student from each instructional level. As in the van Compernolle et al. (2011) study, this arrangement aimed to explore the amount and types of language-related support, including assistance with sociolinguistic and pragmatic features, that ­near-peers might provide each other. Over a 3-month period (i.e. one semester), the participants engaged in 6 open-discussion chat tasks (i.e. SCMD) focused on topics of general interest (e.g. presenting oneself to one’s group, food, music, family, and friends). Each online meeting lasted 50 minutes (i.e. one r­ egular class meeting). The corpus therefore consists of approximately 30 hours of s­ tudent-produced SCMD, totaling about 75,000 words. Following the methods outlined in van Compernolle et al. (2011), each instance of a T or V form was identified in the corpus. Object pronouns were, however, excluded because over 95% of them were found in reflexive structures in which a T/V subject pronoun was already present; to include such tokens would

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

have skewed the data sample (see also van Compernolle et al. 2011). In total, 1,033 instances of T and V were retained for analysis.These tokens of T and V were then coded for the following factors: –– –– –– –– ––

Pronoun (T vs.V) Appropriateness (T for singular address; V for plural address) Learner level (first, second, or third semester) Number of students present in room (2 vs. 3 or more)5 Utterance type (subject pronoun in a declarative sentence, subject pronoun in an interrogative sentence, imperative verb form, tag, object of preposition) –– Interrogative sentences were further coded for structure (SV, ES, or VS) The data were entered into a recent version of the VARBRUL program for ­Windows, Goldvarb X (Sankoff, Tagliamonte, & Smith 2005), for analysis. The program enabled us to perform both simple distributional analyses (i.e. observed and relative frequencies) as well as more robust statistical tests (i.e. univariate and multivariate regression analyses). In what follows, we report: (1) the overall distribution of appropriate and inappropriate T/V use; (2) a multivariate analysis of appropriateness in interrogative sentences; and (3) a partition analysis of interrogative sentences in which tokens of T and V are treated as independent data sets. Together, these three levels of analysis provide an in-depth, multidimensional perspective on T/V variation in the corpus. 4.  Results 4.1  Distributional analysis Our first level of analysis focused on the overall distribution of appropriate and inappropriate uses of T and V in the corpus (Table 1). In total, students used the appropriate pronoun 82.5% of the time (n = 852/1,033), a relatively higher rate of appropriateness than the 66.7% reported by van Compernolle et al. (2011). However, the distribution of appropriate pronoun use is uneven across the various factors/variables considered here. The observed patterns closely align with those documented by van Compernolle et al. (2011).

5.  Because of tardiness and absenteeism, there were times when only 2 of the 3 learners assigned to a group were present in the chatroom. At other times, only one learner of an ­assigned group logged on, in which case that individual was instructed to join another group. This meant that some groups had up to 4 participants on occasion.



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

Table 1.  Overall distribution of appropriate pronoun use Variable

N

%

T

727/766

94.9

V

125/267

46.8

French 1

243/315

77.1

French 2

264/319

82.8

French 3

345/399

86.5

2

563/676

83.3

3 or more

289/357

81.0

49/55

89.1

548/681

80.5

Pronoun

Level

No. in room

Utterance type Declarative Interrogative Imperative Tag Obj. of prep. Total

5/7

71.4

242/280

86.4

8/10

80.0

852/1,033

82.5

The greatest difference in rates of appropriateness occurs between T and V: 94.9% of all T tokens were coded as appropriate (i.e. used for singular address) whereas only 46.8% of V tokens were appropriately used (i.e. for plural address). In total, 83.7% of all singular address tokens and 76.2% of all plural address tokens were coded as appropriate, suggesting that the learners have difficulty with both functions and forms of second-person pronouns. Such was also the case in the van Compernolle et al. (2011) study, whose figures very closely match those reported in Table 1 (appropriate T = 88.1%; appropriate V = 43.2%). In fact, the difference in overall rates of appropriateness (66.7% in van Compernolle et al. vs. 82.5% in the present study) is explained by the much higher proportion of V tokens (both singular and plural) in van Compernolle et al. (i.e. nearly 50% of the data) in comparison to the present study (i.e. just over 25% of the data). In other words, although at first blush it may seem that the learners who participated in this study were far more pragmatically competent than those in the van Compernolle et al. study, based on overall rates of appropriate pronoun use, a closer look at the uses of each pronoun shows that both groups of students performed with only negligible differences.

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

There are also differences among the three instructional levels considered in the study, and overall performance of each level was selected as statistically significant in the VARBRUL analysis (see Table 2 in next section). Level 3 students performed at the highest rate of appropriateness (243/315 or 86.5%), followed by Level 2 (264/319 or 82.8%) and then Level 1 (77.1%). This finding is in line with the common-sensical working hypothesis that higher rates of appropriate T/V use should correlate with higher instructional levels. However, such was not the case in the van Compernolle et al. (2011) study, where no clear correlation was found between instructional level and rates of appropriate T/V use. In fact, overall, Level 2 students outperformed Level 3 students, suggesting that “formal instruction (which does not typically focus on sociolinguistic features of language) has little, if any, effect on learners’ sociolinguistic abilities” (van Compernolle et al. 2011: 79). While the results of the present study seem to contradict this claim (i.e. that there is a correlation between instructional level and rates of appropriateness), we are hesitant to suggest that formal instruction (i.e. the normal course syllabus) impacted upon these learners’ abilities to use T and V differently or more effectively than in the van Compernolle et al. study. As we will further elaborate in the discussion, a limitation of variationist methodology – in fact, of all ­product-driven, especially quantitative, research – is its inability in many cases to explicate the results it produces. In other words, while variationist methodology is highly effective in uncovering what is happening in the data, it is generally less useful for explaining why something is happening. Only a very small difference in rates of appropriateness was observed when two people were present versus three or more, which does not align with the results reported by van Compernolle et al. (2011) who found a 23% difference (2 in room = 53.6%; 3+ = 76.7%). The discrepancy between the two studies may be explained by the methodology and proportions of data. As noted above, in van Compernolle et al. nearly 50% of the data were V tokens, compared to 25% in this study. As a result, many more tokens of V could be coded as appropriate (i.e. plural) when three or more participants were in the room. In other words, because it is not always clear to whom a particular second-person form is addressed, V was coded by default as plural, and thus appropriate, when more than two people were in the room, unless it was clear that it had been designed for a single individual (e.g. looking at the interactional context, use of names and other forms of address). In our estimation, the difference between the two studies is likely a result of the methodology employed rather than a ­learner-competence phenomenon. A striking difference, and one that aligns with the van Compernolle et al.’s (2011) study, is the distribution of utterance types. Nearly two thirds (65.9%) of all T/V tokens occurred in interrogative sentences, and 27.1% occurred in tags. This



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

finding suggests that the students primarily addressed each other when asking questions or follow-up questions related to the assigned discussion topics. In addition, as in van Compernolle et al. differences in appropriateness rates were observed across the various interrogative structures available in French. As such, we follow van Compernolle et al. in the remainder of this chapter in exploring the amount and types of variation observed in interrogative sentences. 4.2  VARBRUL analysis of interrogatives Our second level of analysis delves into the specific patterns of variation observed in interrogative sentences through a ‘variable rule’, known as VARBRUL, analysis (Table 2). VARBRUL analysis aims to examine the probabilities of the realization of a rule, in this case, appropriate T/V use, in different contexts (i.e. independent variables or factors). In addition, VARBRUL analysis weighs the relative impact of factors (using multivariate linear regression) in order to determine which factors considered in the analysis do or do not significantly impact upon the realization of the rule. As noted in the methods section above, a recent PC version of the VARBRUL program, Goldvarb X (Sankoff et al. 2005), was used in this study. Goldvarb X provides factor weights (FW), which range from 0 to 1, for each factor considered in the study. A FW of .5 or higher indicates that the application of the rule is favored, whereas a FW less than .5 indicates that the application of the rule is disfavored. Importantly, FWs are not absolute probability scores; rather, FWs Table 2.  VARBRUL analysis of interrogatives n

%

FW

French 1

128/176

72.7

.39

French 2

185/227

81.5

.47

French 3

234/275

85.1

.60

2

346/427

81.0

[ ]*

3 or more

201/251

80.1

[ ]*

SV

159/182

87.4

.59

ESV

334/381

87.7

.59

VS

54/115

47.0

.15

Total

547/678

80.7

–

Variable Level

No. in room

Structure

*Empty brackets in the FW column denote statistical nonsignificance.

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

indicate relative probabilities of the application of the rule within a particular factor group, or independent variable.6 Instructional level was found to have a statistically significant relationship associated with appropriate pronoun use in interrogative sentences, a finding also reported by van Compernolle et al. (2011). However, our findings differ from those of van Compernolle et al. in one important way. In the present study, factor weights are in the expected direction; that is, French 3 students (.60) performed better than French 2 students (.47), and French 2 students performed better than French 1 students (.39), suggesting a positive correlation between appropriate T/V use and instructional level. Such was not the case in the van Compernolle et al. data, where French 2 students outperformed French 3 students, followed by French 1 students. Number in room was not selected as a significant independent variable. There is only a negligible difference in appropriateness rates between interactions in which only two students were present and those in which three or more were present. Such was also the case in the van Compernolle et al. (2011) study. This finding suggests that learners do not necessarily vary their use of T and V in relation to the number of people present in an interaction. Goldvarb X selected interrogative structure as a significant independent variable. The SV and ESV structures favor appropriate T/V use (FWs = .59 for both) while the inverted VS structure strongly disfavors (.15) appropriateness. This finding closely aligns with the van Compernolle et al. (2011) study. This finding is also one of the more important of both studies. Variation in appropriateness rates across interrogative structures supports the idea that formulaicity may have an influence on learners’ use of T and V. In other words, not all instances of T and V are totally independent of the lexicogrammatical frames (e.g. quasi-formulaic structures) in which they occur. 4.3  Partition analysis of interrogatives Our third level of analysis, known as a partition analysis (Paolillo 2002), considers tokens of T and V as independent data sets. Partition analysis allows variationist researchers to consider with greater specificity some of the patterns that emerge in the data. In the present study, we noticed during a review of cross-tabulation data that correlations between appropriateness and instructional level and interrogative structure differed depending on whether T or V was used. In addition, the van Compernolle et al. (2011) study found that appropriateness rates were 6.  For detailed treatments of the assumptions of VARBRUL and its use in variationist ­research, the reader is referred to Paolillo (2002) and Tagliamonte (2006).



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

significantly different for T and V. We therefore reanalyzed the data to explore patterns of appropriate T/V use independently in relation to instructional level and interrogative structure. Table 3 displays the results. Table 3.  Partition analysis of interrogatives Variable

T tokens

V tokens

n

%

FW

n

%

FW

French 1

110/114

96.5

[ ]*

18/62

29.0

.31

French 2

160/173

92.5

[ ]*

25/54

46.3

.42

French 3

182/197

92.4

[ ]*

52/78

66.7

.71

SV

143/148

96.6

.65

16/34

47.1

.46

ESV

265/284

93.3

.47

69/97

71.1

.75

VS

44/52

84.6

.26

10/63

15.9

.17

452/484

93.4

–

95/194

49.0

–

Level

Structure

Total

*Empty brackets in the FW column denote statistical nonsignificance.

Instructional level was selected as significant for V use, but not for T use. While all levels had very high rates of appropriate T use, students in French 1 and French 2 were less likely to use V appropriately compared to students in French 3. Interrogative structure was selected as significant for both T and V. The data indicate that T was likely to be used appropriately in SV question structures, while ESV and VS questions disfavored appropriate T use (range = .39). The pattern for V was different. ESV favored appropriate V use and SV and VS questions disfavored appropriate use of V. The partition analysis therefore confirmed our suspicions that patterns of variation differ depending on which pronoun is considered. 4.4  Beyond statistics: Interactional patterns of (socio)pragmatic variation The quantitative analysis of the data has thus far shown a number of interesting patterns of T/V variation in our corpus of SCMD. These patterns suggest that T/V alternation is far from arbitrary, or ‘free’, but has probabilistic relationships with several internal linguistic and external/social factors (van Compernolle et al. 2011). Variationist methodology was particularly useful for uncovering these patterns from a multivariate perspective; that is, considering the degree to which the factors coded for impact upon the variation and interact with each other. However, variationist methodology by nature risks obscuring some of the more individual,

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

idiosyncratic variational patterns found in a corpus of language data as it assumes representativeness of participants as an aggregate of some population in order to determine statistical probabilities. In short, it is simply not equipped to account for interactive-contextual features of discourse unless these can be somehow codified into mutually exclusive variables, which is not always the case. As such, other types of analyses that complement variationist treatments of data are often useful for explicating variation, with specific focus on exploring the particular qualities of variational practice in interaction. A qualitative analysis7 of our data revealed three main interactional patterns of second-person pronoun use. In the first category, pronoun use by Participants A and B is not initially aligned (i.e. they are not engaged in a symmetrical use of pronouns). However, at some point during a single session, one participant’s pronoun use aligns with that of the other participant(s), and the symmetrical use of pronouns continues until the end of the session, sometimes with one or more anomalies. In the second category, Participants A and B each use a different second-person pronoun consistently throughout an entire chat session, demonstrating no attempts at alignment. The third type of pattern involves alternating, seemingly random use of second-person pronouns, resulting in no real consistency on the part of either participant. In the excerpts provided below, the discourse produced by the participants has been reproduced exactly as it was typed, and nothing has been modified except for certain deleted lines, which have been replaced with ellipsis points. In Excerpt 5, the two instances of vous use by Participant A have been underlined (Lines 09 and 29). This excerpt, like most others provided here, involves only two participants, which tends to make the interpretation of the interaction less prone to speculation. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the primary focus of this qualitative analysis is only to provide a contrast with the previous statistical treatment of the corpus as a whole. (5) 01 A: bonjour ‘hello’ 02 B: Bonjour ‘hello’ 03 A: commen ca vas? ‘how are you?’

7.  The qualitative data used in this chapter are part of an ongoing investigation into the various interactional patterns found in our corpora of SCMD, with specific focus on (socio) pragmatic variation. This research aims to explicate variational patterns revealed by quantitative analysis of the data by looking more closely at the discursive practices in which learners engage during SCMD tasks.



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

04 B: Ca va? Et toi? ‘fine? and you?’ 05 A: tres bien merci ‘very well thanks’ 06 B: Comment tu tappelle? ‘What’s your name?’ 07 A: Je m’appelle [A] ‘My name is [A]’ 08 B: Je’m appelle [B] ‘My name is [B]’ 09 A: et vous? ‘and you?’ 10 A: enchante ‘nice to meet you’ 11 B: Tu es a French 2? ‘Are you in French 2?’ 12 A: oui ‘yes’ 13 A: et toi? ‘and you?’ 14 B: Oui ‘Yes’ 15 A: quel heir? ‘what time?’ 16 B: avec [Instructor’s Name]. Et toi? ‘with [Instructor’s Name]. And you?’ . . . 17 B: J’aime French 2, et toi? ‘I like French 2, and you?’ . . . 18 B: Est tu un Sophomore? Je suis un Freshman ‘Are you a Sophomore? I’m a Freshman’ . . . 19 B: Qu’est ce que ton major? ‘What’s your major?’ 20 A: ou est-que tu habite? ‘Where do you live?’ 21 B: Ou est ce que tu habite a [City] ‘Where do you live in [City]’ . . .

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

22 B: Ou est ce que tu habite avec des Familie? ‘Where do you live with Families?’ . . . 23 B: Qu’est ce que tu fais courses ce semester? ‘What course do you have this semester?’ . . . 24 A: tu es tres ‘lucky’ ‘you are very lucky’ . . . 25 B: Tu es “graduating” 3 moises? ‘You are graduating in 3 months’ . . . 26 B: Ou est ce que tu travilles ‘Where do you work’ . . . 27 A: et toi? ‘and you?’ 28 B: Je vais traviller a Philadelphia avec mon père ‘I’m going to work in Philadelphia with my father’ 29 A: vous voulou travailles l’ete? ‘do you want to work during the summer?’ 30 A: internship? . . . 31 B: Tu aimes NBA, NHL, ou MLS? ‘Do you like NBA, NHL, or MLS?’ . . . 32 A: tu est parle francais tres bien ‘you speak French very well’ 33 B: Pour la weekend, tu ferras la fete ‘For the weekend, will you party’ 34 A: oui ‘yes’ 35 A: merci, tu parle francais tres bien aussi ‘thanks, you speak French very well too’ . . . 36 A: tu vu visite france? ‘do you want to visit France?’ . . . 37 A: Ou a Francais, t’voudrais visiteras? ‘Where in France would you like to visit?’ . . .



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

38 B: (I think we are finished) 39 A: je te quitte maintenant ‘I’m leaving you now’

At the beginning of Excerpt 5, second-person pronoun use by the two participants was not aligned. However, A’ s initial use of vous switched to align with B’ s use of tu (and related forms) during most of the session. Nonetheless, it seems that although A had aligned to use tu forms with B, A was not able to continue producing tu forms when she decided to use a conjugated form of vouloir ‘to want’ in line 29. At several points during the session, A used a conjugated (conditional) form of vouloir correctly, yet she reverted to vous as the subject pronoun when she decided to use a (seemingly) present indicative conjugation of vouloir. This anomaly demonstrates the importance of being able to see both larger patterns in discourse and individual preferences as well as unique tendencies (van Compernolle et al. 2011). In Excerpt 6, although this segment is brief, it is clear that the participants do not recognize the asymmetry, or perhaps they do not think it is important to align with the same second-person pronoun forms. In the larger data set, these particular participants and others demonstrated a similar pattern on many occasions. As was the case for all three general categories found in our qualitative analysis, no particular pattern was found exclusively in a single group or during any particular task. While the statistical analysis of our data allowed general trends to be seen, it is only in the qualitative analysis that moment-to-moment phenomena can truly be uncovered. (6) 01 C: ca va? ‘how are you?’ 02 D: comment t’appelles tu? ‘what is your name?’ 03 C: moi???? ‘me????’ 04 D: oui ‘yes’ 05 C: [First Name of C] 06 C: et vous? ‘and you?’ 07 D: [First Name of D] 08 C: ca va,???? ‘how are you????’ 09 D: ca va ‘fine’

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

The brief exchange in Excerpt 7 shows alternating, seemingly random use of ­second-person pronouns. Likewise, there is also a mix of various greetings that are not necessarily always considered to be of the same register (i.e. level of politeness or formality/informality). In some way, E appears to question H’s initial use of vous (even though E had just begun learning French and his conversation partner was supposed to be ‘more advanced’) when E initially uses the tag et toi? ‘and you?’, then immediately adds et vous? ‘and you?’ In this particular case, this expression might be preferred by H. It is naturally impossible to discern E’s and H’s intentions behind second-person pronoun use on the basis of performance data alone (­Kinginger 2008; van Compernolle 2012). (7) 01 E: bonjour ‘hello’ 02 H: Salut ‘Hi’ 03 E: salut ‘hi’ 04 H: Comment allez-vous??? ‘how are you???’ 05 E: ca va assez bien ‘pretty well’ 06 E: et toi? ‘and you?’ 07 E: et vous? ‘and you?’ 08 H: je suis bon ‘I’m good’ 09 E: oui.. ‘yes.,’ . . . 10 H: Generalment, Qu’est-ce que tu adores manger? ‘Generally, What do you love to eat?’

Excerpts 8 and 9 demonstrate the ambiguity involved in interpreting (and, by extension, coding) data, especially in the case of second-person pronoun use by L2 learners. In Excerpt 8, one participant framed the use of tu and vous in terms of formality versus informality (Line 02), while the initiator of the segment (Participant T), viewed the issue as a matter of singular versus plural. It is of some interest that in the corpus of 6 chat tasks completed by 27 groups with 3 learners per group, this is the only instance of a metadiscussion of the appropriate or inappropriate use of second-person pronouns.



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

(8) 01 T: Ou est-ce que vous habitez? ‘where do you live?’ . . . 02 L: ‘you can use tu to speak to me’ 03 T: ‘well I was asking both of you therefore it was plural’ 04 T: “vous” 05 L: ‘weight lifting, computers, and video games’ 06 L: ioh, sorry’ 07 L: et toi? ‘and you?’ 08 N: j’habite a [name of undergraduate dormitory complex] ‘I live in [name of undergraduate dormitory complex]’

Excerpt 9 is another example of discourse that is at best difficult to interpret (and code), especially when more than two participants are present. One recurring issue in the analysis of chat data involves the ever-changing role of participants. At times, all (or most) participants are actively engaged in the discussion; however, there are several moments when microconversations, or ‘inside’, conversations occur, and it is not always clear where these begin or end, nor is it always obvious who is paying attention to the conversation even when not directly participating in the typing of messages that appear on the screen. (9) 01 X: montreal est a quebec? ‘Montreal is in Quebec?’ 02 X: est-ce que tu as visite a montreal [Y]? ‘have you visited Montreal [Y]?’ 03 Y: non, je ne visite pas ‘no, I don’t visit’ 04 X: je voudrais visiter a quebec, et vous? ‘I would like to visite quebec, and you?’ 05 Y: ah oui ‘ah yes’ 06 Y: quebec est bon ‘quebec is good’ 07 X: est un bel region. ‘is a beautiful region’ . . . 08 Z: quebec est a cannada ‘quebec is in canada’

In this case, students X and Y are engaging each other in the task (i.e. asking and responding to questions about travel). Z is also present, but does participate in the

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

interaction until line 08, when he adds that Quebec is in Canada. Thus, while the T form used in line 02 is obviously addressed to Y (i.e. it is used in conjunction with Y’s name), it is difficult to ascribe singular or plural status to the V form in line 04, which could either be directed at student Y specifically or at both of the other participants. It is important to note that such ambiguity in the interpretation of T/V use is also widespread in native speaker online discourse (Williams & van Compernolle 2007, 2009), so this pattern is not simply some shortcoming or pragmatic failure of these learners. 5.  Discussion The study reported above explored the potential contribution of Labovian sociolinguistic methods to research into L2 learner pragmatic variation, with specific emphasis on applying variationist methodology to French T/V use in a corpus of SCMD. Our findings align with those reported in van Compernolle et al. (2011); namely, that there exist probabilistic patterns of variation that correlate with such factors as instructional level and grammatical structure/function of T/V tokens. Variationist methodology is particularly useful for uncovering large-scale trends in pragmatic performance and for teasing out variational patterns that are not necessarily identifiable when descriptive statistics and/or univariate statistical tests are used alone (e.g. through partition analysis). We have also briefly discussed one specific limitation of variationist methodology; namely, that it cannot account for the specific qualities of interaction in which a pragmatic form of interest occurs, many of which may be idiosyncratic or at least specific to one individual or group (see also Terkourafi [this volume]). It is also often difficult, if not impossible, to determine a participant’s intention on the basis of performance data alone, especially in cases where a particular use of a pragmatic feature may be ambiguous and/or have two or more possible functions (e.g. vous can be ­singular-polite, used in opposition to tu, or it can be plural). 5.1  Methodological issues As an extension of van Compernolle et al. (2011), we believe that applying variationist methodology to analysis of L2 learner pragmatics can assist in uncovering important patterns of language use that are not otherwise visible to researchers. More specifically, the application of variationist methodology to our research into T/V alternation enabled us to discover that T/V use was correlated with utterance type. In interrogatives in particular, there were statistically significant correlations between the interrogative structure used (i.e. SV, ESV, VS) and ­second-person



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

­ ronoun choice. The present study supports the claim, first advanced in van p ­Compernolle et al. (2011), that lexicogrammatical motivations are an important aspect of T/V variation. However, variationist methodology by itself is not equipped to delve into this dimension of pragmatic variability in greater depth. This is why we have begun a complementary study (still in the early stages of preparation) that explores the specific lexicogrammatical frames – also referred to as supra-word constructions, chunks, or semi-formulaic language – in which T and V occur, using corpus linguistic methods to analyze our data. Briefly put, we have used variationist methodology as an initial exploratory approach to uncovering some of the broad patterns of variation, the findings of which have led to a reanalysis of the data in which we explore the particular lexicogrammatical contexts in which T and V appear. Our preliminary findings suggest that certain verb phrases in which T or V is used are learned by rote, without learners being aware of the units that comprise them, including T/V tokens (see also van Compernolle et al. 2011). This usage is particularly salient in high-frequency supra-word constructions. For example, we have found that tu es ‘you-[tu] are’, used in SV interrogatives, is far more frequent than the inverted es-tu structure. At the same time, the inverted êtes-vous ‘are you-[vous]’ structure is preferred over the SV alternative vous êtes in interrogative phrases.This finding is, of course, linked to our variationist analysis documenting the preference for T in SV interrogatives and V in VS interrogatives. Our follow-up approach is able complement the variationist results by exploring the particular qualities of learner language that are not necessarily codable for variationist analysis. Other approaches to discourse analysis may also provide useful complementary findings. As we noted in our presentation of the interactional patterns found in the corpus, analyses of (mis)alignment among group members can add another dimension to a variationist analysis. For example, while some instances of T/V alternation may in fact be driven by lexicogrammatical factors, as suggested by our variationist analysis, others may be primarily motivated by learners’ recognition of the need to align with the practices of their co-participants. That is, while a switch from, say, V to T may in one instance be conditioned by lexicogrammar, another may occur because one learner consciously aligned with his or her interlocutor. As suggested by Silverstein (2003), in order to truly understand T/V relationships, one must look at a minimum of two turns at talk in which both interlocutors address one another with a second-person address form. In the case of L2 learners, such analyses may entail looking at lengthy sections of SCMD transcripts, entire tasks and, potentially, multiple tasks over time to see what alignment patterns, if any, emerge. It is also important to address the issue of ambiguity. Performance data alone do not lend themselves to explaining the reasons underlying a particular use of T

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

or V; that is, they are only records of what learners happened to do during data collection. It is therefore difficult to explicate the reasons underlying variation, misalignment, and so forth without access to other sources of data. For example, language awareness interviews or questionnaires (e.g. Kinginger 2008; van Compernolle 2011b; van Compernolle & Williams 2011, 2012) can complement discourse data, allowing researchers to triangulate learners’ performance with information regarding what they know about and how they perceive pragmatic features of the language they are studying. In this way, it is possible to explore the degree to which pragmatic knowledge and pragmatic performance are related. A final methodological issue that we would like to raise relates to task design. In the present study, as well as in the van Compernolle et al. (2011) study, SCMD tasks were not designed to elicit variable levels, or registers, of discourse. Rather, the tasks focused on particular topics of discussion, such as food and hobbies, that related to the students’ textbooks. As such, we were not able to consider these learners’ potential variable pragmatic performance in different social situations, but only their behavior in student-student interaction. Variation across social contexts is a fundamental dimension of a speaker’s overall communicative competence, in both first and additional languages, and variationist theory is well equipped to investigate intrapersonal, or stylistic, variation of this sort (see ­Eckert & Rickford 2001). SCMD tasks that include role plays or strategic interaction scenarios (Di Pietro 1987) aimed at eliciting different levels of discourse, including different patterns of T/V use, could be used to explore this dimension of L2 pragmatic variation (see also van Compernolle 2012). 6.  Conclusion This chapter has provided an example of how variationist-inspired methodology can be extended to research on L2 pragmatic variation, specifically in the context of classroom-based SCMD. Our replication of van Compernolle et al.’ s (2011) study has demonstrated the ways in which variationist methods, specific VARBRUL analysis, can assist researchers in uncovering detailed variational patterns in learner discourse. We have also highlighted a number of limitations of this methodology, and we have suggested a number of complementary data collection and analytic methods. To be sure, we recognize that no single study can address all of the methodological issues related to L2 pragmatic variation that we have raised in this chapter. Our comments should therefore be seen as programmatic; that is, as an outline for a collection of complementary studies investigating multiple dimensions of pragmatic variation among language learners.



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

We would also like to point out that, although the study reported in this chapter focused specifically on French T/V variation in a corpus of SCMD, we believe variationist methodology can be extended to other domains of L2 pragmatics and to other languages. Speech act realizations seem particularly amenable to variationist analysis because what is deemed as appropriate, or conventional, varies according to context, speaker relationships, and so forth. Future work in this area has the potential to make significant contributions to L2 pragmatics research methodology and to our understanding of L2 pragmatic variation and development. Moreover, it is clear that research in this area could certainly also benefit from the use of other quantitative procedures and traditions, such as the multi-dimensional (MD) approach to analyzing (register) variation pioneered by Biber (1988, 1995; see also Biber & Conrad 2001). Biber notes that “[t]he analytical goal of the MD approach is to provide comprehensive descriptions of the patterns of register variation having two components: (1) identification of the underlying linguistic parameters, or dimensions, of variation; and (2) specification of the linguistic similarities and differences among registers with respect to those dimensions” (1995: 18–19). Regardless of the framework adopted for the quantitative analysis of something as complex as discourse, researchers would do well to emulate the approach (and model) proposed by Dubois and Sankoff (2001): The keys to this approach include: i. avoidance of one-dimensional, highly modular, or other oversimplified models of performance. What is needed is an eclectic and inclusive vision of what may be in play during a particular production, and an open-mindedness about what surface indications and what analytical interpretations are appropriate for coding the various aspects of a token; ii. taking seriously the principle of accountability. This involves willingness to undertake the tedious job of extracting and analyzing all the eligible examples in a corpus, and understanding that although every occurrence is different, they are comparable at many levels; ii. avoidance of highly parameterized and other restrictive statistical models for analyzing the data. What is needed is straightforward but systematic two-way and three-way assessments of association, at least as a first step; iv. a great deal of reflection in order to integrate the welter of results likely to emerge from such a study. A series of isolated correlations without any emergent framework is what gives quantitative studies a bad name. No analysis is complete without an understanding as coherent and elegant as the discourse phenomena themselves. (Dubois & Sankoff 2001: 299)

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams

References Bardovi-Harlig, K., Félix-Brasdefer, C. & Omar, A.S.(eds). 2006. Pragmatics and Language Learning 11. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Bartsch, R. & Vennemann, T. 1972. Semantic Structures: A Study in the Relation between Semantics and Syntax. Frankfurt: Anthenaum. Barron, A. 2005. Variational pragmatics in the foreign language classroom. System 33: 519–536. Belz, J. & Kinginger, C. 2002. The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. Canadian Modern Language Review 59: 189–214. Belz, J.A. & Vyatkina, N. 2008. The pedagogical mediation of a developmental learner corpus for classroom-based language instruction. Language Learning & Technology 12: 33–52. Bever, T. & Langendoen, D. T. 1972. The interaction of speech perception and grammatical structure in the evolution of language. In Linguistic Change and Generative Theory, R.P. Stockwell & R.K.S. Macaulay (eds), 32–95. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Biber, D. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: CUP. Biber, D. & Conrad, S. 2001. Register variation: A corpus approach. In The Handbook of ­Discourse Analysis, D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H.E. Hamilton, (eds), 175–196. Malden MA: Blackwell. Brown, R. & Gilman, A. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Style in Language, T. Sebeok (ed.), 253–276. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chun, D.M. 1994. Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System 22: 17–31. Canale, M. & Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second ­language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1: 1–48. Celce-Murcia, M. 2007. Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning, E.A. Soler & M.P.S.Jordà (eds), 41–57. Dordrecht: Springer. Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z. & Thurrell, S. (1995). A pedagogical framework for communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6: 5–35. Clyne, M. 2006. Some thoughts on pragmatics, sociolinguistic variation, and intercultural communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 3: 95–105. Clyne, M., Norrby, C. & Warren, J. 2009. Language and Human Relations: Styles of Address in Contemporary Language. Cambridge: CUP. Coveney, A. 2010. Vouvoiement and tutoiement: Sociolinguistic reflections. Journal of French Language Studies 20: 127–150. Dewaele, J.-M. 2004. Vous or tu: Native and non-native speakers of French on a sociolinguistic tightrope. International Review of Applied Linguistics 42: 383–402. Di Pietro, R.J. 1987. Strategic Interaction: Learning Languages through Scenarios. Cambridge: CUP. Dubois, S. & Sankoff, D. 2001. The variationist approach toward discourse structural effects and socio-interactional dynamics. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, D. Schiffrin, D.  ­Tannen, & H. Hamilton (eds), 252–303. Oxford: Blackwell.



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

Eckert, P. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice: The Linguistic Construction of Identity in Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell. Eckert, P. & Rickford, J. (eds). 2001. Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: CUP. Ellis, R. 1985. A variable competence model of second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics 23: 47–59. Fasold, R. 1991. The quiet demise of variable rules. American Speech 66: 3–21. Gardner-Chloros, P. 1997. T/V choices: An act of identity? In The French Language and Questions of Identity, M.C. Jones & W. Ayres-Bennett (eds), 106–115. London: Modern ­Hummanities Research Association. Gilman, A. & Brown, R. 1958. Who says tu to whom? A Review of General Semantics 15: 169–174. Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings, J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds), 269–293. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Kasper, G. 2001. Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics 22: 502–530. Kasper, G. 2004. Speech acts in (inter)action: Repeated questions. Intercultural Pragmatics 1: 105–114. Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. 1991. Research methods in inter l­anguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13: 215–247. Kasper, G. & Rose, K.R. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Malden MA: Blackwell. Keenan, E. 1975. Logical expressive power and syntactic variation in natural language. In Formal Semantics of Natural Language, E. Keenan (ed), 406–421. London: Cambridge University Press. Kern, R. 1995. Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language Journal 79: 457–476. Kiesling, S. 2011. Linguistic Variation and Change. Edinburgh: EUP. Kinginger, C. 2000. Learning the pragmatics of solidarity in the networked foreign language classroom. In Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction, J.K. Hall & L.S.Verplaetse (eds), 23–46. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kinginger, C. 2008. Language Learning in Study Abroad: Case Studies of Americans in France. Malden MA: Blackwell. Labov, W. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19: 273–309. Labov, W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov, W. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45: 715–762. Labov, W. 1972a. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1: 97–120. Labov, W. 1972b. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. 1978. Where does the linguistic variable stop? A response to Beatriz Lavandera. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 44: 1–16. Lavandera, B. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7: 171–182. Liddicoat, A. 2006. Learning the culture of interpersonal relationships: Students’ understandings of personal address forms in French. Intercultural Pragmatics 3: 55–80. Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. London: Cambridge University Press. Lyster, R. 1994. The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15: 263–287.

 Rémi A. van Compernolle & Lawrence Williams Martínez-Flor, A. & Usó-Juan, E. (eds). 2010. Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues [Language Learning & Language Teaching 26]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McCourt, C.A. 2009. Pragmatic variation among learners of French in real-time chat communication. In Second Language Teaching and Learning in the Net Generation, R. Oxford & J. Oxford (eds), 143–154. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Milroy, L. & Gordon, M. 2003. Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. Oxford England: Blackwell. Morford, J. 1997. Social indexicality in French pronominal address. Journal of Linguistic ­Anthropology 7: 3–37. Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T., & Rehner, K. 2010. The Sociolinguistic Competence of Immersion ­Students. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ortega, L. 1997. Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology 1: 82–93. Ortega, L. 2009. Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In Multiple Perspectives on Interaction in SLA: Research in Honor of Susan M. Gass, A. Mackey & C. Polio (eds), 226–253. New York NY: Routledge. Paolillo, J.C. 2002. Analyzing Linguistic Variation: Statistical Models and Methods. Stanford CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Regan, V., Howard, M. & Lemée, I. 2009. The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Competence in a Study Abroad Context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Romaine, S. 1981. On the problem of syntactic variation: A reply to Beatriz Lavandera and ­William Labov. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 82: 1–38. Romaine, S.1982. Socio-Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. Rosenbach, A. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Salaberry, R. 2001. The use of technology for second language learning and teaching. Modern Language Journal 85: 39–56. Sankoff, G. 1972. Above and beyond phonology in variable rules.In New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, C.-J. Bailey & R.W. Shuy (eds), 44–61. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Sankoff, D., Tagliamonte, S.A., & Smith, E. 2005. Goldvarb X: A Variable Rule Application for Macintosh and Windows. Toronto: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. Silverstein, M. 1992. The uses and utility of ideology: Some reflections. Pragmatics 2: 311–323. Silverstein, M. 1996. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. In Salsa III: Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium about Language and Society-Austin, R. Ide, R. Parker, & Y. Sunaoshi (eds), 266–295. Austin TX: Department of Linguistics, ­University of Texas. Silverstein, M. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23: 193–229. Smith, B. 2004. Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26: 365–398. Smith, B. 2009. Revealing the nature of SCMC interaction. In Multiple Perspectives on Interaction in SLA, A. Mackey & C. Polio (eds), 197–225. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tagliamonte, S.A. 2006. Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: CUP.



L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC 

Tarone, E. 1979. Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning 29: 181–191. Tarone, E. 1983. On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics 4: 143–163. Tarone, E. 1988. Variation in Interlanguage. London: Arnold. Tarone, E. 2007. Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research, 1997–2007. Modern Language Journal 91: 837–848. Terkourafi, M. 2011. The pragmatic variable: Toward a procedural interpretation. Language in Society 40: 343–372. van Compernolle, R.A. 2010. Towards a sociolinguistically responsive pedagogy: Teaching ­second-person address forms in French. Canadian Modern Language Review 66: 445–463. van Compernolle, R.A. 2011a. Developing a sociocultural orientation to variation in language. Language and Communication 31: 86–94. van Compernolle, R.A. 2011b. Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge through concept-based instruction: A microgenetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3267–3283. van Compernolle, R.A. 2012. Developing Sociopragmatic Capacity in a Second Language through Concept-based Instruction. Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University at University Park. van Compernolle, R.A. & Williams, L. 2009a. Variable omission of ne in real-time French chat: A corpus-driven comparison of educational and non-educational contexts. Canadian Modern Language Review 65: 413–440. van Compernolle, R.A. & Williams, L. 2009b. Learner versus non-learner patterns of stylistic variation in synchronous computer-mediated French: Yes/no questions and nous versus on. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31: 471–500. van Compernolle, R.A. & Williams, L. 2011. Metalinguistic explanations and self-reports as triangulation data for interpreting L2 sociolinguistic performance. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 21: 26–50. van Compernolle, R. A. & Williams, L. 2012. Teaching, learning, and developing L2 French sociolinguistic competence: A sociocultural perspective. Applied Linguistics 33: 184–205. van Compernolle, R.A., Williams, L. & McCourt, C. 2011. A corpus-driven study of ­second-person pronoun variation in L2 French synchronous computer-mediated communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 8: 67–91. Warren, J. 2006. Address pronouns in French: Variation within and outside the workplace. ­Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics 29: 16.1–16.17. Warschauer, M. 1996. Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal 13: 7–26. Williams, L. 2009. Navigating and interpreting hypertext in French: New literacies and new challenges. In Electronic Discourse in Language Learning and Language Teaching [Language Learning & Language Teaching 25], L.B. Abraham & L. Williams (eds), 43–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Williams, L. & van Compernolle, R.A. 2007. Second-person pronoun use in on-line F ­ rench-  language chat environments. French Review 80: 804–820. Williams, L. & van Compernolle, R. A. 2009. Second-person pronoun use in French language discussion fora. Journal of French Language Studies 19: 363–380. Wolfram, W. 1991. The linguistic variable: Fact and fantasy. American Speech 66: 22–32.

chapter 9

Research methods for describing variation in intercultural pragmatics for cultures in contact and conflict Andrew D. Cohen

University of Minnesota, USA The chapter considers options for conducting research in intercultural pragmatics, and focuses on doctor-patient interactions in the US Southwest in which intercultural pragmatics is involved as a vehicle for highlighting the number of variables that can lead to pragmatic variation in the research outcomes. When doctors use Spanish as a nonnative language, the question is how their pragmatics is perceived by their Spanish-speaking Mexican immigrant patients and with what impact. The suggested study compares the pragmatics of this context with that of native Spanish-speaking doctors interacting with these same patients, English-speaking doctors interacting with mainstream patients in English in the U.S. Southwest, and doctors in Mexico interacting with their patients. The chapter identifies and discusses research design issues, types of data employed, the measures used, and concerns about data analysis. The purpose is to problematize just what the study of intercultural pragmatics involves when looking at speech communities in flux and taking into account individual variation.

1.  Taking a multi-method approach to research on L2 pragmatics There is now a robust literature about research methods for investigating and assessing the receptive and/or productive pragmatics performance of native and nonnative speakers in situations where two or more cultures are in contact (for several of the more recent papers, see Félix-Brasdefer 2010; Yamashita 2008). Some even include rigorous statistical procedures in order to support statements about the advantages of one measure over another (e.g. Brown & Ahn 2011). This chapter will take one research context – that of doctor-patient interactions – as the departure point for considering how to conduct research into intercultural pragmatics, especially with an eye to studying situations in flux and individual variation within these situations. The intention of the present study is ultimately

 Andrew D. Cohen

to encourage multiple methods for looking at situations where first-language (L1) and second-language (L2)1 pragmatics meet, which has been an approach favored by various researchers in pragmatics (e.g. Félix-Brasdefer 2003). We look at the options available to researchers and weigh the relevance and advantages for each, focusing on the pragmatics of doctor-patient interactions, in an effort to craft a research design to examine variation in intercultural pragmatics when cultures are in contact and potentially in conflict. 2.  Defining pragmatics For the purposes of this chapter, ‘pragmatics’ is defined as ways of ­interpreting and using language appropriately in oral and written communication (after Yule 1996: 3–4). While ‘cross-cultural pragmatics’ compares pragmatic b ­ ehavior across two separate cultures, ‘intercultural pragmatics’ looks at pragmatic b ­ehavior when two cultures are in contact, as in the case of Hispanic immigrants and ­non-Hispanic-heritage Americans interacting in Spanish and in English in the U.S. And, as Kramsch (2011) suggests, the nature of this interculturality is most likely different from how it was before Skype, smart phones, and the like. Taking a more fine-tuned look at these definitions, we could say that ‘pragmatics’ deals with the intentions and interpretations attached to what is said or written, as well as what is not said, and what may be communicated non-verbally. Pragmatic ability includes being able to identify the rhetorical functions expressed in a written message and perceiving the sometimes subtle indications of tone or attitude in the communication (e.g. anything from a humorous, sincere, sympathetic, or collaborative tone to one that is teasing, sarcastic, angry, threatening, patronizing, or sexist). These verbal and non-verbal cues transmit to the interlocutors just how polite, direct, or formal the communication is and what the intent is (e.g. to be kind, loving, attentive, or devious, provocative, hostile). The input could be through language (e.g. through words, phrases, or extended discourse), though gestures, or through silence. Whether the input is pragmatically comprehensible to nonnative speakers of a given L2 depends on various factors, such as: (1) the learners’ level of ­interlanguage pragmatic development in that L2 and possibly in other (especially related) languages,2 (2) their age, gender, occupation, social status, and experience in the 1.  The use of the labels L1and L2 is simplistic at best, and especially in a chapter dealing with intercultural pragmatics, where the learning and performance of L2 pragmatics can ­actually involve the influence of an L3 or an L4. 2.  ‘Interlanguage pragmatics’ looks at the level of development in pragmatic ability from the onset of learning of a language to mastery, and includes attention to issues of cultural contact and conflict (Barron 2003: 3–4).



Research methods for variation 

relevant L2-speaking communities of practice (e.g. talk on a factory floor), and (3) their multilingual/multicultural experiences in general. Pragmatics plays a role in numerous face-threatening interactions, such as when a boss tells employees that they are being laid off, a teacher tells students that their work is unacceptable, a concerned tenant composes a message to post in an apartment building warning neighbors not to exit the parking lot too fast, or an employee asks for a raise. 2.1  Cross-cultural pragmatics Cross-cultural pragmatics compares how an interaction might unfold in two ­different language communities or sub-communities, and the interactions that might take place among people from these respective communities and cultures (Kecskes, Davidson & Brecht 2005). The researcher describes, for instance, what the interaction (involving, say, a request, an apology, or a complaint, or all three) is likely to entail in the first speech community and then compares it to a similar interaction in another speech community. The researcher is likely to note the possible variation in the interactions depending on the age of the participants, their social status, and their roles in the interaction, among other things. While the description of such cross-cultural research may be straightforward, this does not necessarily mean that the research itself is easy to conduct. It may be a real challenge to make a rigorous and accurate comparison across languages, given difficulties in observing the very same events in operation in the two language communities, especially if observations of naturally-occurring data or corpus data are used. In addition, the within-culture variation due to age alone may make cross-cultural comparisons a challenge. But, at least conceptually, it is relatively clear what the dimensions are. A striking conflict in worldviews would be, for example, that depicted in Fadiman (1997) where at issue was how to deal with a baby’s epileptic seizures – through Western medicine or through Laotian traditional healing practices. Note that there were two issues here. One was the worldview issue – knowledge about content – and the other was with respect to the pragmatics associated with the communication involved in dealing with the sick baby. Even if the American ­doctors in Merced, California spoke Hmong to the family (which they did not), to what extent would this Hmong usage have been with a mainstream American cultural overlay and to what extent appropriate pragmatically for interactions in Hmong with the given family? 2.2  Intercultural pragmatics The conceptualization of intercultural pragmatics is more problematic, given that it concerns pragmatic behavior and variation in that behavior at the juncture of language and culture. Whereas with crosscultural pragmatics, the assumption is

 Andrew D. Cohen

that each language and cultural group is somehow intact and flourishing, in the case of intercultural pragmatics it may well be the case that one of the language and cultural groups is underrepresented in that the speaker is becoming less and less a ‘pure’ member of that community, due to language and cultural shift and attrition. In the case of immigrants, for example, they may well lose or ‘shed’ both language and cultural behaviors, whether accidentally or perhaps willingly. So they are no longer faithful representatives of one language and culture group. If they return to their home culture for visits, their friends may well comment to them that they are ‘too polite’ or ‘too apologetic’ (or the opposite, depending on the nature of their new culture). In reality, they have adopted more of the language and cultural ­patterns of the language community in which they are currently living. What also makes definition problematic is that the very nature of ­intercultural pragmatics is undergoing a transformation in the current age of Facebook, Skype, Twitter, and other means of social networking in order to stay in touch with the languages and cultures that immigrants have left behind. In the era of Eva H ­ offman leaving Poland for Canada, she experienced anomie or a sense of being adrift between her Polish language and culture of origin and the new Canadian reality for her (Hoffman 1989). At present, youth are no longer likely to e­ xperience the same kinds of detachment from their previous life, as documented by Lam and Rosario-Ramos (2009). These researchers investigated the ways in which recent young migrants of diverse national origins in the United States utilized digital media to organize social relationships with friends and families, and to engage with news and media products across the United States and their native ­countries. Based on results of interviews with 35 adolescents of diverse national origins, and survey data with a larger group of youths, the researchers demonstrated how ­digital media became major tools and avenues for these young people to maintain and develop relations with people, media, and events across territorial boundaries. Within their digital networks, the youths mobilized multiple languages to conduct interpersonal relationships and to seek out ideas and information from various sources in their home and host societies, and sometimes across a larger diaspora. Given these new configurations for just what it means that cultures come into contact and possible conflicts arise, researchers interested in variation in intercultural pragmatics need to reconsider methodological means for getting at learner variation in both perception and production of pragmatics in contact situations. One topic of key concern here is the selection of subjects for the given study, since the results will vary according to the age and status of the participants (e.g. members of the dominant culture, minority-culture members born in the U.S., or immigrants), the extent to which they would be considered heritage speakers of the L1, their facility with media such as Facebook, and variation in the way that they use social media (Lam & Rosario-Ramos 2009).



Research methods for variation 

Kramsch (2011) notes that the proliferation of global communicative technologies has made intercultural communication into a much more complex, changing, and conflictual endeavor than just an L1/C13 self understanding another L2/C2 self from a third place in between them. According to Kramsch, the sphere of interculturality is a metaphor that attempts to capture through a place marker what is, in fact, a process of positioning the self both inside and outside the discourse of others. A research issue worth investigating, then, is the following: When speaking a minority language in an intercultural situation in the U.S., how much are Americans using mainstream American pragmatics and how much are they operating according to the pragmatic norms of the target group?

It is likely that intercultural conflict is taking place at least some of the time and that the participants in these conflict situations are finding ways to cope. Thus, describing how pragmatics plays itself out in intercultural interactions presents a real challenge for researchers. Within the sphere of interculturality, for example, whose pragmatics are in force when an English-speaking doctor uses Spanish to interact with ­Mexican ­immigrant patients in a clinic in the U.S. Southwest? Is it the physician’s L1 ­pragmatics with regard to interactions with patients? To what extent does the ­doctor’s pragmatics accommodate to the patients’ norms for pragmatic behavior? What might be the consequences of the physician’s pragmatic choices? What is the knowledge that this doctor has about the cultures and subcultures that the p ­ articular patients are from, and what is the source of this knowledge (e.g. an empirically-derived knowledge base, hearsay, or stereotypical notions)? How familiar is the doctor with the pragmatics of the particular dialect or register spoken by the patient? How familiar are the doctors with the pragmatics of the patient’s sub-community? If we assume the doctors are still learners of the L2 pragmatics, at what level of development is their interlanguage pragmatics and with what consequences? There could, in principle, be a continuum regarding the extent of conflict between Spanish-speaking patients and the doctor in terms of what ‘being on time for an appointment,’ ‘taking the prescriptions as stipulated,’ ‘discussing body parts as necessary,’ and ‘talking about culturally taboo topics’ actually mean. So at one extreme, the doctor’s language and cultural behavior are totally aligned with those of members of that speech community. At the other extreme, the doctor utilizes mainstream Anglo-American pragmatic norms, while s­ peaking Spanish. At this end of the continuum, there is a total ­American cultural overlay

3.  First-culture.

 Andrew D. Cohen

even though the language of communication is Spanish. In other words, the doctor’s pragmatics would not change from what it would be if engaging in the same interaction in English. The points of pragmatic conflict could be numerous despite the good intentions of the doctor and the Spanish-speaking patients’ gratefulness about having a sympathetic doctor who speaks their ­language. It may even be the case that the doctors are well versed in the mainstream panHispanic variety of Spanish taught in their classes but unfamiliar with the local dialect of Mexican Spanish spoken by the patients. This gap could add an ­additional source for variation in the doctors’ performance of pragmatics within the interactions. 3.  Options for investigating intercultural pragmatics The study being proposed here is intended to highlight the contributions to the investigation that differing approaches to research and different measures might make in elucidating the dynamics that arise for participants engaging in L2 pragmatics. Here is the hypothetical research context under consideration: An Anglo-American general practitioner opens a clinic in the Southwest of the U.S. He was born into a monolingual English-speaking family, but studied Spanish at college and did a year of study-abroad in Mexico City his junior year. While in medical school in NYC, he furthered his Spanish studies, so that his current Spanish skills place him at a high-intermediate level. Consequently, when he opened his clinic, he advertised “Se habla español.” While he has a nurse who speaks a little Spanish, he is the only person in his clinic who speaks Spanish relatively well. The question is how his pragmatics in Spanish is perceived by native Spanish-speaking immigrant patients, predominantly from Mexico.

The following are a series of possible research questions: 1. To what extent is English-speaking doctors’ Spanish-language pragmatics when dealing with problematic issues consistent with that of their Mexicanimmigrant patients? 2. What would the pragmatics of a Spanish-speaking doctor originally from Mexico interacting with these same patients look like when dealing with the same problematic issues? 3. How would an English-speaking doctor’s pragmatics compare when interacting with mainstream English-speaking patients? 4. How do local Spanish-speaking doctors in a Mexican town interact pragmatically with their patients in Mexican Spanish on the same issues?



Research methods for variation 

What would be the options for designing research to investigate this intercultural situation? The remainder of the chapter will deal with the issues that researchers would face in attempting to explore pragmatic variation in this sphere of interculturality. We will start with basic research design issues, such as the sampling of participants in the study, the pragmatics content to be considered, and the measures to be used. We will also look at the type of data to be collected, whether naturalistic or elicited. Then we will deal with data analysis issues. Figure 1 provides an outline of these various concerns. 3.1 Basic research design issues 3.1.1 Sampling: determining the target group and selecting comparison groups 3.1.2 Range of pragmatics features sampled – behaviors associated with doctorpatient interactions, such as requests, complaints, apologies, and criticism, and ways in which politeness is used 3.1.3 Number of measures included in the assessment – extent of triangulation

3.2 Types of naturalistic data

3.2.1 Corpus data – Possibility of identifying the pragmatic behavior through the data in the corpus – Extent to which the form reveals the function

3.3 Elicited data – Relevance and explicitness of situations – Comprehension or production of verbal behavior and nonverbal behavior (e.g. hand waves, head nods, facial expressions, eye movements) – Elicitation prompt: visual (e.g. live or videoverbal or nonverbal), auditory, or written (and if written, the extent to which written prompts might provide clues to the correct response) – Extent to which the relationships of relative power, social distance, and absolute ranking of imposition are made clear to the respondents – What respondents say they would do vs. what others might do vs. what societal norms would dictate that they do or not do

3.2.2 Specially collected data

Means for collecting the data: – Hidden microphone with permissions – Screen capture programs

3.3.1 Role-play tasks

Extent of added stage directions: – Responding in a friendly, annoyed, angry, or compassionate way – Responding with appropriate intensity or severity – Responding in a cooperative, resistant, facetious, or rude manner

Verbal report – To check for any reactive effects of the measure or the data collection procedures – To understand the level of awareness behind the responses – To learn about response strategiesthe depth and breadth of the respondents’ strategy repertoire – To determine the rationale for opting out (if it occurs) – To find out who their model was-a native L1 speaker or other model

3.3.3 Judgment tasks – Role-play self- & peer-assessment – Self-assessment of projected performance – Multiple-choice DCT – Appropriateness of speech styles

3.3.2 Discourse completion tasks (DCTs)

– Extent to which respondents select the situations to which they wish to respond – Single response or multiple rejoinders – Oral or written response

Figure 1.  Options for investigating intercultural pragmatics

3.1  Basic research design issues 3.1.1  Sampling There is a need to determine the target sample and to identify possible other groups for the sake of comparison. If money and time are considerations, then

 Andrew D. Cohen

the sampling would need to be limited, such as by limiting the number of doctors and respondents serving as patients. One advantage of drawing data from corpora is that the sample may reflect that of hundreds of people. So if the pragmatic features are widespread in such data, using a corpus can be a means for collecting a lot of data in a relatively rapid and unobtrusive way. This method could work for basic greetings and other speech functions that are prevalent and representative. In our case, the question would be whether existing corpora include immigrant language and whether there are doctor-patient interactions in the data, especially of the kind being targeted for investigation in this study (see 3.2.1 for more on corpus data). Whereas it can be beneficial to have a large sample of data, the issue of representativeness is also a factor. Having a lot of coarsely-tuned, unfocused data may be of less value than having a smaller sampling of relevant, finely-tuned, and informative data. While a corpus is indeed valuable for research, it is also ­limiting if the researchers themselves did not create it, since they are likely to lack the ­background information necessary to deal adequately with the nuances in variables associated with the participants themselves. For this particular study, it may make sense if there is adequate funding to have three different research sites. The first site would be a clinic in the U.S. Southwest where a fair number of the patients would be immigrants from Mexico and where there would be at least two general practitioners; one an Anglo-American doctor who speaks Mexican Spanish relatively well, and the other a doctor originally from Mexico with good Spanish skills.4 A second site would also be a clinic in the U.S. Southwest but in a predominantly non-Hispanic district, where the patients participating in the study would be essentially monocultural among the mainstream cultural and monolingual speakers of English, and the participating general practitioners would be from a similar background. A third site would be a clinic in a Mexican city, to get a sense of the type of context to which these immigrants have been accustomed, and to collect data from a local Mexican doctor interacting with patients there. The intent of having these three sites for data collection and at least four doctors would be to be able to draw on both intercultural and cross-cultural data. There would be a need to recruit four doctors willing to participate in the study, along with a series of patients willing to role-play problematic situations at each site. The idea would be to use actual patients in the clinic who are paid for their time and who respond anonymously. They would be given situations to roleplay (see below). The doctors and patient respondents at the three sites would be

4.  It would also be possible to have this doctor be a Mexican-American if the doctor were comfortably bilingual and bicultural, since Mexican-American doctors may represent a wide spectrum with regard to their language and cultural backgrounds.



Research methods for variation 

informed that the intent is to study doctor-patient interactions in clinics with an eye to improving the quality of these interactions. Needless to say, this three-site methodology assumes clearly identifiable cultures associated with the Spanish- and English-speaking clinic in the Southwest, the non-Hispanic English-speaking site, and with the Spanish-speaking site in Mexico. At the intercultural site in the Southwest, attention would need to be given not only to the doctor who is making an effort to participate to a certain extent in the Mexican community via language and cultural experience, but also to the patients who can be expected to have adopted to a greater or lesser degree the language and cultural patterns of the language community in which they are currently living. It would make the study more interesting to have a sampling of patients along a continuum from recent immigrants with little previous contact with the mainstream English-speaking community in the Southwest of the U.S. to those with more extensive experience. Whereas a rigorous sampling of different types of doctors and patients would be ideal for comparative purposes, it also makes it more difficult to make generalizations, given the number of variables and the expected variation within those variables across the participants. 3.1.2  Range of pragmatics features sampled The focus would be to gather data on how doctors and patients interact in the same situations in these three different sites. It would be necessary to have similar situations so that comparison is possible. Some such interactions could involve the following potential points of conflict: 1. The patient arrives 30 minutes after the scheduled time. 2. Medicines are not being taken according to the prescription. 3. Delicate information about the patient’s future prognosis needs to be conveyed by the doctor. 4. There is a need to discuss parts of the body of a private nature. Of special interest would be the extent to which aspects of the nonnative-­Spanishspeaking doctor’s pragmatics in the target language are perceived as divergent and possibly offensive to the patients. It is understandable that the doctor may be frustrated by the pragmatics of the patients who come to the clinic if, for example, they arrive late for their appointment without an apology and/or do not follow the instructions for taking their medicines in order to save money. The issue is the extent to which the doctor conveys this frustration in a way that is pragmatically acceptable to the patients. Of further concern would be how the doctor deals with the more delicate matters.

 Andrew D. Cohen

The research literature on pragmatics reminds us that pragmatics means more than a few popular speech acts (like requesting, apologizing, or complaining). Pragmatics also includes implicatures, routine expressions like conversational rejoinders (e.g. ‘You know what I mean?’), hints like ‘We’ll consider it’ meaning ‘no’, fillers (‘well’, ‘uhm’), and other verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Roever 2010; Yamashita 2008). In our case, the focus would be on those pragmatic behaviors associated with doctor-patient interactions. What happens pragmatically when someone is late for an appointment? Is the patient scolded by a secretary or by the doctor himself? How are requests made to patients as to how medicines are taken? How does the doctor address matters of serious and even terminal i­ llness? How does he refer to parts of the body that are usually not discussed openly? So the focus of the study would be on speech acts such as requests, complaints, apologies, and criticism, and the ways in which politeness (through indirectness) is exercised. 3.1.3  Number of measures The research literature also tends to endorse the use of multiple measures so as to allow for triangulation of results (Félix-Brasdefer 2003; Hudson 2001a). Whereas the thought of multiple measures resonates well with researchers, it may be a ­challenge to find respondents for a study who are amenable to participating when they need to devote at least several hours to this effort, especially if they receive limited remuneration for their time. Unobtrusive measures are less likely to incur resistance from subjects than those measures that call specifically for the subjects to spend special time producing the responses. Nonetheless, for studies conducted in the U.S., there is the need to secure the approval of the Institutional Review Board, which includes obtaining the subjects’ consent to participate in the study. In addition, the researcher has to ask whether data collected in this manner are, in fact, of relevance in attempting to answer the research questions. 3.2  Naturalistic data Since the collection of ‘natural’ data would imply that none of the participants are aware of the data collection process, it is likely that in most situations the data would be more ‘naturalistic’, implying the likelihood of some unnatural manipulation in the process. There are basically two kinds of naturalistic data that could be used to shed light on the research issue under study. One kind would be naturalistic data that are from a pre-existing corpus and the other would be data that are specially collected for the purpose at hand. While there are pros associated with the use of naturalistic data for the study of variation in intercultural pragmatics, there are also cons (cf. Félix-Brasdefer 2010; Kasper 2000).



Research methods for variation 

3.2.1  Corpus data In some pragmatic situations, it can be useful to access a corpus for insights as to how users of a language are likely to employ the language. A corpus approach to the study of pragmatics may work well when words or phrases are easily identifiable in a data set such as in the case of greetings (see Reed 2009) or expressions of gratitude (see Schauer & Adolphs 2006). The difficulty with trying to use a corpus to study apologies, however, is that words used in apologies can be used with another function, such as expressing regret (e.g. ‘I’m sorry you feel that way’). Whether involving actors playing patients or actual patients themselves, corpora of doctor-patient language have not tended to include the issue of interculturality as a focal point. One group of researchers who created a doctor-patient dialogue corpus for interactions between English-speaking doctors and Farsi-speaking patients noted that there was “very little room for cultural differences to emerge, including potentially fundamental discrepancies in aspects of worldview pertaining to illness, healing, and medicine” (Belvin, May, Narayanan, Georgiou & G ­ anjavi 2004: 189). In an effort by applied linguists to use corpus data to complement data from discourse analysis, four researchers placed a series of calls to a medical advice line where the identity of the advisers was kept anonymous (Adolphs, Brown, Carter, Crawford & Sahota 2004). In this study, some effort was made to get at discourse strategies used by the health advisor to give credentials to the advice and also to terminate the call. The study did not deal with intercultural issues at all. So it is likely that, at the present time at least, corpora would not be a fruitful source for data to use in the hypothetical doctor-patient situation in the U.S. Southwest. 3.2.2  Specially collected data Use of hidden microphones is one way to get naturalistic data. A study of intercultural pragmatics involving seven American study-abroad students in Toledo, Spain used this approach in collecting data at the beginning, middle, and end of a semester of interactions during service encounters (Shively 2011).5 In Shively’s study, the participants made naturalistic audio recordings of themselves while visiting local shops, banks, and other establishments. The analysis focused on openings and requests in 113 recordings, and examined the ways in which the students’ pragmatic choices shifted over time, considering the role of language socialization and explicit instruction in L2 pragmatics in that development.

5.  The data would be naturalistic as opposed to ‘natural’ since the person with the microphone would be aware of the recording. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Minnesota gave Shively permission to collect data without alerting those taped surreptitiously in the service encounters that they were being recorded.

 Andrew D. Cohen

Another approach to collecting pragmatics data unobtrusively is with a screen capture program while participants are engaged in interactions on a website. A study of this nature looked at 10 intermediate learners of Spanish working with a Spanish pragmatics website “Dancing with Words”, where all online activity and oral comments were recorded using the Camtasia Screen Capture software (http:// www.techsmith.com/camtasia.asp [17 October 11]) (Sykes & Cohen 2008). The screen recordings allowed for observation and analysis of the participants’ interaction with the website. A negative aspect of this kind of unobtrusive data collection is that while a researcher can track the times that a participant visits a location on the website and clicks on a certain item, it is not known what the rationale for doing so was unless the subject is specifically prompted to provide this information. 3.3  Elicited data Given the stated interest in collecting data from three doctor-patient venues and comparing them, elicited data would be crucial here, especially if time is a factor. Commensurately, it is important that the data be relevant to the research questions. Sifting through reams of irrelevant data does not move the study along. Also the situations need to be explicit enough to the respondents to be of value. The researcher needs to choose whether to deal just with perception and comprehension of verbal (and nonverbal) behavior or both comprehension and production (see García 2004 for a listing of just what comprehension at the pragmatic level may entail). In the selected research context, for example, the American doctor who speaks intermediate Spanish could himself be asked to assess the pragmatic sensitivity of Spanish used by a nonnative doctor with Mexican immigrant patients and to rate the appropriateness of that language. On the production side, that doctor could be asked to produce oral or written language in response to a situation that is posed. It is also of concern whether the elicitation format is visual (e.g. video using cartoon figures or people; see Félix-Brasdefer 2010: 46–47; Yamashita 2001), auditory, or written. Whereas a video prompt can be very informative, such prompts may take considerable time and energy to prepare effectively (see Zuskin 1993). Written prompts are more expedient, but may inadvertently provide clues as to the language to use in the response, especially if they are written in the target language. In other words, respondents may simply lift language from the prompt, perhaps without even fully understanding this language. With regard to the explicitness of the prompts, it is imperative that in each interactive situation to which respondents are asked to react, they be aware of the relationships of relative power, social distance, and level of imposition (Brown & Levinson 1987; Spencer-Oatey 1996). This factor needs to be spelled out in the



Research methods for variation 

prompt. For example, for the sake of comparability, it would be beneficial to have situations at similar levels of formality and social distance at both the bilingual clinic in the Southwest, the non-Hispanic clinic, and the clinic in Mexico. And the researchers need to determine whose behavior the respondents are to be responding about; i.e. their own (perhaps what they would do or say vs. what they should do or say) or that of others from clearly-defined groups. So on the perception side, the American doctors in the Southwest may be asked to rank what they might be expected to do or say in Spanish-language interactions with Mexican immigrant patients, how likely they would be to say or do something in a patient interaction, what a Mexican-American doctor with native Spanish skills might do or say, and so forth. Researchers in the field of L2 pragmatics over the last decade or two have found that the use of verbal report techniques has helped to enrich their interpretation of the collected data in numerous ways (also see Woodfield’s chapter, this volume). For starters, verbal report has reflected a host of different approaches (see Bowles 2010; Cohen 2011 [Chapter 3]; Cohen in press). For starters, there is ‘self-report’, where respondents provide descriptions of what they do (or rather, what they think they do), characterized by generalized statements. Then there is ‘self-observation’, which is the inspection of specific, not generalized, language behavior, either introspectively (i.e. within 20 seconds of the mental event) or retrospectively. A further distinction is made between ‘immediate’ retrospection (i.e. within an hour or so of the mental event) and ‘delayed’ retrospection (say, up to a week or more after the event). Finally, there is ‘self-revelation’, typically referred to as ‘think-aloud’, which is characterized by the stream-of-consciousness disclosure of thought processes while the information is being heard and processed. In terms of what verbal report might be used for in this situation, it could be to check for any reactive effects of the measure and/or of the data collection procedures. In other words, it can be used both to get a sense of the validity of the measure (i.e. whether it is measuring what it purports to measure) and also whether it is doing so reliably (i.e. whether the same or similar results would be found if the measure is used again). Verbal report can also be used to get a better sense of how aware the respondents are of the issues involved in the given situation, since the level of awareness is usually not revealed through the response itself (Ishihara 2010) and can have an impact. For example, respondents who are acutely aware of the formality of a situation may make an extra effort to be appropriately polite. In addition, verbal report can be used to learn about response strategies – the depth and breadth of the respondents’ strategy repertoire (Ishihara 2009). In other words, to what extent was their response part of a reasoned behavior, based on perceived or actual sociocultural norms? For instance, a more refined strategy repertoire may include strategies for dealing with the

 Andrew D. Cohen

opposite sex in the target language and culture. If the respondents opt out of doing or saying what would be expected socioculturally, verbal report can help in determining the reasons for this decision (Hudson, Detmer & Brown 1995; Ishihara 2009). Finally, verbal report can be used to find out who the respondents modeled their response after, if such is the case; a native speaker of the target language or culture, a highly competent nonnative, or some other nonnative speaker. 3.3.1  Role-play tasks Role-play has been found to be an effective means for collecting pragmatics data (e.g. Félix-Brasdefer 2003, 2007, 2010; Woodfield [this volume]). Researchers are able to have respondents demonstrate what they would be likely to say or do in a given situation. Concerns about role-play have included how carefully the respondents are following the instructions that they are given, their acting ability, and their willingness to perform as they would in real life or to give an honest appraisal of how they perceive the behavior of others. If the purpose is to get a truly ­accurate sense of what language might look like when the circumstances are varied, then perhaps respondents should be given stage cues. For example, respondents could be asked to respond in a friendly, annoyed, angry, or compassionate way. In addition, respondents could be reminded if there has been a serious i­nfraction requiring a more severe or intense response. Finally, they could be told to respond in a cooperative, resistant, facetious, or rude manner. The intention of these stage directions would be to collect types of data that otherwise would not emerge. It would be especially interesting to see, for example, the extent to which ­nonnative speakers would be able to add attitude, tone, and moods to their verbal and ­nonverbal behavior, since they are not usually taught these behaviors in language class and may find it difficult to acquire them on their own (e.g. adding expletives to their discourse; see Daly, Holmes, Newton & Stubbe 2004). With regard to giving respondents instructions on how to respond in ­role-play interactions, a question would be whether the doctors are also briefed on how to perform, as opposed to being left to role-playing according to their own ­discretion. For instance, the physicians could be asked to be stern in dealing with a patient’s behavior (e.g. being late, not taking the medicines as prescribed, not relaying crucial information about symptoms). It may be a learning experience for the nonnative-speaking doctor to see how his native-speaking colleagues convey sternness in Spanish. There are reasons why instructing respondents in how to respond to roleplays has not been common practice among researchers. An obvious reason would be that giving cues as to how to perform would distort the otherwise naturalistic response. But especially if the intent is to focus on types of variation and to get a feeling for the pragmatic range of given respondents, then perhaps this somewhat



Research methods for variation 

bold departure from the status quo of pragmatics research might make sense; if only on an experimental basis. 3.3.2  Discourse completion tasks Given that the traditional discourse completion tasks (DCTs) have been subject to criticism over the years (Félix-Brasdefer 2003, 2010), efforts have been made to improve on the design of such measures (for an update, see Félix-Brasdefer 2010). One interesting question with regard to DCTs is the extent to which the respondents have the opportunity to select or even create the situations to which they are asked to respond. The experience of a practicing EFL teacher in Japan is that if respondents have ‘ownership’ over the situations, then their responses may be more reflective of likely behavior on their part (McLean 2005). In keeping with the research focus that has been proposed here, the doctor and the patient respondents could both be asked to describe situations in doctor-patient interactions that have frustrated them for whatever reasons; first as a pilot activity, and then the situations could be crafted based on this input. In the earliest DCTs, there usually was a single rejoinder, rather than multiple ones. In multiple-rejoinder DCTs, the respondent is asked to give an appropriate initial response to the situation and then must supply at least two more responses that are prompted by the rejoinders provided for that situation (Cohen & Shively 2002/2003). The use of multiple rejoinders represents an effort to make the DCTs more reflective of the conversational turn-taking of natural speech, the lack of which has been a criticism of written DCTs (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford 1993). The multiple-rejoinder approach requires the speakers to shape their speech act behavior so that it conforms to a given situation. Although it is true that respondents are therefore not free to reply as they like, Roever (2001) made the case that for researchers the interest is not necessarily in how respondents would prefer to reply, but rather in how they are able to reply when such constraints are imposed. Of course, verbal report could also be used to collect data on the reactions of the respondents to this type of measure. Another issue is whether to have the response format be oral or written. A recently published study reported on research to investigate the effects of respondents, raters, item functions, item types, item characteristics, and interactions among these factors simultaneously on the dependability of four different L2 pragmatics tests (Brown & Ahn 2011). The researchers found that whether the measure was a written DCT, an oral DCT, a role-play with a native speaker, or a self-assessment of a video- or audio-recorded role-play made a significant difference in how the participants were assessed relative to each other. As it turned out in this particular study, the self-assessment of role play was the best measure statistically, and the role-play task itself was also found successful. The researchers

 Andrew D. Cohen

concluded that the use of two or more measures in a given study would enhance the overall dependability of the results. In the clinic situation under discussion here, it may be helpful to have doctors and patients self-assess their performance in order to get a better sense of what they see as acceptable norms of behavior. Verbal report could assist in providing background information as to why the ­participants feel that way. 3.3.3  Judgment tasks As researchers, we could make use of various judgment tasks. One was already mentioned in the last section; namely, self-assessment of role-play performance (see Ishihara 2009). In addition, there are variations on this approach. One is to have respondents self-assess projected performance, so instead of reacting to how they have done, as captured by a video- or audio-recording, respondents could be asked to indicate how they think they would do in a given situation and perhaps why they think that. They could be asked to indicate the extent of their ­knowledge of what the appropriate pragmatic behavior would be in that situation under d ­ ifferent conditions. Another approach would be to have their peers ­evaluate their performance. In judging the appropriateness of nonverbal behavior, there could be a video prompt and then MC alternatives to get at comprehension of, say, c­ ulturally-specific gestures. Rating scales could also be used to understand a learners’ use of gestures, gaze, and head nodding in an interview. In terms of doctor-patient relations, it would be possible to have Mexican immigrant doctors in the Southwest rate the Spanish-language performance of the nonnative doctor in terms of the appropriateness of the pragmatics, or in terms of how likely the former would be to do it that same way and, if not, what they would do instead (both verbally and nonverbally). Patient respondents could also be asked to assess the performance of the nonnative doctor. A problem with asking peers to rate the acceptability of performance is having some benchmark against which to evaluate the appropriateness, especially when aside from individual variation, there is the likelihood that the norms for such behavior may be in flux in these kinds of intercultural situations. Another way to conduct peer rating is by using a multiple-choice DCT format. In that way, respondents are given, say, four possible utterances, and they must rate them in terms of their appropriateness for that situation. This format could be combined with a multiple-rejoinder approach, but rather than the respondent producing the rejoinders, the task could call instead for having the respondents judge the most appropriate from a series of alternatives. Another type of task would be that of judging the appropriateness of speech styles. The case has been made that this judgment is an important type of pragmatics activity because it deals with the totality of discourse and numerous aspects of



Research methods for variation 

pragmatics at the same time (Roever 2010). The example is given of a study involving recordings of simulated self-introductions from three applicants for a job as a bilingual Japanese-English clerk at a clothing store in Honolulu, in which subjects had to judge which applicant would be most suitable for the position (Cook 2001). The three monologues differed as to the degree of appropriateness of the speech style, given the job for which the candidates were applying; one applicant employed a clearly inappropriate speech style, inconsistently using polite forms and overusing plain forms, not hedging appropriately, and under-utilizing fixed expressions and honorifics. This applicant also used the Japanese emphatic final particle yo and contracted verb forms, all of which conveyed an impression of casual speech without the humility and formality required by Japanese cultural norms for interactions between lower- and higher-power interlocutors in a job interview situation. The other two applicants displayed a more appropriate speech style and followed cultural norms in not asserting their qualifications for the position as directly and on-record as the first applicant. It is possible to see how the speech styles approach could be used effectively in the clinic situation. Respondents could be shown, say, three different approaches to greeting patients and collecting such information as the symptoms of their illness and their medicines, and then be requested to rate the effectiveness of the interaction. 4.  Data analysis While employing appropriate means to collect the data from doctor-patient interactions is an important first step in the research process, the follow-up step of making sense of the data is crucial, especially if the data are from a variety of different sources. Here it can be imperative to have a clear notion of just what kind of data are being sought. Presumably, the main concern in this case would be to see the extent to which the American clinical doctors interacting with ­Spanish-­speaking clients in Spanish are using mainstream American pragmatics and the extent to which their pragmatics are consistent with the norms for the local Mexican-­ American Spanish-speaking community. The analysis would need to see what the norms would be for the clients in their community of origin in Mexico, what they would be in their current community, what they are for Americans in English in a clinic in the Southwest, and then compare these venues to that of the doctor’s office where Spanish is being spoken both by an American nonnative Spanish-speaking doctor and by a Mexican-American doctor. It is important to remind the reader that the focus of this chapter has not been on resolving intercultural conflicts, but rather on looking at means for ­conducting

 Andrew D. Cohen

research to determine the extent of pragmatic conflict. So when confronting issues of data analysis, the role of the applied linguistics researcher is to provide a description of the extent to which a nonnative doctor’s language and cultural behavior approximates the pragmatic norms or expectations of the patients and vice versa. It is for the players involved to determine which behaviors are ultimately appropriate for these intercultural interactions, where behavior not only varies but may also be in flux. How should the data be analyzed? Figure 2 provides a listing of points to consider in determining how to conduct the analysis of the data that have been collected.

4.1 Issues of general concern – The use of holistic ratings and multitrait ones that evaluate lexis and grammar in the service or pragmatics, as well as appropriateness of directness and politeness levels – Extent to which performance of the desired speech act or other pragmatic behavior was elicited – In receptive tasks, degree of perception or comprehension of the speech act or other pragmatic behavior – In productive tasks, ability to carry out the functions associated with the speech act -e.g. the appropriate quantity of speech or writing (e.g. verbosity vs. terseness) for the medium, sociopragmatically acceptable speech act strategies (semantic formulas), pragmalinguistically acceptable language forms given the expected level of directness, formality, politeness, and intensity (depending on the severity of the situation) – In role plays, checking for the acting ability of the participants – Extent to which there is clarity as to criteria for what is considered normative pragmatic behavior for the particular interaction within the given context.

Verbal report: – To understand the thinking behind the judgments made by the data analysts

4.2 Data analysis in the language ability areas Reading – Reading a series of messages and perceiving the pragmatic functions involved (e.g. humor, sarcasm, or compassion). Writing – Having to write a series of messages conveying one or another function (e.g. anger, joy, or skepticism). Listening – Listening for the pragmatic functions (e.g. truth value, tentativeness, or enthusiasm). – Beyond listening to gestures, facial expressions, and the use of silence Speaking – Delivering oral messages that conform to the norms for appropriate pragmatic behavior (e.g. praising or criticizing). – Appropriate pragmatic tone for the situation (e.g. consternation).

Figure 2.  Data analysis

4.1  Issues of general concern The data analysis would most likely benefit both from holistic ratings and from multitrait ones that evaluate, for instance, the vocabulary and grammar in the service of pragmatics. But since the focus is on doctor-patient interactions, there would also be interest in the nature of the actual discourse; that is, the words and phrases used. In addition, we would want to look at the appropriateness of the



Research methods for variation 

speech styles, such as with regard to the directness of the language and the politeness levels. Thus, the analysis would go beyond just establishing the level of perceived politeness (e.g. the respondent as patient referring to the doctor and vice versa) to a more fine-tuned analysis of just what was or was not polite about the language in the eyes of the interlocutors. Of course, if the doctor is very perturbed by some patient behavior, he may purposely want to show his annoyance, and not be overly polite or obsequious. In going through the various speech-act measures, the analysis can look at the extent to which the desired speech acts or other pragmatic behavior were actually present in the data, and the extent to which the performance of these pragmatic behaviors was appropriate in comparison to the norms for acceptable behavior within the given speech community. An added challenge would be to identify the norms for that speech community; for example, an issue in assuming the Hispanic immigrant speech community in the U.S. Southwest is in flux in terms of language and culture. In comprehension tasks, it could also be part of the analysis to establish the extent to which respondents perceived the pragmatic behavior as being ­appropriate in terms of its function in the given interaction. For example, if the ­doctor makes a comment about the patient’s lateness for an appointment, does the respondent as patient understand this and respond appropriately (if a response is deemed ­necessary)? In productive tasks, there would be far more to analyze: the ability of the respondents to carry out the discourse functions associated with the speech act (e.g. the appropriate quantity of speech or writing [e.g. ­verbosity vs. ­terseness]); the sociopragmatic acceptability of the speech act strategies (­ semantic ­formulas); and the pragmalinguistic acceptability of the language forms given the expected level of directness, formality, politeness, and intensity ­(depending on the severity of the situation). In role plays, checking for the acting ability of the p ­ articipants may be an important part of the data analysis, but it would need to  be ­operationalized, which can be problematic to do (Hudson, Detmer & Brown 1995). Going into the study, there may not be clarity as to what is acceptable ­pragmatic behavior. For this reason, it may be crucial to do pilot work in order to establish criteria for what is considered normative pragmatic behavior for the particular interaction within the given context. It is likely that the study itself would contribute to a description of what is considered normative behavior for doctorpatient interactions in the clinic situations under study. It may also be helpful to collect verbal report data from the data analysts while the data analysis is ongoing in order to understand better the thinking behind the judgments that are made. There are usually critical moments when the data analysts are unsure of how to deal with one kind of data or another. Unless information about moments of

 Andrew D. Cohen

i­ndecision is recorded systematically, it tends to be lost. Such data can have an important ­bearing on interpreting the results of the study. 4.2  Data analysis in the language ability areas Having facility with the pragmatics of one’s dominant language can be a challenge; how much more so then can the challenge be for the nonnative. Nonnatives, especially those who are not highly competent in the L2, may appear to have adequate control over the target language but a careful data analysis may determine that their pragmatic performance diverges from native-speaker behavior. Let us now take a brief look at how difficulties in dealing with the pragmatics of the target language could manifest themselves across the language abilities, especially for those nonnatives at an intermediate proficiency level and even beyond. Seemingly simple reading tasks can pose difficulties for nonnatives, such as reading a series of messages and perceiving the pragmatic functions involved (e.g. humor, sarcasm, or compassion). Nonnatives may assume that a message is serious when in reality it was written in jest, perhaps to tease the recipient, or perhaps it was purposely meant to be snide. The question is whether the nonnatives pick up on those cues. In doctor-patient interactions, it is probably not so much a matter of how moods and attitudes are conveyed, but rather how issues of some import (e.g. of a life or death nature) are transmitted from the doctor to the patients and to their families. If the communication is at all indirect, then the patient may not understand. Also, the use of technical language may well leave patients uncertain as to their state of health. So the role of the data analysts would be to identify and evaluate reading comprehension problems arising from gaps in pragmatic knowledge. Nonnatives may have even more difficulty writing messages intended to c­onvey one or another function (e.g. anger, joy, or skepticism). To do so would entail having control over sometimes subtle innuendos associated with, for instance, certain adjectives. Perhaps a doctor wants to use an electronic message to console a patient or give the patient a sense of hope, but the message instead conveys distance, disinterest, and lack of concern without that being the intention. Again, data analysis sensitive to pragmatics would want to include evaluation of the pragmatic accuracy of written text. Listening for the pragmatic functions (e.g. truth value, tentativeness, or ­enthusiasm) is not necessarily easy to perform either. Nonnatives often fail to notice ­certain clues to pragmatic meaning that are subtly transmitted through tone of voice, or may also be indicated through gestures, facial expressions, or ­simply the use of silence. Some of these nonverbal cues are particular to a given ­subculture. Others are more generally used in the speech community but not



Research methods for variation 

e­ asily acquired by nonnatives. It may require a native pointing them out for a nonnative even to notice them at all. Whereas the doctor in this focal study would certainly know how to use a reassuring tone in his native language, would this also be the case when using Spanish L2? This area of listening also poses problems for those analyzing the data; for instance, whether the pragmatic signals were given in an unmistakable manner, and then whether they were picked up by the listener(s). Delivering oral messages that conform to the norms for appropriate pragmatic behavior in some ways is even more taxing than writing them (e.g. praising or criticizing). Using appropriate pragmatic tone for the situation is not necessarily easy to do (e.g. consternation). Actors may do a number of takes on a scene before the director deems it to be acceptable for performance purposes, yet a d ­ octor may be called on to deliver a stern message or a compassionate one without so much as a moment’s rehearsal. The impact of a poorly delivered message may be devastating to the patient. It is not an easy task for data analysts then to evaluate how effectively messages are delivered pragmatically, especially when the messages may have a high-stakes value. 5.  Discussion and conclusions This chapter focused on possible options for researching variation within intercultural pragmatics. The intention was to encourage the use of multiple methods for looking at situations where L1 and L2 pragmatics meet and where there is potential variation in the factors that come into play in the interaction. We looked at a situation in the sphere of interculturality where language and culture may come into conflict; that of doctor-patient interactions. The aim of this chapter was to highlight the contributions to the investigation that differing approaches to research and different measures might make in elucidating the dynamic variations that arise. Given the number of variables involved and the range of variation within them, an exploratory study may need to spend the bulk of the time investigating what constitutes ‘appropriateness’ in such intercultural situations; i.e. in contact situations in which two cultures are not separate from one another but adopt each others’ pragmatics and cultural patterns. If an Anglo-American doctor uses Spanish language but with mainstream U.S. pragmatics in terms of interactions with patients, how will this be received by the Mexican immigrant patients? Is it the patients’ responsibility to behave according to the mainstream norms for pragmatic behavior? Needless to say, there are also variations in personality across physicians, so this variable needs to be accounted for as well. The product of such research could be the determination that some form of instructional intervention would be advisable, such as tips about L2 p ­ ragmatics

 Andrew D. Cohen

for professionals who are nonnative speakers of the clients’ language (say, in the form of electronic or hardcopy pamphlets). It is likely that in the nonnative-speaking doctor’s previous classroom experiences with Spanish, there was only limited attention to pragmatics and, if so, it probably reflected a cross-cultural approach (e.g. ‘us’ compared to ‘them’), rather than the more ­complex intercultural variety. As a consequence of ‘on-the-job’ orientation to Mexican Spanish pragmatics, the rules of the clinic might still follow mainstream rules about on-time appointments, the taking of all medicines, and the like, but perhaps the doctor’s understanding of the pragmatics for the Spanish-language interactions could be enhanced. The main issue would be to acknowledge that these interactions are taking place within a sphere of interculturality and that there is inevitable variation in how these interactions play themselves out. Finally, further research could look at the extent to which the findings from this study could apply to other varieties of Spanish.

References Adophs, S., Brown, B., Carter, R., Crawford, P., & Sahota, O. 2004. Applying corpus linguistics in a health care context. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(1): 9–28. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B.S. 1993. Refining the DCT: Comparing open questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks. Pragmatics and Language Learning 4: 143–165. Barron, A. 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 108]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Belvin, R., May, R., Narayanan, S., Georgiou, S., & Ganjavi, S. 2004. Creation of a doctor-patient dialogue corpus using standardized patients. In Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, N. Calzolari (ed.). Lisbon: LREC. 〈http://www.mt-archive.info/ LREC-4-Belvin-2.pdf〉 (19 July 2011). Bowles, M.A. 2010. The Think-Aloud Controversy in Second Language Research. Abingdon: Routledge. Brown, J.D. & Ahn, R.C. 2011. Variables that affect the dependability of L2 pragmatics tests. Journal of Pragmatics 43(1): 198–217. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. Cohen, A.D. 2011. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language, 2nd edn. Harlow: ­Pearson Education. Cohen, A.D. In press. Verbal report. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, C.A. Chapelle (ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Cohen, A. D. & Shively, R.L. 2002/2003. Measuring speech acts with multiple rejoinder DCT’s. Language Testing Update 32: 39–42. Cook, H.M. 2001. Why can’t learners of JFP distinguish polite from impolite speech styles? In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds), 80–102. Cambridge: CUP. Daly, N., Holmes, J., Newton, J. & Stubbe, M. 2004. Expletives as solidarity signals in FTAs on the factory floor. Journal of Pragmatics 36(5): 945–64.



Research methods for variation 

Fadiman, A. 1997. The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. New York NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2003. Validity in data collection methods in pragmatics research. In Theory, Practice, and Acquisition, P. Kempchinsky & C.E. Piñeros (eds), 239–257. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press. Félix-Brasdefer, C. 2007. Natural speech vs. elicited data: A comparison of natural and role play requests in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context 42(2): 159–185. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2010. Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays, and verbal reports. In Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical, and Methodological Issues [Language Learning & Language Teaching 26], E. Usó Juán & A. Martínez-Flor (eds), 41–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. García, P. 2004. Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. TESL-EJ, 82. 〈http://tesl-ej.org/ej30/a1.html〉 (18 July 2011). Hoffman, E. 1989. Lost in Translation: Life in a New Language. New York NY: Penguin Books. Hudson, T. 2001a. Indicators for pragmatic instruction: Some quantitative tools. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds), 283-300. Cambridge: CUP. Hudson, T., Detmer, E. & Brown, J.D. 1995. Developing Prototypic Measures of Cross-Cultural Pragmatics [Technical Report #7]. Honolulu HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Ishihara, N. 2009. Teacher-based assessment for foreign language pragmatics. TESOL Quarterly 43(3): 445–70. Ishihara, N. 2010. Ch. 15. Classroom-based assessment of pragmatics. In Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet, N. Ishihara & A.D. Cohen (eds), 286–317. Harlow: Pearson Education. Kasper, G. 2000. Data collection in pragmatics research. In Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 316–369. London: Continuum. Kecskes, I., Davidson, D.E. & Brecht, R. 2005. The foreign language perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics 2(4): 361–368. Kramsch, C. 2011. The symbolic dimensions of the intercultural. Language Teaching 44(3): 354–367. Lam, W.S.E. & Rosario-Ramos, E. 2009. Multilingual literacies in transnational digitally mediated contexts: An exploratory study of immigrant teens in the United States. Language and Education 23(2): 171–90. McLean, T. 2005. “Why no tip?”: Student-generated DCTs in the ESL classroom. In Pragmatics in Language Learning, Theory, and Practice, D. Tatsuki (ed.), 150–156. Tokyo: JALT-The Japan Association for Language Teaching, Pragmatics Special Interest Group. Reed, B.S. 2009. Prosodic orientation: A practice for sequence organization in broadcast telephone openings. Journal of Pragmatics 41(6): 1223–1247. Roever, C. 2001. A Web-Based Test of Interlanguage Pragmalinguistic Knowledge: Speech Acts, Routines, Implicatures. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawai’i at Honolulu. Roever, C. 2010. Assessing language use in social context: A new approach to testing second language pragmatics. In A New Look at Language Teaching and Testing: English as Subject and Vehicle, T. Kao & Y. Lin (eds), 87–97. Taipei: Language Teaching & Testing Center. Shauer, G.A. & Adolphs, S. 2006. Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System 34(1): 119–134. Shively, R.L. 2011. L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6): 1818–1835.

 Andrew D. Cohen Spencer-Oatey, H. 1996. Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 1–24. Sykes, J.M. & Cohen, A.D. 2008. Observed learner behavior, reported use, and evaluation of a website for learning Spanish pragmatics. In Second Language Acquisition and Research: Focus on Form and Function. Selected Proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum, M. Bowles, R. Foote, & S. Perpiñán (eds), 144–157. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press. Yamashita, S. 2001. Using pictures for research in pragmatics: Eliciting pragmatic strategies by picture response tests. In A Focus on Language Test Development, T. Hudson & J.D. Brown (eds), 35–56. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and ­Curriculum Center. Yamashita, S. 2008. Investigating interlanguage pragmatic ability: What are we testing? In ­Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, E. Alcón Soler & A. Martínez-Flor (eds), 201–223. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP. Zuskin, R.D. 1993. Assessing L2 sociolinguistic competence: In search of support from p ­ ragmatic theories. In Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, Vol. 4, L.F. Bouton  & Y. Kachru (eds), 166–182. Urbana-Champaign IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois.

chapter 10

Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics Where does pragmatic variation fit in? Marina Terkourafi

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA Among recent studies of pragmatic variation, two directions stand out. One locates variation in the distribution of pragmatic meanings across macro-social dimensions (gender, ethnicity, region) and seeks ways to study it (Schneider & Barron 2008). Another adopts a variationist methodology to propose pragmatic explanations for morphosyntactic variation (Cameron & Schwenter forthcoming). As their proponents admit, these are two different projects: they use different methodologies and consider different types of variation. Nevertheless, both face difficulties stemming from their ambivalent understanding of pragmatic variation as closer to either pragmatics or sociolinguistics, respectively. I discuss these difficulties and propose some methodological steps that can help us move beyond them by remaining true to the pragmatic and social categories that emerge from the data itself.

1.  Pragmatic variation: Between Scylla and Charybdis? In Greek mythology, Scylla and Charybdis were mythical sea monsters located on opposite sides of a strait, making it hazardous for passing sailors to navigate. Later rationalized as a towering rock on one side and a gigantic whirlpool on the other, they presented those unfortunate enough to sail by with a grim dilemma: avoiding Charybdis meant risking getting smashed against Scylla; similarly, steering clear of Scylla meant chancing being sucked in by Charybdis. The title of this chapter plays on the idiom derived from this story. “Between Scylla and Charybdis” has come to refer to the feeling that one is caught between two alternatives, neither of which is fully satisfactory.1 When it comes to the study of pragmatic variation, the

1.  Related idioms in English include: ‘between a rock and a hard place’, ‘between the devil and the deep blue sea’, ‘from the frying pan into the fire’, and ‘on the horns of a dilemma’.

 Marina Terkourafi

choice seems to be between staying true to the tenets of variationist sociolinguistics, which require that variants represent ‘two ways of saying the same thing’, or analyzing pragmatic meanings, which vary so routinely as to be impossible to pin down outside of specific contexts of use. Satisfying both seems to be impossible; something has to give. Before proceeding any further, it is a good idea to clarify the type of pragmatic meanings we will address. Pragmatic meanings are frequently characterized with reference to the notion of the speaker’s intention (Grice 1969). They are that part of an expression’s meaning that is not encoded in the expression itself (semantics) but is rather inferred by the listener by virtue of the speaker’s choice to put things this way and not that in a particular context. An essential feature of pragmatic meanings is thus that they are changeable. Although the mechanisms by which such meanings are derived – be those the maxims of the Cooperative Principle (Grice 1975), the Principle of Relevance (Sperber & Wilson 1995), or Horn’s Q and R principles (Horn 1984)2 – may be finite, the products of this process, pragmatic meanings themselves, are not; they are rather, in Grice’s terms, ‘indeterminate’ (1975: 39–40). Pragmatic meanings of this kind would be poorly placed to exhibit the kind of “orderly heterogeneity” (Weinreich, Labov, & Herzog 1968: 100) that lies at the heart of the study of variation in language and that can reveal to us something about “the ordered distribution of linguistic choices across the social spectrum” (Labov 1978: 10). Fortunately, however, these are not the only kind of pragmatic meaning around. In addition to particularized conversational implicatures, which are tied to the speaker’s intention as described above, it has been recognized, at least since Grice (1975), that there exist pragmatic meanings that achieve some degree of generality across contexts, in that they are assumed “in normal circumstances” (Grice 1975: 37).3 Building on Grice’s ideas, Levinson (1995) proposed to distinguish between utterance-token and utterance-type meaning, defining the latter as “a level of systematic inference based not on direct computations about ­speaker-intentions, but rather on general expectations about how language is

2.  Levinson’s Q, I and M heuristics are deliberately left out of this list since, unlike the Gricean and Hornian principles that handle both particularized and generalized conversational implicatures, Levinson’s heuristics are proposed to handle only generalized conversational implicatures that are not derived with reference to the speaker’s intention (see Levinson 1995 and below). 3.  While the precise nature of these meanings remains a hotly debated issue in post-Gricean pragmatics, most frameworks acknowledge their existence and try to accommodate them under such rubrics as “explicatures” (Sperber & Wilson 1986; Carston 2002), “implicitures” (Bach 1994), or “generalized conversational implicatures” (Horn 1984; Levinson 2000).



Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics 

­ ormally used” and classifying under it “speech acts, presuppositions, felicity n conditions, conversational pre-sequences, preference organization and […] generalized conversational implicatures” (p. 93). This “third level of meaning” is, according to Levinson, where “we can expect the systematicity of inference that might be deeply interconnected to linguistic structure and meaning” (pp. 93–94). Clearly, this is also the level where we can expect pragmatic meanings to vary consistently along macro-social dimensions such as gender, class, region, and so on; in other words, to show the kind of “orderly heterogeneity” that is connected to social structure and can lead to language change. Utterance-type meaning is, therefore, what we are concerned with in the study of pragmatic variation. 1.1  The variationist sociolinguistic view Approaching the study of pragmatic variation from either the perspective of variationist sociolinguistics or that of pragmatics has led to two distinct outcomes. On the one hand, there are those variationists who take a pragmatic perspective on language variation, meaning “quite narrowly those researchers who focus on morphological or syntactic variation and critically engage in pragmatic ­agendas” (Cameron & Schwenter forthcoming). For these researchers, a variationist project consists of five well-established stages: (i) identification of a variable and its variants; (ii) identification of those contexts in which the variable could potentially occur (called the ‘variable context’ or the ‘envelope of variation’); (iii)  ­coding; (iv)  statistical analysis; and (v) interpretation of the results (ibid.). Where pragmatic notions most clearly come in during this project is at stage (v), interpretation.4 At this stage, pragmatic constraints, such as information structure, contrast, perspective-taking, or other pragmatic motivations related to the particular ­ communicative effects that the speaker is trying to achieve, may be appealed to in order to explain the choice between variants. Representative of this type of research are the studies by Cameron (1995), Cameron & Flores Ferrán (2004), Torres-Cacoullos and Schwenter (2008), and Ward and Birner (1998),5 who have

4.  Pragmatic considerations can also come in at stages (i) and (ii). However, when ­pragmatics is consulted at those early stages, this is done in order to help identify variables at other levels of analysis; that is, the role of pragmatics remains ancillary to formal considerations. 5.  Ward and Birner’s work is included here despite not fitting the variationist model ­described above (since it does not use statistical analysis; cf. 1998: 28–29) because it still deals with a choice between linguistic forms; in other words, it is variationist in a broader sense. I am grateful to Richard Cameron for alerting me to this point.

 Marina Terkourafi

proposed p ­ ragmatic accounts of variation in subject realization in pro-drop languages, middle marking on intransitive motion verbs, and word order, respectively. Note, however, that the variants whose distribution is explained in this way are morphological and/or syntactic in nature, as these researchers readily admit (see quotation above). This line of research, in other words, does not focus on pragmatic variation as its object of investigation but rather provides pragmatic explanations for variation occurring in morphology and syntax. There is actually good reason for doing that. Deciding what constitutes pragmatic variation and defining the pragmatic variable consistent with variables at other levels of analysis has been the holy grail of variationists interested in this kind of variation for a long time. That is because, from the outset, the linguistic variable was defined as “alternate ways of saying ‘the same’ thing” (Labov 1972: 188), with sameness of meaning being originally interpreted in truth-conditional terms (Weiner & Labov 1983: 30). Subsequently, relaxing this requirement, equivalence has been reinterpreted, at least since Lavandera (1978: 181), in functional terms. The search for functional equivalence opens the way for investigations of variation beyond phonology, such as the ones referred to above, in two related ways: first, it can help identify the variants of a variable, which can now be defined as sharing a common function (stage [i] of the variationist project above); and second, it can help with identifying the variable context (stage [ii] of the variationist project above). Walker (2010) contrasts form-based and function-based approaches to defining the variable context, and suggests that, “this function-based approach is more common for grammatical variables than for phonological or lexical variables, in part because of the problems inherent in defining the variable context for grammatical variation” (p. 13). However, he also admits that “a function-based approach to discourse variables faces the challenge of isolating the discourse function (or functions) conveyed by variants as well as determining which other forms (or absence of forms) convey the same function(s)” (p. 76). Moreover, as I have pointed out elsewhere (Terkourafi 2011: 355–6), the notion of function itself can be open to interpretation, with at least two options available: a communicativelyoriented one (‘to what end?’) and a structurally-oriented one (‘on what grounds?’). Thus, while the notion of functional equivalence has certainly been a major step forward in the analysis of variation beyond phonology (that is, when the alternating units are carriers of descriptive meaning themselves), it does not by itself solve the problem of pragmatic variation or of defining the pragmatic variable. An even more liberal suggestion for reinterpreting ‘two ways of saying the same thing’ has been made by Kiesling (2011), who proposes to “simply say that a linguistic variable is a choice or option about speaking in a speech community” (pp. 16–17; original emphasis). However, when it comes to discussing discourse variables, he, too, is forced to concede that “circumscribing the variable context



Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics 

in this situation is nearly impossible; for instance, how can we say at any moment whether a speaker has the option to give a compliment or not? In essence we are forced to assume that a compliment is possible at any time” (p. 163). When it comes to pragmatic or discourse variation, it seems that we may, after all, have to agree with Walker (2010), who concludes that “defining the variable context for discourse variables […] represents a relatively underexplored area of variationist research” (p. 77; but see Terkourafi 2011 for a suggestion in this direction). Given these difficulties with implementing the variationist project at the level of pragmatics/discourse, it is not surprising that variationists interested in pragmatic variation have reinterpreted the task, opting for providing pragmatic explanations for variation occurring in morphology and syntax instead. In doing so, they are avoiding being ‘sucked in’ by the ‘Charybdis of pragmatics,’ so to speak. However, unfortunately, that does not guarantee their safety from the ‘Scylla of sociolinguistics.’ For in the studies cited above, what explains the variation found in the data is not the classical macro-social categories of age, class, gender, ethnicity, and so on, used by Labov in the Martha’s Vineyard (1966) and New York (1972) studies, but rather pragmatic distinctions made available intra-linguistically. In other words, the sociolinguistic relevance of this type of analysis can be hard to see6 – when it is precisely this sociolinguistic relevance that prompted Labov’s (1978) formulation of variationist principles early on, “when the primary motivation was to discover the social motivation of particular sound changes, and demonstrate the ordered distribution of linguistic choices across the social spectrum” (p. 10).7 1.2  The variational pragmatics view Yet pragmatic variation, in the sense of variation in the pragmatic meanings routinely attached to language forms when used by different social groups, clearly exists. Several studies have made it their focus and some have even attempted to study it quantitatively, including early (pre-2000) studies by Erman (1992; on use of the expressions ‘you know’, ‘you see’, and ‘I mean’ by female and male ­British English speakers), Vincent and Sankoff (1992; on punctors, or fillers, used by speakers of different social classes in Montreal French), Placencia (1998; on requests by speakers of Peninsular and Ecuadorian Spanish), and Terkourafi (1999; on ­diminution in two varieties of Greek), to mention only a handful of 6.  Cameron & Flores Ferrán (2004) is a notable exception in this respect. 7.  Later work by Labov effectuated a broadening of the scope of variationist research to include both external (social) and internal (linguistic) constraints on variation. My point is that the studies referred to in this section focus mainly on the latter. For discussion, see Cameron (2007).

 Marina Terkourafi

studies that have dealt with pragmatic variation across varieties of the same language. These and similar studies have helped establish the existence of variation in the pragmatic plane, meaning variation in the meanings implicitly conveyed by particular forms, as well as in speech act realization and politeness routines across macro-social categories such as gender, socioeconomic status, and region. The subdiscipline of Variational Pragmatics (proposed by Schneider & Barron (2008; Barron & Schneider 2009; Schneider 2010) seeks to focus precisely on this type of variation and to systematize its analysis. Inspired by the teaching of pragmatics in the foreign language classroom especially for pluricentric languages such as English and Spanish, Variational Pragmatics advocates for the need to study the pragmatic conventions of varieties of the same language in order to raise awareness of the possibility of divergence among them. In other words, the aim of the new subdiscipline is to problematize the mostly tacit assumption that populations of native speakers are homogeneous with respect to their pragmatic choices. A first point, then, where this approach differs from the variationist analyses discussed earlier is its distinct applied or pedagogical orientation. Variational Pragmatics distinguishes between two kinds of factors that condition pragmatic variation: macro-social factors, which “remain relatively stable across situations and contexts” (Schneider & Barron 2008: 18) and include region, social class, ethnicity, gender, and age (and possibly education and religion; ­Barron & Schneider 2009: 426); and micro-social factors, which “may change from situation to situation” and include relational variables such as power and distance, and style (Schneider & Barron 2008: 18). As for pragmatic variation, this may be located at any one of five different levels of analysis (Schneider & Barron 2008: 19–21). At the formal level, variation is found among linguistic forms such as discourse markers, hedges, and upgraders, which can convey different communicative functions in discourse. At the actional level, the emphasis is on speech acts and their realization and modification in terms of directness and politeness. The interactional level deals with the organization of speech acts into larger sequences of discourse (adjacency pairs, conversational openings and closings), while the topic level deals with the contents of these larger sequences and how they are both selected and managed. Finally, at the organizational level, local sequential patterns involving turn-taking phenomena are addressed. The methodologies and datasets used in Variational Pragmatics are equally varied, and can include the analysis of corpora, naturally occurring conversations, elicited conversations, role plays, sociolinguistic interviews, and questionnaires (Barron & Schneider 2009: 431). As Barron and Schneider (2009) point out, “it is not essential which particular theory or methodology is adopted. What is, however, really crucial for variational pragmatics is that varieties of a language are contrasted” (p. 429). This methodological pluralism, so to speak, is in sharp



Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics 

contrast with the strict adherence to the five stages of a variationist project by the studies discussed earlier, and is another important point that distinguishes these two kinds of studies. But perhaps in view of the difficulties implementing the variationist project in the case of pragmatic variation, especially difficulties circumscribing the scope of the pragmatic variable and the variable context briefly outlined above and more extensively discussed in Terkourafi (2011), this is not surprising. Thus, while in earlier expositions Variational Pragmatics appeared to be variationist in its orientation (cf. Terkourafi 2011: 356–357), in later work, the authors clarify that “the terms ‘variable’ and ‘variant’ are used and defined in variational pragmatics more loosely than in variationist work” (Schneider 2010: 251). Specifically, Schneider (2010) suggests that “in this framework, a pragmatic variable is ‘that which varies’ on the pragmatic level across varieties of the same language, and the respective variants are the options available of which different social groups of speakers make use” (p. 251). This definition is in line with ­Kiesling’s (2011) more recent suggestion, cited earlier, to define the linguistic variable as “a choice or option about speaking in a speech community” (pp. 16–17; original emphasis) – which, in turn, is arguably as close as we can hope to get, within the variationist project, to defining the linguistic variable in such a way that it may be used to analyze pragmatic or discourse variation. However, even this kind of definition becomes problematic when dealing with more elusive types of discourse variables, such as speech acts (Kiesling 2011: 163). The reason for this failure, so far as variationists like Kiesling are concerned, is that, in principle, most speech acts could occur anywhere in a conversation,8 making it impossible to circumscribe the possible contexts of occurrence of the act (i.e. the variable context), such that we may then be able to locate them in the data and find out whether the speech act did indeed occur as expected and in what form. Nevertheless, this could be less of a problem for Variational Pragmatics, which, as Schneider (2010) explains, is not as strictly bound by a variationist methodology as a “variationist pragmatics” would be.9 In other words, Variational Pragmatics seems to be poised

8.  Greetings exchanged at the start of a conversation, acceptances or refusals after offers and invitations, thanks after congratulations, and generally any act made “conditionally relevant” (Schegloff 1968: 1083) by a preceding act, would be the exception here. Still, the majority of speech acts are not similarly constrained and could in principle occur anywhere, especially since conversationalists can introduce new topic threads, interweave topics, or interject a speech act at any time. 9.  Drawing attention to its name, Schneider (2010) notes that “it is not sheer coincidence that variational pragmatics is called variational pragmatics and not variationist pragmatics. The name actually chosen points to the fact that variational pragmatics is not considered only as an extension of or addition to variationist sociolinguistics” (p. 251).

 Marina Terkourafi

to risk the ire of the Scylla of sociolinguistics in order to appease the Charybdis of pragmatics. To illustrate how this looser definition of the linguistic variable can be used to analyze pragmatic variation, Schneider (2010) furnishes three examples. At the actional level, the variable is a speech act (e.g. a request) and sameness is defined in illocutionary terms.10 A variable at the interactional level would be conversational openings, in which case sameness would be defined positionally. Finally, at the formal level, the variables are linguistic forms (Schneider’s example is the discourse marker ‘well’), and sameness is defined as “identity of form” (2010: 251–252). The problem in all three cases is that this more liberal interpretation of the pragmatic variable treats pragmatic meanings such as illocutionary force, or particular discourse functions, as pre-existent and isomorphic across situations, and so has the effect of decontextualizing these pragmatic meanings and treating them as given rather than as emergent in context. Simply put, it relies on the assumption that the analysts can define what constitutes, for instance, a request outside of particular contexts, so that they may then use that definition as a ‘yardstick’ to identify actual occurrences of requests in the data.11 This assumption is problematic for several reasons. To start with, the clear failure of the Literal Force Hypothesis (Levinson 1983: 264–268)12 has shown that this determination cannot be made on linguistic grounds (alone). This led to two alternatives: on the one hand, philosophicallyinspired accounts (Searle 1975) proposed to break down speech acts analytically into felicity conditions, which combine in different ways to produce different speech acts; on the other hand, computationally-inspired ones (Cohen & Perrault

10.  Schneider (2010) actually suggests that realizations of the same speech act may also be propositionally and situationally the same (p. 251). However, it seems to me that propositional and situational sameness are inconsequential to defining various speech act realizations as variants of the same act. On the one hand, regarding propositional sameness, many speech act realizations (imperatives, interrogatives) cannot be fully described in propositional terms (they do not express truth-evaluable propositions); while, on the other hand, with respect to situational sameness, whatever variation in speech act realization is uncovered while the rest of the situation is kept constant, is likely to be intra-individual and hence of little relevance to the goals of Variational Pragmatics, especially the goal of contrasting (regional) varieties of the same language (Barron & Schneider 2009: 429). 11.  Kiesling (2011) seems to be making the same assumption when he writes: “how can we say at any moment whether a speaker has the option to give a compliment or not? In essence we are forced to assume that a compliment is possible at any time” (p. 163). 12.  The “Literal Force Hypothesis” (Sadock 1974) refers to the view that there is a simple form: force correlation.



Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics 

1979; Perrault & Allen 1980) put forward plan-based analyses that treat speech acts as plans to achieve particular goals. However, both of these types of accounts seem to fall prey to the fallacy that, as Levinson (1983) put it, “illocutions are […] finite in kind,” when “perlocutions are clearly not so in principle; and there seems to be no clear reason why what is a perlocution in one culture may not be an illocution in another” (p. 241).13 Except perhaps for the three types of speech acts – saying, telling and asking – that seem to be universally grammaticalized into declarative, imperative, and interrogative sentence types respectively (­ Sperber & Wilson 1995: 246; but see Levinson 1983: 242), it seems hard to propose definitions of speech acts that are valid across communities. As Sweetser’s (1987) insightful analysis of the act of lying has shown,14 what counts as a lie is subject to variation both within and across cultures and so is best represented as a prototypically structured category rather than as one defined with recourse to a set of individually necessary and jointly sufficient (felicity) conditions. This means that, contrary to what Schneider (2010) asserts, illocutionary sameness is not available to the analyst before analysis of the data has begun but must be empirically established each time within particular discourses and communities of practice (p. 251). As a result, delimiting the pragmatic variable (that is, identifying what is and what isn’t a possible realization of the variable) may well be possible only after analysis of the data has been completed. Even then, we may still end up with only a partial delimitation of the scope of the variable, since, in the case of speech acts at least, the list of possible realizations of a speech act is open-ended, and new creative realizations may arise at any time.15 A similar point can be made with regard to variables at the formal level of analysis. To claim that occurrences of ‘well’ in discourse constitute variants of the same variable on the basis of identity of form alone is to forget that ‘well’ is defined as a discourse marker on the basis of both form and function taken together. Furthermore, it fails to acknowledge the possibility that the form ‘well’ may realize either the adverbial of degree or the discourse marker – or, admittedly more 13.  Felicity condition-based accounts have additionally been criticized for being arbitrarily motivated (e.g. Ballmer & Brennestuhle 1981; Recanati 1987; Vanparys 1996). 14.  The 2009 film “The invention of lying” (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invention_of_Lying/) nicely illustrates the fact that lying is indeed a particular type of speech act. 15.  This is in effect another way of stating Levinson’s (1983) assertion that perlocutions are infinite (p. 241), or indeed Wittgenstein’s (1953/1958) dictum that “There are […] countless different kinds of use of what we call “symbols”, “words”, “sentences”. And this multiplicity is not something fixed, given once for all; but new types of language, new language-games, as we may say, come into existence and others become obsolete and get forgotten” (Wittgenstein 1953/1958, §23; emphasis added).

 Marina Terkourafi

rarely so, potentially both (as in exchanges of the type: A: ‘How are you doing?’ B: ‘Well…’) – depending on context. If that is correct, then isolating occurrences of the discourse marker ‘well’ in order to study how it is distributed across a community of speakers must rely on a form/function combination; identity of form alone will not do. Alas, the Charybdis of pragmatics is looming large. This critique extends beyond the treatment of pragmatic entities, to the way Variational Pragmatics proposes to treat macro-social factors such as gender, social class, ethnicity and so on. Although its proponents go to pains to acknowledge the socially-constructed nature of these factors (Barron & Schneider 2009: 431; cf. Schneider 2010: 247–248),16 in the end they are forced to admit that “it is rather a challenging task to investigate them as such” (Barron & Schneider 2009: 431). They therefore conclude, following Cheshire’s (2002) recommendations for gender, that “to enhance comparability, it is recommended to actually focus on sex rather than gender, because sex is much more easily identifiable” (ibid.). While this might seem like a reasonable solution to the problem of operationalizing gender for sociolinguistic research (but see Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 2003: 10–13, and the research cited therein, for problems with this view), more contentious is their suggestion that “at least in the initial stages of variational pragmatics, this type of reductionism seems useful, if not inevitable […and] it applies not only to gender but, in fact, to all macro-social factors considered in this framework [i.e. age, social class, ethnicity, and region; MT]” (Barron & Schneider 2009: 432, emphasis added; cf. Schneider 2010: 248). Not only does this move go against at least two decades of sociolinguistic research, which has strived to break free from the social determinism of earlier work (Cameron 1990), but it also raises the question, as Eelen (2001) put it, of “who knows best” (pp. 150–153). It is one thing (and possibly inevitable) to agree to “categorize speakers in the same, albeit simplistic, way” (Cheshire 2002: 425), and quite another to consider that the analyst is best placed to carry out this task. Especially in communities to which the analysts are outsiders, their ‘simplistic’ categorizations of people risk being way off the mark. The Scylla of sociolinguistics is rearing its ugly head once again.

16.  A couple of their assertions are, nevertheless, problematic in this respect. First, their claim that “each of these factors has an impact on language” (Barron & Schneider 2009: 427; emphasis added) appears to reify these factors and to align itself with the one-way “­language-reflects-society” view aptly ‘demythologized’ by D. Cameron (1990). More seriously, the assertions that macro-social factors “remain relatively stable across situations and contexts” (Schneider & Barron 2008: 18) and “concern individual speakers” (Barron & Schneider 2009: 427) appear to deny the relational and negotiated nature of these factors that the authors themselves go on to defend four pages later (2009: 431).



Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics 

2.  Sailing toward calmer waters The upshot of this discussion is that pragmatic entities such as speech acts and discourse markers or, for that matter, macro-social factors such as gender and ethnicity, are not just socially constructed in context: they are discursively constructed between speaker and addressee and are ‘owned’ by neither. Moreover, they are not a matter of linguistic form or of the speaker’s intention alone; nor can they be objectively measured. Exactly because they are enabled at the nexus of (language/ social) agency with (language/social) structure, they do not exist wholly independent of, or prior to, the particular interactions during which they emerge. What enhances chances of successful communication (although it does not guarantee it) is that, through acculturation, speaker and addressee share enough background to ‘read’ what the other one is trying to achieve. The expression “it takes two to tango” is opportune in this respect. Any tango novice has experienced the feeling that her partner is trying to accomplish a certain move – except she does not know what move that is and how to respond to it. As she becomes more familiar with the dance, she learns to ‘decipher’ those signals and to provide appropriate responses. By the time she is a seasoned dancer, this ‘dialogue’ happens effortlessly, with very little conscious processing or wondering about what move her partner is trying to achieve. Although we tend to forget the amount of ‘practice’ that goes into it since our earliest days, conversation works very much the same way. This ethnomethodologically-oriented critique has prompted some theorists to advocate against quantitative analysis (Eelen 2001: 141–158), or to reject the possibility of a predictive theory of language use altogether (Watts 2003: 25). However, that need not be a foregone conclusion. While it may not be possible to define pragmatic entities such as speech acts in a decontextualized or ‘top-down’ way, based, for instance, on their form, the felicity conditions that they meet, or the plans they realize, a post facto or ‘bottom-up’ definition is still possible. The same applies to the macro-social factors correlating with the distribution of pragmatic variants across contexts, which lies at the heart of the study of pragmatic variation. In the sections that follow, I outline some methodological steps that can help us move in this direction. 2.1  Operationalizing pragmatic notions for pragmatic variation research A post facto or ‘bottom-up’ definition of speech acts may be proposed based on the notion of ‘uptake.’ In Doing Things with Words, Austin (1962) introduces this as follows: “An effect must be achieved on the audience if the illocutionary act is to be carried out. [...] Generally the effect amounts to bringing about the understanding of the meaning and of the force of the locution. So the performance of

 Marina Terkourafi

an illocutionary act involves the securing of uptake” (pp. 116–117). It is clear from this definition that Austin thought of the uptake as a mental act, constitutive of the speech act itself as much as the speaker’s own contribution. Similarly, for Clark (1996: 198), the addressee’s uptake constitutes the second part of an act jointly performed by the speaker and the addressee. While the uptake may thus be a mental act, its externalization (verbal or non verbal) constitutes evidence of the addressee’s understanding of the speaker’s utterance (Clark 1996: 200) and can help us identify the type of speech act that has taken place, a process elsewhere referred to as “validation through ‘next turn’” (Peräkylä 1997: 209). As Goffman (1976) writes, “what is available to the student (as also to the actual participant) is not the possibility of predicting forward from a statement to a reply – as we might a cause to its effects – but rather quite a different prospect, that of locating in what is said now the sense of what it is a response to” (p. 279). Goffman goes on to note the importance of the addressee’s perception of the phrasal stress, facial gestures, and body orientation of the speaker in determining his understanding of her utterance. This information, as well as the addressee’s background knowledge about the situation at hand, is made available to us through his uptake. An uptake-based definition of speech acts would begin by locating in discourse, not the utterance or sequence of utterances thought to be realizing a particular speech act, but rather the addressee’s subsequent response that provides evidence that a particular speech act has been accomplished, and then look at the preceding discourse and surrounding context to identify the combination of form and context that made this particular interpretation possible. In other words, this approach turns the whole enterprise on its head by starting from the view that: what is responded to as a certain kind of speech act (e.g. a request), counts as that kind of act. Only after having identified the prior discourse as realizing, say, a request in this ‘roundabout’ way, would we then look at its linguistic realization and search for the particular combination of form and context that enabled the interpretation we were subsequently able to observe in the addressee’s uptake. Finally, by repeating this process over large datasets, we may be able to identify form/context combinations that regularly enable the perception of the same act on different occasions.17 The discovery of systematic pragmatic variation in this bottom-up, empirical fashion should be what motivates our analyses of the social distribution of particular acts.

17.  Thus, while clearly inspired by CA techniques, the analysis proposed here differs from Conversation Analysis in not precluding the possibility of quantifying over contexts (on the relevant notion of context, see the next section).



Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics 

Working our way backwards from the hearer’s response to the speaker’s intention as outlined above has the advantage of not “tak[ing] hearer judgments for granted” – a criticism leveled at complex statistical analysis by Eelen (2001: 157) – since in this methodology hearer judgments are what drive the identification of particular speech acts in the first place. It may of course be objected, at this point, that hearer judgments are not always made explicit in subsequent discourse. An uptake-based definition of speech acts would then run the risk of unduly limiting our data to only those acts that are explicitly acknowledged. That is not true for two reasons. To begin with, recall that the externalization of the hearer’s uptake may be verbal or non-verbal. That is, the hearer may acquiesce to a request simply by carrying out the act requested.18 In the case of compliments, a smile may be enough evidence that a compliment has been perceived. While this clearly places some restrictions on the type of data that may be used in this type of analysis (see also Goffman 1976, cited above, and below), it is not an argument against it. What is more, acknowledgement of a speech act may be explicit or implicit. Speech acts are implicitly acknowledged when subsequent discourse contains evidence that they have been incorporated into the interlocutors’ common ground – in other words, that the context has been updated with their effects (Gazdar 1981). Examples abound in spoken corpora (e.g. A: ‘Can you meet on Thursday?’ B: ‘3pm?’). More generally, it is possible to say that a speech act has been achieved when subsequent discourse does not contain evidence that it has not been achieved, for instance, evidence of a misunderstanding. While the availability of richly annotated data and careful reading of the conversational transcript are therefore necessary for an uptake-based definition of speech acts, explicit linguistic acknowledgement of the act is not. Further to not pre-empting hearer judgments, the methodology outlined above does not one-sidedly prioritize them either, since the final analysis takes into account, in addition to the hearer’s uptake, the speaker’s prior linguistic contribution and the context. The whole purpose of quantitative analysis is in this case to uncover correlations between particular form/context combinations and the speech-act interpretations enabled by them. By searching for canonical interpretations of particular linguistic expressions in context, this methodology can also help us identify speech-act interpretations that are creative and new, which

18.  An uptake-based definition of requests, however, does not only take successful requests into account. The difference between ‘felicity’ and ‘success’ of an act is relevant here: a request that is granted is both felicitous and successful; however, one that is refused is still felicitous but not successful. In this case, the listener’s refusal to carry out the request is our evidence that he understood the speaker’s utterance as a request in the first place.

 Marina Terkourafi

will show up as ‘outliers’ during the analysis. In this way, while not denying the potential multifunctionality of all utterances, this methodology can help us distinguish between conventionalized speech-act interpretations of linguistic expressions on the one hand, and their creative exploitations on the other, affording us some insight into the shared norms of a community. In other words, it can enable us to uncover the kinds of socially distributed pragmatic conventions (or, “­utterance-type meanings”; Levinson 1995 and above) that we are concerned with in the study of pragmatic variation. The bottom-up methodology outlined above is one possible answer to the problem of operationalizing discursively-constructed pragmatic notions such as speech acts for quantitative sociolinguistic work. Clearly, however, it also places some constraints on the types of data that can be used. Specifically, the requirement for access to the hearer’s uptake and, beyond that, to extra-linguistic features of the context including facial expressions and body orientation, means that only conversational data, where both speaker and addressee contributions are readily available, are appropriate for this type of analysis. Moreover, in order to have a record of all the possible forms of the addressee’s (verbal, non-verbal, or indeed implicit) uptake, video-recorded data are preferable (cf. Terkourafi 2005a: ­247–248).19 These limitations on the data collection process are stricter than what has been previously envisaged within Variational Pragmatics (Barron & Schneider 2009: 431; see also above), but are necessary to do justice to the discursivity of pragmatic notions such as speech acts and to avoid treating them as somehow inherent in the linguistic forms that realize them. At the same time, as Schneider (2010) rightly observes, the study of pragmatic variation “must not be limited to an examination of speech acts alone” (p. 246). It remains to be seen whether the methodology outlined above, which was first applied in Terkourafi (2001) to a spoken corpus of naturally occurring conversations in Cypriot Greek, can be extended to account for other types of pragmatic variation, and what adjustments need to be made for that. 2.2  Operationalizing macro-social factors for pragmatic variation research A second challenge to the study of pragmatic variation, as discussed earlier, lies in the wish to investigate the distribution of pragmatic meanings across social contexts while paying more than lip service to the fact that macro-social factors such as gender, ethnicity, and so on are themselves discursively constructed. I believe

19.  In addition to spontaneous conversation, a range of data collection methodologies ­including role-plays, map-task, and sociolinguistic interviews meet these requirements.



Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics 

that the notion of a ‘minimal context’ (Terkourafi 2005b, 2009) can be useful in this respect. Theoretically, the idea of a minimal context stems from the insight that, processing-wise, it is possible to distinguish between two types of contextual information, based on when each type becomes available during the utterance interpretation process. Information about macro-social variables such as g­ ender, age, social class, ethnicity, and region is fixed (presumptively, if necessary) at speech onset on the basis of the available information in order to get on with the task at hand. By contrast, an expression’s surrounding linguistic context, intonational, facial, paralinguistic, and other idiosyncratic clues that accompany its realization, are in principle not available until after speech onset and unfold in parallel with the utterance (cf. Fitneva & Spivey 2005: 318). As a result, these two types of contextual information can take on different roles during the interpretation process. The first set of contextual parameters, which jointly constitute a ‘minimal context’, can serve to enhance speed by channeling interpretation toward previously achieved outcomes, acting as a short-cut to a presumed interpretation. The second set of contextual parameters, which we may call an utterance’s ‘fully actualized’ or ‘nonce’ context, checks this presumed interpretation and updates the context with the perlocutionary effects actually achieved by the speaker’s utterance. Initial evidence that interactions are routinely carried out on the assumption that these macro-social factors have been fixed comes from observation. Consider the awkwardness of realizing that the person you are talking to on the phone is an elderly lady rather than a child, as you had mistakenly thought, judging from the high-pitched voice at the other end of the line; or that the person that you are interacting with is a man rather than a woman, as you had wrongly assumed based on the person’s name. It seems to me that the embarrassment experienced in such situations is evidence of the fact that setting these parameters one way biases the entire interpretation process in a certain direction. Once the mistake is realized, it is necessary not only to re-set these parameters to their correct values, but also to re-interpret previous discourse, withdrawing all those inferences derived on mistaken premises.20 In other words, what these situations suggest is that we ‘hear’ different speakers differently, depending on our previous assumptions about their gender, age, ethnicity, and so on. We have here, then, a motivation for fixing these

20.  This kind of mismatch can prompt what Fox (1987) called “interactional reconstruction.” However, the mismatch discussed here adds the interesting possibility that interactional reconstruction might be triggered not so much by subsequent linguistic input but rather by a resetting of relevant social parameters.

 Marina Terkourafi

macro-social factors as early on in interaction as reasonably possible based on whatever data are available to us. The primacy of the first set of contextual parameters receives further support from research in language acquisition, which has shown that, by age four, children have begun to pay attention to the categories of gender, age, and profession (the latter being one determinant of social class), as attested by their talking differently to mothers versus fathers, adults, or peers versus younger addressees, and nurses versus doctors (Clark 2004: 573–576). During my own fieldwork I found that, when explicitly asked, participants spontaneously bring up the macro-social factors of gender and age as explanatory of their behavior, suggesting that these factors are intuitively graspable and correspond to their own internalized (or, emic) categories. Thus by building on those factors that are psychologically treated as primes by the participants themselves, the distinction between the two types of contextual information introduced above satisfies not only Occam’s injunction not to multiply entities beyond necessity, but also the ethnomethodological requirement to take “as a starting point of departure for the analysis of context the perspective of the participant(s) whose behavior is being analyzed” (Goodwin & Duranti 1992: 4). A number of observations must be made here. To begin with, the temporal priority of the macro-social factors that jointly constitute a minimal context is made possible by the fact that these factors are routinely fixed on the basis of background knowledge combined with the available sense data. However, this does not mean that these factors do not remain constantly open to revision – albeit at a cost, as described above – in light of incoming information. In other words, the distinction between minimal and nonce contexts builds on the notion of ‘fast and frugal heuristics’ that also underlies Levinson’s (1995: 200) discussion of generalized versus particularized conversational implicatures. Thus, acknowledging the automaticity of these ascriptions far from denies their socio-cultural basis. How individuals are assigned to genders, age groups, social classes, ethnicities, and regions, as well as how many genders, age groups, social classes, ethnicities, or regions are potentially distinguished, are irreducibly social matters.21 As such, they rely on a process of acculturation, akin to developing the set of “nonrepresentational mental capacities that enable all representing to take place,” which Searle (1994) refers to as “the background” (p. 143).

21.  For instance, it is well known that ethnicity ascriptions are more fine-grained in the US than in Europe, and that regional origin is ascribed with greater detail for speakers in neighboring areas compared with those in faraway parts of the world.



Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics 

In cognitive linguistic terms, the relationship between an utterance and its surrounding context has been likened to that between figure and ground (­Goodwin & Duranti 1992: 9). However, if the above description of the way a minimal context is shaped by and out of the background is accurate, it seems more appropriate to conceive of this relationship as a three-way one, between an utterance, a minimal context, and a background, whereby an organic relationship exists not just between utterance (figure) and minimal context (ground), but also between minimal context (ground) and background. The background, in other words, will always ‘color’ minimal context, and similar minimal contexts will presuppose similar backgrounds. A nice illustration of this point is found in Goodwin’s (1996) term “transparent vision,” which refers to the seemingly obvious, unmediated understanding of scenes and events that actually goes through several stages of “seeing,” all equally “thoroughly social,” such that, in the end, “transparent vision is very much a crafted object” (p. 382; emphasis added). Arising in this way, the m ­ acro-social factors jointly constituting a minimal context are at once constructed and objective (Sbisà 2002): they are not subjective individual mental constructs. Rather, they both arise with reference to perceptual data, and are constrained by social feedback. Barsalou (1999) proposed a cognitive framework for describing the process whereby symbolic representations can emerge from perceptual input. During this process, frequently experienced patterns of interaction give rise to symbolic representations available for propositional manipulation. Because of this, the resulting representations are neither impoverished with respect to the original input, nor reducible to it. This framework can be usefully adapted to describe the process by which a potentially unlimited body of socio-cultural knowledge is shaped into a limited set of macro-social factors that are psychologically experienced as primes by the participants themselves. Crucially, these macro-social factors are too abstract to be directly experienced in isolation; rather, they are always c­ o-instantiated in the perceptual and other data available. As a result, the symbolic representations of these factors that emerge from these data are also constrained by their perceptual co-presence. This is especially important because it means that the content of these macro-social factors will vary across minimal contexts rather than be fixed once and for all. Sociolinguistic work on gender has argued convincingly that definitions of gender do not remain stable across contexts but are rooted in particular communities of practice (e.g. Bucholtz 1999; Holmes 1997). The notion of minimal context is of special value in this respect, because it allows us to do justice to the observed context-dependence of the macro-social factors involved. Within a minimal context, these macro-social factors are defined relative to, rather than independent of, one another. This parallels Kiesling’s (2011) observation about linguistic variants; namely that “while there

 Marina Terkourafi

may be some central vague meanings to different variants, they are realized only in particular contexts and […] these contexts interact to create a unique meaning in each interaction” (p. 114). In conclusion, the notion of a minimal context can be a useful methodological tool for describing the distribution of pragmatic meanings across social contexts while acknowledging the variability in emic definitions of the macro-social factors used in traditional variation research. At the same time, as with the uptake-based definition of speech acts discussed earlier, this notion brings with it some requirements and questions of its own. To begin, using minimal contexts to analyze pragmatic variation means that the distribution of pragmatic meanings will now be described in relation to minimal contexts rather than in relation to any of the individual macro-social factors that jointly co-constitute these minimal contexts taken in isolation. In other words, the correlations we are now seeking to establish are first and foremost between pragmatic meanings and their minimal contexts of occurrence,22 rather than between pragmatic meanings and macro-social factors directly. If a stronger association between a pragmatic meaning and one of these macro-social factors is to be further claimed, this must be empirically established at a later stage through a comparison of minimal contexts rather than independently of such a comparison. This methodological move shifts the unit of explanation for pragmatic variation from individual macro-social factors to minimal contexts, and while association between a pragmatic meaning and a particular macro-social factor cannot in principle be excluded, it cannot to be directly established either. Further to this requirement for what we might call a more ‘holistic’ approach to the study of pragmatic variation, the notion of a minimal context raises a number of questions that can only be settled via empirical research. In this chapter, I have deliberately avoided specifying the precise number and identity of the macro-social factors that jointly co-constitute a minimal context. This is because, while I expect that pragmatic meanings that vary in an orderly fashion will always do so in relation to a minimal context, I also expect that the precise make-up

22.  In Terkourafi (2001, 2005a), I use the term ‘frame’ to refer to a stereotypical data structure that combines information about a limited set of contextual parameters with information about the appropriate use of language therein but with all other specificities removed. In other words, another way of defining a frame is as a combination of a minimal context, as defined here, with a linguistic construction (in the sense of Goldberg 1995). For excellent review and different applications of frames as ‘structures of expectations’ to pragmatic variation research, see Koike (this volume), and Blyth (this volume). A different understanding of (lexicogrammatical) frames is used by Compernolle & Williams (this volume), which is closer to my use of the term ‘construction’ above.



Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics 

of these m ­ inimal contexts will be different on different occasions. In Terkourafi (1999, 2001), I considered the macro-social factors of ethnicity, gender, age, and social class, along with the micro-social factors of situational role and setting in searching for systematic patterns of variation in the realization of diminution and of offers and requests in Cypriot Greek. While these factors considered jointly proved generally adequate to account for these pragmatic variation phenomena in Cypriot Greek, this does not entitle us to assume that their explanatory value will extend to other communities or even to other pragmatic phenomena in the same community. Rather, the ethnomethodological critique presented earlier compels us to begin this investigation anew each time, noting the co-occurrence of those ­macro-social factors that ethnographic research leads us to believe might be significant (i.e. manipulated as primes by participants) in the community at hand. Although painstakingly detailed, only this kind of bottom-up investigation offers some guarantee against taking these macro-social factors for granted, while at the same time affording us an empirical basis to study them in a principled fashion. 3.  Conclusion I have discussed two distinct directions that have emerged in discussions of pragmatic variation in the literature in recent years.23 The first direction applies theoretical pragmatic notions to morphosyntactic (or grammatical) variation, which it analyzes by adopting a rigorous variationist methodology (e.g. Cameron & Schwenter forthcoming). The second direction, more recently known under the rubric of Variational Pragmatics, locates variation in the distribution of pragmatic conventions across macro-social dimensions such as gender, ethnicity, and especially region, and proposes ways in which this type of variation can be studied (e.g. Schneider & Barron 2008; Barron & Schneider 2009; Schneider 2010). As their proponents admit, these are two different projects: they differ not only in terms of the methodologies they adopt but also in terms of the types of variation they consider. Firmly grounded in the variationist sociolinguistic tradition, analyses ­falling under the first direction are interested not in pragmatic conventions per se but rather in how grammatical conventions vary under different pragmatic constraints. Although methodologically robust, these analyses allow only a ­limited (­ explanatory) role for pragmatics and so engage with a different and more

23.  Other directions are of course also available, some of which are also illustrated in the current volume.

 Marina Terkourafi

restricted range of phenomena than what Variational Pragmatics hopes to engage with. Moreover, they make no systematic attempt to relate these pragmatic explanations to macro-social categories such as region, age, gender, and so on. In other words, analyses of this type seem more interested in linguistic rather than social constraints on pragmatic variation. Thus, they leave issues of genuine variation in the pragmatic conventions of different communities arguably untouched. More recently, a different direction in the analysis of pragmatic variation has emerged from within the ranks of pragmatics itself, under the rubric of Variational Pragmatics and inspired by the teaching of pragmatics in the foreign language classroom. Proponents of this second line of research advocate for the need to study the pragmatic conventions of varieties of the same language in order to raise awareness of the possibility of divergence between them. In addition to its descriptive value, then, this approach has distinct pedagogical implications. There is no doubt that variation in pragmatic conventions (understood as variation in the pragmatic meaning of particular forms, as well as variation in speech act realization, politeness routines, topic management, and turn-taking) exists, and that such variation correlates with macro-social factors such as region, gender, age, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity. However, in order to draw quantitative correlations between them, this approach can easily appear to be reifying the phenomena on either side of this equation. Speech acts, as much as gender or class assignments, are discursively constructed: what constitutes a ‘compliment,’ or ‘being a woman’ can be different from one situation to the next. This ethnomethodological critique is one that Variational Pragmatics must address seriously in order to overcome the skepticism that quantitative approaches to variation have faced in the past (cf. Eelen 2001). In searching for a way forward that engages with issues of genuine pragmatic variation yet does not treat the relevant pragmatic notions and macro-social factors as objectively given, I outlined a bottom-up methodology that seeks to extract context-sensitive definitions of pragmatic notions and of macro-social factors from the data itself. As far as pragmatic notions such as speech acts are concerned, definitions that capitalize on the addressee’s uptake – that is the addressee’s understanding of the speaker’s utterance – represent a promising way forward. Such definitions circumvent the difficulties with previously attempted theoretical definitions and include both speaker and addressee contributions in the definition of the act. Of course, uptake-based definitions impose a requirement for conversational, if possible, video-recorded data, while it remains to be seen whether they can be extended to pragmatic phenomena beyond speech acts. Context-sensitive definitions of macro-social factors such as gender, age, social class, ethnicity, and region, on the other hand, can emerge by gradually abstracting away from the minimal contexts over which pragmatic meanings are distributed. Minimal ­contexts



Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics 

are, in other words, what pragmatic meanings, in the first instance, correlate with, with the possibility that a further correlation between a certain pragmatic meaning and a particular macro-social factor may be established as a second-order one. By allowing for macro-social factors to be defined relative to each other rather than in isolation, minimal contexts thus represent an improvement over previous decontextualized definitions of these macro-social factors. At the same time, the notion of a minimal context is itself new and clearly in need of further refinement and elaboration in the light of future empirical studies. When it comes to the study of pragmatic variation, as this volume and the many conferences recently dedicated to this topic attest, one thing is certain: variation in the pragmatic plane has finally made it to the forefront and exciting new developments can be expected as a result. Both types of studies reviewed in this chapter should be credited for this happy turn of events.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank César Félix-Brasdefer who encouraged me to write this chapter, and ­Richard Cameron for insightful comments on a previous draft. All errors remain my own.

References Austin, J.L. 1962. How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bach, K. 1994. Semantic slack: what is said and more. In Foundations of Speech Act Theory, S. Tsohatzidis (ed.), 267–291. London/New York: Routledge Ballmer, T. & Brennenstuhl, W. 1981. Speech Act Classification: A Study in the Lexical Analysis of Speech Activity Verbs. Berlin: Springer. Barron, A. & Schneider, K.P. 2009. Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(4): 425–442. Barsalou, L. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 577–660. Bucholtz, M. 1999. Bad examples: Transgression and progress in language and gender studies. In Reinventing Identities: The Gendered Self in Discourse, M. Bucholtz, AC. Liang & L. ­Sutton (eds), 3–26. Oxford: OUP. Cameron, D. 1990. Demythologizing sociolinguistics. In Ideologies of Language, J. Joseph & T. Taylor (eds), 79–93. London: Routledge. Cameron, R.1995. The scope and limits of switch reference as a constraint on pronominal subject expression. Hispanic Linguistics 6(7): 1–27. Cameron, R. 2007. Three approaches to finding the social in the linguistic. In Selected ­Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, J. Holmquist, A. Lorenzino & L. Sayahi (eds), 1–22. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Cameron, R. & Flores Ferrán, N. 2004. Perseveration of subject expression across regional ­dialects of Spanish. Spanish in Context 1: 41–65.

 Marina Terkourafi Cameron, R. & Schwenter, S. Forthcoming. Pragmatics and Variationist Sociolinguistics. In The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics, R. Bayley, R. Cameron & C. Lucas (eds). Oxford: OUP. Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Cheshire, J. 2002. Sex and gender in variationist research. In Handbook of Language Variation and Change, J.K.Chambers, P. Trudgill & N. Schilling-Estes (eds), 423–43. Oxford: Blackwell. Clark, E. 2004. Pragmatics and language acquisition. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, L. Horn & G. Ward (eds), 562–577. Oxford: Blackwell. Clark, H.H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. Cohen, P.R. & Perrault R.C. 1979. Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science 3: 177–212. Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. 2003. Language and Gender. Cambridge: CUP. Eelen, G. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome’s Press. Erman, B. 1992. Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixed-sex interaction. Language Variation and Change 4: 217–234. Fitneva, S. & Spivey, M. 2005. Context and language processing: The effect of authorship. In Approaches to Studying World-Situated Language Use, J. Trueswell & M. Tanenhaus (eds), 317–328. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Fox, B. 1987. Interactional reconstruction in real-time language processing. Cognitive Science 11: 365–387. Gazdar, G. 1981. Speech act assignment. In Elements of Discourse Understanding, A.K. Joshi, I.A. Sag & B.L. Webber (eds), 64–83. Cambridge: CUP. Goldberg, A.E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Goffman, E. 1976. Replies and responses. Language in Society 5: 257–313. Goodwin, C. 1996. Transparent vision. In Interaction and Grammar, E. Ochs, E. Schegloff & S. Thompson (eds), 370–404. Cambridge: CUP. Goodwin, C. & Duranti, A. 1992. Rethinking context: Introduction. In Rethinking Context: ­Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds), 1–42. C ­ ambridge: CUP. Grice, H.P. 1969. Utterer’s meaning and intention. The Philosophical Review 78: 147–177. Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York NY: Academic Press. Holmes, J. 1997. Men, women and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 1(2): 195–223. Horn, L. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, D. Schiffrin (ed.), 11–42. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Kiesling, S.F. 2011. Linguistic Variation and Change. Edinburgh: EUP. Labov, W. 1966. The linguistic variable as a structural unit. Washington Linguistics Review 3: 4–22. Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell. Labov, W. 1978. Where does the linguistic variable stop? A response to Beatriz Lavandera. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 44. Austin TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Lavandera, B. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7(2): 171–82.



Between pragmatics and sociolinguistics 

Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. Levinson, S.C. 1995. Three levels of meaning. In Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons, F.R. Palmer (ed.), 90–115. Cambridge: CUP. Levinson, S.C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Perrault, C.R. & Allen, J.F. 1980. A plan-based analysis of indirect speech acts. American Journal of Computational Linguistics 6: 167–182. Peräkylä, A. 1997. Reliability and validity in research based on transcripts. In Qualitative Research, D. Silverman (ed.), 201–220. London: Sage. Placencia, M.E. 1998. Pragmatic variation: Ecuadorian Spanish vs. Peninsular Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics 2(1): 71–103. Récanati, F. 1987. Meaning and Force. Cambridge: CUP. Sadock, J. M.J.M. 1974. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York NY: Academic Press. Sbisà, M. 2002. Speech acts in context. Language and Communication 22: 421–436. Schegloff, E.A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70: 1075–1095. Schneider, K. P. 2010. Variational pragmatics. In Variation and Change: Pragmatic Perspectives [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 6], M. Fried, J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (eds), 239–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schneider, K.P. & Barron, A. 2008. Where pragmatics and dialectology meet: Introducing variational pragmatics. In Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 178], K.P. Schneider & A. Barron (eds), 1–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Searle, J. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts, P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds), 59–82. New York NY: Academic Press. Searle, J. 1994. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: CUP. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Sweetser, E. 1987. The definition of lie: An examination of the folk models underlying a semantic prototype. In Cultural Models in Language and Thought, D. Holland & N.Quinn (eds), 43–66. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Terkourafi, M. 1999. Frames for politeness: A case study. Pragmatics 9(1): 97–117. Terkourafi, M. 2001. Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A Frame-Based Approach. Ph D. dissertation, University of Cambridge. Terkourafi, M. 2005a. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 1(2): 237–262. Terkourafi, M. 2005b. Pragmatic correlates of frequency of use: The case for a notion of ‘minimal context’. In Reviewing Linguistic Thought, K. Nikiforidou, S. Marmaridou & E. Antonopoulou (eds), 209–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Terkourafi, M. 2009. On de-limiting context. In Contexts and Constructions [Constructional Approaches to Language 9], A. Bergs & G. Diewald (eds), 17–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Terkourafi, M. 2011. The pragmatic variable: Toward a procedural interpretation. Language in Society 40(4): 343–372. Torres-Cacoullos, R. &. Schwenter, S. 2008. Constructions and pragmatics:Variable middle marking in Spanish subir(se) ‘go up’ and bajar(se) ‘go down’. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1455–1477.

 Marina Terkourafi Vanparys, J. 1996. Categories and Complements of Illocutionary Verbs in a Cognitive Perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Vincent, D. & Sankoff, D. 1992. Punctors: A pragmatic variable. Language Variation and Change 4: 205–16. Walker, J. 2010. Variation in Linguistic Systems. London: Routledge. Ward, G. & Birner, B. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English [­Studies in Language Companion Series 40]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Watts, R. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. Weiner, J. & Labov, W. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19: 29–58. Weinreich, U., Labov W. & Herzog, M. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Directions for Historical Linguistics, W. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (eds), 97–195. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations, G.E.M. Anscombe, transl. Oxford: Blackwell.

chapter 11

Conclusions Methodological issues in pragmatic variation Dale A. Koike & J. César Félix-Brasdefer

University of Texas at Austin, USA / Indiana University, USA

1.  Introduction This volume has addressed the topic of pragmatic variation in various contexts and functions, offering new insights into the fields of pragmatics and discourse in both first and the second languages. Among the studies, two have used quantitative methods to approach the analysis of data (Bardovi-Harlig; Zhu & Boxer), two have used qualitative methods of analysis (Koike; Woodfield), while four others employ both types of methods in their research (Blyth; Félix-Brasdefer; F ­ lores-Ferrán; van Compernolle & Williams). While these chapters examine different dimensions of variation in first and second language contexts using empirical data in different languages, the last two chapters address exclusively methodological and theoretical issues in pragmatic variation. Cohen presents a research agenda for the analysis of social action in intercultural contexts and critically examines methods and ways of analyzing pragmatic data. The review chapter by Terkourafi presents an overview of two major approaches to pragmatic variation (variationist sociolinguistics and variational pragmatics), addressing the types of objectives and research designs that have been used to study this type of variation. The variety of methodological approaches is a positive feature of this v­ olume, since it affords the reader a greater number of dimensions by which to study the complex issue of pragmatic variation in different first- (L1) and second language (L2) contexts. The methodological issues raised in the studies, however, vary greatly, highlighting the specific problems related to the contexts and research design in each investigation encountered by the researchers. This final chapter addresses the methodological complexities found in the ten studies presented in this book. We first review the issues that were raised in the various articles, and then synthesize them to draw some implications for future study in pragmatic variation.

 Dale A. Koike & J. César Félix-Brasdefer

2.  Methodological issues highlighted in the studies As seen in Table 1, the issues of methodology identified by the authors vary greatly. We review them in two separate categories: (1) those that deal with methods of data collection; and (2) those that relate to methods of analysis. The studies are reviewed in groups by the type of investigation they represent (i.e. quantitative, qualitative, or both), and are not presented in numerical order by chapter. Table 1.  Issues raised in the various studies of this volume Author and context of variation

Object and method of study

Issues and suggested solutions

Chapter 1: Félix-Brasdefer, L1 pragmatic variation (interactions in public market encounters in Mexico)

Gender variation in request sequences, address form alternation/ Quantitative & qualitative

Data collection –– ways to do research in public ­service encounters; –– background noise in recording does not always allow phonetic analysis; –– ethnographic observation; –– need for second coder/rater; –– use of statistical programs; –– ethics and procedures for ­collecting data in natural settings.

Chapter 3: Flores-Ferrán, L1 pragmatic variation (mitigation & doctor-patient interactions at U.S. hospital [Cuban-Dominican interactions in Spanish])

Mitigation in Data collection therapeutic sessions/ –– ethical issues collecting data Mixed-methods in h ­ ospitals with discussion of approach (Quantitative ­sensitive topics; & qualitative) –– statistical methods to analyze ­pragmatic variation; –– a mixed-method approach to examine variation in pragmatics.

Chapter 2: Blyth, L1 pragmatic variation (French & U.S. students expressing opinions in two online fora)

Cross-cultural stance‑taking in online fora (CMC)/ Mixed-methods approach (Quantitative & qualitative)

Data analysis –– cultural scripts may not capture important pragmatic distinctions; –– no specified syntax for writing cultural scripts; –– intertextuality between scripts; –– difficult to determine which ­community is being addressed in online fora; –– universality of continuum; –– cultural standing model ­comprises many linguistic features; –– findings must be confirmed by a reference corpus. (Continued)

Conclusions 

Table 1.  (Continued) Author and context of variation

Object and method of study

Issues and suggested solutions

Chapter 4: Zhu & Boxer, pragmatic variation in L2 English in the speakers’ L1 setting (sociolinguistic variation in English as a lingua franca of practice in China (English corners)

Strong vs. weak disagreements conditioned by social variables/Interactional sociolinguistics; Quantitative

Data collection –– difficulty obtaining written ­consent in street recordings in China (but oral consent is given); Data transcription –– data transcribed through ­interactional sociolinguistic methods (verbal & nonverbal methods). Data analysis –– chi-square tests complemented qualitative but not enough types of disagreements (need to ­collapse categories); –– role of developing English ­proficiency important in ­individual’s participation.

Chapter 6: Koike, L2 pragmatic variation in learner-NS interactions in a foreign language setting (interviews & personal conversations)

Frame & negotiation of meaning/ Qualitative

Data collection –– secondary data from various sources may lead to lack of ­control of individual variables; –– individual conceptions of ‘frames’ not controlled; –– lack of videotaped data.

Chapter 5: Bardovi-Harlig, L1 & L2 pragmatic variation in the learners’ target culture (experimental/oral‑aural computer-delivered production task)

Conventional expressions in speech act production; pragmalinguistic & individual variation/ Quantitative

Data collection –– low-level learners have difficulty understanding what is said but understand own intentions and motivations for speaking; –– more pairings of scenarios needed to study variation; –– expand list of expressions with continued concern for ­authenticity, region, and ­occurrence as targets in ­community use. Data analysis –– safer to assume local rather than general use of conventional expressions. (Continued)

 Dale A. Koike & J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Table 1.  Issues raised in the various studies of this volume (Continued) Author and context of variation

Object and method of study

Issues and suggested solutions

Chapter 8: van Compernolle & Williams, L2 pragmatic variation in foreign language setting (Alternation of French Tu/Vous in chats)

Alternation of pronominal address forms in corpus of classroom‑based synchronous CMD/Variationist methodology: mixed-methods

Data collection –– task design should also elicit ­variable registers, levels, or ­discourse for variation across social contexts.

Variation in learner speech act perception over time/Qualitative

Data collection: –– steps to ensure valid and reliable reports; –– nature of elicitation procedure; –– future studies on a larger scale; –– separation of verbalization from task cognition.

Chapter 7: Woodfield, L2 pragmatic variation (Experimental: role plays & retrospective verbal protocols in learners’ target culture)

Data analysis: –– to explain ambiguities must use other data sources (e.g. language awareness interviews); –– limited ability of ­variationist method to delve deeply into ­pragmatic variability. –– Other approaches to ­discourse analysis might provide ­complementary support to ­pragmatic variation study.

Data analysis: –– selected language of retrospective verbal reports. Chapter 10: M. Terkourafi, Methodological issues in studying sociolinguistic and pragmatic variation

Critique of two predominant approaches to pragmatic variation

–– Proposal for a third approach based on hearer responses; –– discussion of the pragmatic variable and scope of context for studies in pragmatic variation; –– considers “minimal context” to examine co-construction of meaning in pragmatic variation.

Chapter 9: Cohen, Methodological issues in intercultural pragmatics and research methods

Research methods in intercultural contexts; task design, data collection, and analysis/Qualitative analysis

Data collection –– personality differences; –– variation in how interactions play out. Data analysis: –– what constitutes ­‘appropriateness’ in contact situations where two cultures are not separate but adopt each others’ pragmatics/ cultural patterns; –– how findings apply to other ­varieties of Spanish.

Conclusions 

As illustrated in Table 1, while some methodological issues are shared by both quantitative and qualitative studies, there are differences that can be distinguished between the two types of studies. An exclusive examination of qualitative data provides the researcher with a rigorous analysis at the discourse (e.g. Koike, Chapter 6) and perception levels (e.g. Woodfield, Chapter 7) by looking at different dimensions of pragmatic variation (e.g. frame and learner variation) with particular attention to the interlocutors’ ability to negotiate meaning as well as to their ability to reflect on their verbal reports. In these studies, the number of participants and/or units of analysis are not analyzed with regard to frequency of occurrence; instead, the researcher is often interested in meaning used to perform social (joint) actions. In contrast, a focus on quantitative analysis of the data allows the researcher to look at regularities of language use as conditioned by various sociolinguistic variables (e.g. Zhu & Boxer’s analysis of strong and weak disagreements). Here the data are often analyzed using inferential statistics. Finally, when the data are analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively, the researcher is able to complement the analysis of the results by looking at the frequency of occurrence and language use of those features in interactional contexts (e.g. van Compernolle & Williams [Chapter 8]; Flores-Ferrán [Chapter 3]). However, one should also be aware of the limitations of using a single methodology (e.g. lower degree of validity), as well as ethics, especially when collecting data in public contexts such as in public markets (Félix-Brasdefer) or institutional medical facilities (Flores-Ferrán). 2.1  Methodological issues of data collection 2.1.1  Quantitative studies Several studies based on quantitative analysis mention methodological problems related to data collection. Among those that used an exclusively quantitative methodology, Zhu and Boxer (Chapter 4), who did research based on recordings in street conditions (‘English Corners’), mention the difficulty of obtaining written consent from participants in China, although oral consent was normally granted without problems. Bardovi-Harlig (Chapter 5), who did a purely quantitative study using a computer-based production task, reports data collection issues related to complications due to language proficiency. That is, despite the fact that learners of low proficiency levels have difficulty understanding what is said to them, they do understand their own intentions and motivations for speaking, which aid in evaluating what they said. The author also reports that more pairings of scenarios would have been useful to study the pragmatic variation found in the results. Moreover, she posits that it would be beneficial in future work to expand the list of expressions used in the study while at the same time to control for authenticity, region, and occurrence in community use.

 Dale A. Koike & J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Thus the authors of this volume who used a research design that would elicit data analyzable via a quantitative methodology all comment on the difficulty of controlling all aspects of the social context in which the data collection takes place. Ranging from refusals to grant permission to be tape-recorded via written form, which may be seen as more binding and traceable in some societies, to controlling for background variables such as the participants’ level of language proficiency, the number of stimuli used in the questionnaire, and issues of quality of the stimuli such as authenticity, region, and occurrence in community use, as well as register and discourse variation, these external variables are crucial to the quality of the data yielded. Just how many factors can reasonably be controlled in a quantitative study is indeed an important consideration. This is a vital methodological challenge discussed by Zhu and Boxer (Chapter 4). Finally, in addition to the ­various factors considered in a quantitative study, the researcher needs to be aware of the theoretical framework (e.g. variationist methdology, variational pragmatics, ­interactional sociolinguistics) and appropriate method(s) used to examine variation at different levels of pragmatics (cf. Barron & Schneider 2009; Cohen [this volume] Félix-Brasdefer 2010; Kasper 2000). 2.1.2  Qualitative studies Among the qualitative studies, Koike (Chapter 6) used her own data as well as that of secondary sources, and finds the issue of using others’ data problematic if it is not possible to obtain first-hand information from the researchers who ­originally gathered data. The problem of not having videotaped as opposed to audiotaped data still represents a challenge for the lack of non-verbal ­communication that can transmit more meaning. In addition, in the case of her study on the ­cognitive conception of frames, she mentions the difficulty of representing individuals’ conceptions of frames accurately, since they can be traced only by what is said as the conversation unfolds. The two studies that made general comments on ­methodology also had some specific proposals regarding data collection. For example, Cohen (Chapter 9), in addressing research methods used in intercultural pragmatics, identifies variations in personalities as an important variable to be recognized, as well as the inevitable variation in how interactions themselves transpire. In addition, simple tasks can pose difficulties for nonnatives due to ­comprehension problems that originate in a lack of L2 pragmatic knowledge. In Chapter 7, Woodfield’s study of speech act production and retrospective perception by learners of their own speech led her to propose certain steps to follow to ensure valid and reliable post-production verbal reports, including the timing of the report either during the task or subsequent to it, immediately before or after (as in her study) several phases of the project. She also mentions how vital

Conclusions 

the nature of the retrospective elicitation procedure is; specifically, whether the retrospection is researcher- or learner-initiated, and also whether cues to elicit retrospective verbal responses are ‘focused but open-ended’ questions or some other type. The language (first or second) is also an issue to consider in the reports, since the lack of ability to verbalize comfortably in the second language may affect the report itself. The author proposes that future studies be done on a larger scale with more participants, and that the reports be collected after each audio recording, instead of after several recordings. And Terkourafi (Chapter 10), in reviewing the two most popular current approaches to the study of pragmatic variation, finds that most studies of pragmatic variation fall into one of two camps: those that examine variation in the way that pragmatic meanings are distributed according to social dimensions such as gender and ethnicity; and those that employ a variationist methodology to attribute morphosyntactic variation to pragmatic variables (see also C ­ ameron & Schwenter [forthcoming] for an in-depth review of the scope of the variationist methodology and how pragmatic variation fits in).The latter, which often focuses on some morphological or syntactic phenomenon, usually accounts for the results by referring to pragmatic explanations. The former, which basically examines the relationship between macro (e.g. gender, nationality) and micro (e.g. power, distance) social factors, and the variation of pragmatic forms, intersects also with discourse types (e.g. discourse markers, adjacency pairs, topics). Terkourafi points out that the latter approach to pragmatic variation calls for a loose definition of ‘pragmatic variable’ and tends to see them as pre-existing instead of emergent in the discourse. She points out that what studies using either framework ignore is that neither approach addresses the fact that with pragmatics used in communicating meaning, one cannot ignore the “minimal context” and the co-construction of meanings that occur between speaker and hearer. In sum, these qualitative studies point out the difficulties in controlling variables, whether they are differences in personalities, conceptualizations of abstract notions such as frames, individual differences such as motivation or proficiency level, a variable lack of pragmatic knowledge in another language, or individual learner variation at the perception level, or when dealing with second-hand data if the original author is not consulted. Cohen (Chapter  9) examines the selection of the appropriate research method(s) that is used to examine qualitative data in intercultural contexts; specifically, in cultures in conflict. These points reflect the researchers’ concerns about the ability to obtain accurate representations of what is happening in the interactions in a fine-grained analysis, and to control for ‘elusive’ variables such as individual personalities as they affect the data.

 Dale A. Koike & J. César Félix-Brasdefer

2.1.3  Quantitative/qualitative studies Some of the studies employed both quantitative and qualitative methods to ­analyze their data, which would presumably strengthen the researchers’ ability to draw conclusions based on more and varied data. Like Zhu and Boxer, who collected data in the street as participants casually participated in ‘language corners’, ­Félix-Brasdefer’s study (Chapter 1) involved the collection of data in the setting of an open-air marketplace. He identifies several issues that derived from his procedures of collecting data in such a setting, including problems of gathering natural data under uncontrollably noisy conditions and the difficulty in transcribing the data due to simultaneous transactions between two or more customers and one vendor in public places, such as this marketplace. In Felix-Brasdefer’s chapter, the qualitative data (interactional level) complemented the quantitative (descriptive) analysis (actional level) to show how the selection of requests and forms of address correlate with the gender of both the speaker and the interlocutor. Flores-Ferrán used a mixed-method approach to examine the frequency and distribution of mitigating devices in therapist-patient interactions. The qualitative analysis allowed the author to examine the distribution of the mitigators in the therapist’s and in the patients’ speech. Alternatively, the quantitative analysis provided a statistical validation with regard to the frequency of these devices in the overall sample, thus accounting for individual as well as micro-social variation (e.g. topic and the level of social distance). Finally, van Compernolle and Williams (Chapter 8) used the methodology of variationist sociolinguistics to investigate the distributional alternation of French pronominal forms Tu/Vous (Varbrul analysis & univariate statistics), complemented by a qualitative analysis of interactional patterns of (socio)­pragmatic variation of these forms. The authors used tasks designed to elicit additional information regarding variation of registers and discourse in order to see variation across different social contexts and instructional levels. In particular, they proposed extending the variationist methodology (Labov 1972) to examine (socio) pragmatic and discourse variation by looking at various issues such as the changing role of participants in the chat data and a sequential analysis of the negotiation of these forms. The authors concluded that the variationist methodology is not equipped to delve into the analysis of pragmatic variability in greater depth. Overall, the data collection problems that the aforementioned authors identify seem to highlight difficulties of controlling the environment in which they collect the data, as seen in the studies that used quantitative methods alone. These include controlling background noise in the street, the number of participants, and the need to examine interactional patterns during the negotiation of ­meaning in L1 and L2 contexts. And as mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, p ­ revious studies proposed an extension of the variationist methodology to e­xamine ­

Conclusions 

v­ ariation at the pragmatic/discourse level. These proposals, along with those of van ­Compernolle and Williams (Chapter 8) and Flores-Ferrán (Chapter 3), extend the variationist methodology to the level of pragmatic and discourse variation through the meticulous study of interactional data and micro-social factors such as the topic, the level of social distance and power, and the situation (Cheshire 2005; ­Schneider 2010; Terkourafi 2011; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes 2006: 93–101). In light of these observations, we believe that the analysis of variation at the pragmatics and discourse levels should expand the repertoire of analytic targets; that is, we need to move from the speech acts as single acts (e.g. compliments) to speech act sequences (e.g. compliment-compliment response sequence), or from the analysis of lexical and syntactic mitigation in isolated c­ ontexts to the analysis of mitigation at the discourse level and across multiple turns. 2.1.4  Methodological issues of data representation Only Zhu and Boxer mention an issue regarding the representation of the data. They found that although transcribing their data through sociolinguistic methods (both verbal and nonverbal) was time-consuming, the procedure yielded much valuable information, such as emotional reactions (e.g. smiles) that could serve functions such as mitigation. 2.2  Methodological issues of data analysis When doing the actual analysis of the data, researchers also encountered some concerns, which are addressed in this section. 2.2.1  Quantitative studies In this section we discuss five studies that examined the data quantitatively with both descriptive and inferential statistics. Zhu and Boxer (Chapter 4) found that use of a chi-square analysis complemented the qualitative analysis of some of their examples in their largely quantitative study, but this statistical measure was not adequate to measure certain types of strong disagreements. Thus the authors were obliged to collapse two of the categories (self- and other-oriented negation) together to create a new category of ‘person-oriented’ negation. They also mentioned that the English proficiency of many of the learners, which was difficult to capture due to the fluidity of the recording site (‘the English Corners’ in the street in China), was still in a variable developmental state. They suggest it might be better to use a longitudinal data collection methodology to reveal individual improvement and increase participation by each individual in the data collection process. Since no statistical significance was found to correlate with any of the seven sociolinguistic variables analyzed, perhaps other methods of statistical

 Dale A. Koike & J. César Félix-Brasdefer

s­ ignificance can be utilized to further examine correlation between the variable of strong/weak disagreement and those social variables. Next, in examining both L1 and L2 pragmatic variation, Bardovi-Harlig’s (Chapter 5) quantitative study on conventional expressions finds that it is safer to assume local rather than general use of conventional expressions. She states that reporting results quantitatively often interferes with making cross-dialectal comparisons of frequency of occurrence, but reporting non-occurrence is fairly straightforward. She also states that the targeted conventional expressions must be based on observations of actual use in the local speech community. Another issue of data analysis concerns the analysis of L1 pragmatic variation with two different populations of NSs of English: a group of undergraduate student and a second group of teachers of English. Here the data were analyzed with regard to variation in the use of conventional expressions between two groups that differ not only in age, but also in academic status across different situations. In his analysis of request sequences in public market service encounters, Félix-Brasdefer (Chapter 1) examined seven types of requests identified in ­ the market data using the proposed classification of Blum-Kulka et al. (1989). Although these strategies to perform requests were originally proposed in three levels of directness (direct, conventionally indirect, and non-conventionally indirect), the author did not rely on the categorical classification of direct or indirect requests to analyze the data. Instead, the request types were presented for each type along a continuum from direct to indirect requests. And with regard to the validity of the data, the request data were coded by two coders, the author and an assistant, to enhance the validity of the data. Cohen (2004) (and also Chapter 9 in this volume), ­Félix-Brasdefer (2010), and Roever (2004) examine issues of v­ alidity and reliability when analyzing data in interlanguage and intercultural pragmatics research, respectively. Two studies examined data using a mixed-methods approach. Van Componernolle and Williams, in studying address forms in computer-mediated interaction, claimed that other data sources, such as language awareness interviews, must be used to explain ambiguities that arise in the analysis. They also state that, given the limited ability of the variationist method to probe deeply into pragmatic variability, other approaches to discourse analysis might provide complementary findings that would clarify issues. Flores-Ferrán, in her study of mitigating devices in therapist-patient interactions, mentions ethical issues when collecting data in institutional contexts, especially because some of the topics discussed are sensitive and controversial. Thus, these five more quantitatively-oriented studies identify methodological issues of data analysis that are tied to categories of analysis. One issue relates to the need to collapse smaller categories together into fewer, more general ones in order

Conclusions 

to obtain results that could possibly achieve statistical significance (Zhu & Boxer, Chapter 4), while another questions how to capture proficiency ratings of the participants in the L2 when the learners’ encounters are fluid and temporary (Bardovi Harlig, Chapter 5). Still another relates to whether the analysis should confine its findings to a local rather than a generalized basis, and then confirm the results by observing the practices of the local community (Koike, Chapter 5). Another issue concerns the danger of categorizing requests into direct or indirect based on previous classifications originally proposed to analyze fabricated (non-interactive) data (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989). Also, in light of the controversy over direct and indirect speech acts (Huang 2007: 109–115; Márquez Reiter & Placencia 2005: 41–47), researchers should carefully adapt previous classifications to fit the nature of the data in question, taking into account the interactional consequences of the speech act event and the social context. Finally, future research should widen and deepen the analysis by relying on other sources of information, such as language interviews, ethnographic studies, unstudied contexts in pragmatic variation, as well as by considering innovative approaches (or integrative models) of discourse analysis to other issues related to pragmatic variation. 2.2.2  Qualitative studies Among the qualitative studies, Cohen’s chapter (Chapter 9), which centers on methodological issues in L2 pragmatic variability, questions what is ‘appropriate’ in language contact situations where two cultures are intertwined and adopt pragmatic and cultural practices and perspectives from each other. He also states that the analysis would need to explore the consistency and sensitivity of the pragmatic norms used by the doctors with those of the local community in which they work, and vice versa. Cohen also claims that analysis should be done with holistic ratings as well as multitrait ones that evaluate, for instance, the vocabulary, grammar, phrases, speech styles, directness, and politeness levels used to express the pragmatics by the doctors, and how the respondents perceive their utterances. Finally, the researcher would need to analyze the ability of the respondents to carry out the speech act, including the sociopragmatic acceptability of the speech act strategies and the pragmalinguistic acceptability of the language forms used, and even determining the acceptability of the pragmatic behavior and collecting verbal report data from the analysts. Other problematic areas in analysis mentioned by Cohen are how written texts are evaluated for pragmatic accuracy, and how pragmatic meaning is transmitted through tone of voice, gestures, facial expressions, or silence. On the other hand, the analysis must also acknowledge how pragmatic signals are transmitted by the speaker and interpreted by the listener. Woodfield’s study relied on qualitative data derived from a perception task. She identifies the possible problems of the language in which learners must do

 Dale A. Koike & J. César Félix-Brasdefer

their retrospective verbal reports, which could influence the quantity and quality of the learners’ language. Koike’s chapter on frames was based on purely qualitative data derived from her own data collection as well as that of another researcher, and she reports concern regarding the use of secondary sources unless the author/s of such studies can be consulted on various issues. She also mentions the need for videotaped data to verify validity of analysis. Thus these qualitative studies reveal concerns that differ from those of the quantitative studies. The researchers of the qualitative studies mention the need for tight control of many external variables that impact the quality of the data, including intercultural appropriacy, consistency and sensitivity to intercultural norms, vocabulary, grammar, phrases, speech styles, directness, and politeness levels. In the L2 qualitative studies, authors identify as possible problem sources the language (L1 or L2) in which the participants speak, the use of secondary data, and videotapes to reveal a more detailed look at the interactions. 2.2.3  Quantitative/qualitative studies Two studies that used both quantitative and qualitative methods and mention issues regarding data analysis are those of Flores-Ferrán and Blyth. Flores-Ferrán examined a variety of lexical mitigators in therapeutic discourse and these forms were analyzed according to frequency of occurrence (using inferential statistics) and in light of their placement across the doctor-interactions (qualitative analysis). Blyth, whose study relies on cultural scripts in French and English online fora, states that the scripts may not be detailed enough to capture certain pragmatic distinctions. He also points out that there really are no ‘directions’ for writing cultural scripts, so they vary from one study to the next. Moreover, he states that intertextuality occurs between different types of cultural scripts; therefore some scripts may bring out certain qualities or traits that others do not. He suggests using more than one type of script for analysis. In addition, he finds that at times it is difficult for the researcher to determine which community the writer under study is addressing online. He goes on to mention that other researchers have questioned the universality of the cultural continuum underlying the scripts, and have suggested that it be adjusted somewhat according to the community; the script should also comprise a constellation of many linguistic features. Finally, Blyth points out that the size of his data corpus is small and questions whether universalities can be drawn against it, so he suggests that the findings of smaller data sets be checked against a larger reference corpus. These two studies, based on both quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis, both raise questions regarding dimensions of the object of study itself: the language in which it is expressed, amount of detail yielded, ‘universality’ and ‘standards’ of the object, and corpus size. In the case of the online data, the ­community

Conclusions 

addressed by the participants is sometimes ambiguous. It is i­nteresting that both studies identify more methodological issues that are associated with defining more finely the object of study, which of course affect the analysis. A summary of methodological issues concerning data collection and analysis is seen in Table 2. Table 2.  Summary of methodological issues: Data collection and data analysis Issues of data collection

Issues of data analysis

Quantitative –– Difficult to control all aspects –– Issues tied to categories of studies of the social context where the a­ nalysis; e.g. collapse smaller data collection takes place, and categories together for ­significant ­individuals’ preferences; e.g. ­written results, ­capture L2 ­proficiency versus oral form of permission to ­ratings of participants when be tape-recorded in some societies, encounters are fluid and background variables such as level ­temporary; if ­findings should of language proficiency; be on a local versus generalized basis, confirm results by observing –– number of stimuli used in questionnaire; ­practices of local community; –– quality of stimuli such as –– widen analysis by relying on other sources of information and ­authenticity, region, and register. ­discourse analysis; –– instead of a categorical ­classification, the data can be ­analyzed along a continuum from the most direct/indirect to the least direct/indirect (same for other speech acts); –– inter-coder/rater reliability; i.e. at least two trained coders (in ­addition to the researcher) must code/rate and verify the data (or a subset of the data). Qualitative studies

–– Difficult to control variables; e.g. –– Difficult to control many variables personalities, conceptualizations that impact the quality of the data; of abstract notions such as frames, e.g. intercultural appropriacy, conlack of L2 pragmatic knowledge in sistency and sensitivity to interculanother language, or introversion tural norms, vocabulary, grammar, or extroversion, especially with phrases, speech styles, directness, secondhand data; and politeness levels. –– researchers’ concerns about obtaining accurate ­representations of what is happening in the ­interactions and controlling for ‘elusive’ variables such as ­individual personalities; –– timing of the retrospective ­initiation, who initiates, and ­language of report. (Continued)

 Dale A. Koike & J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Table 2.  Summary of methodological issues: Data collection and data analysis ­(Continued) Issues of data collection

Issues of data analysis

Quantitative/ –– Difficulties of controlling data –– Issues regarding dimensions of qualitative the object of study; e.g. language c­ ollection environment; e.g. studies used, amount of detail yielded, ­background noise in street, the ‘universality’ and ‘standards’ of the number of participants, and object, and corpus size, ambiguity the timing of the retrospection of target audience; ­initiation cues; –– some concerns similar to those of –– extending the ­variationist qualitative studies; e.g. focused or ­methodology to examine open-ended cues; ­pragmatic variation by means of –– difficulty in collecting videotaped complementary qualitative/ data in institutional settings, such discourse analysis of the data. as public markets or doctor-patient interactions; –– ethical issues related to study’s approval by Human Subjects; e.g. obtain/ waive consent form for customers in public settings; ­alternatively, place a sign at a visible area so that customers are aware that their interactions are being recorded for research purposes.

Table 2 reveals that issues of controlling contextual variables and the types of questionnaires and stimuli are of concern to those who work with a quantitative approach to gathering data. They mention in analyzing the data that uncertainties regarding the categories they are using and doubts about how well their data reflect those of a representative community or even those of another researcher ­(inter-rater/coder reliability) are problematic. Some also express a desire to broaden their analysis to more generalized categories, perhaps showing a c­ ontinuum of categories instead of a small number of black-or-white categories. On the other hand, those who use a qualitative paradigm are concerned with better control of variables and accurate representations of the object of study, including the timing of the data collection (e.g. in the case of retrospective data). The same control of variables is also mentioned for data analysis. The mixed-methods researchers are concerned, as in the other two approaches, with issues of contextual control (including, for example, the use of videotaping in a public setting) and the kinds of cues used in data collection. For data analysis, also like the researchers of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms, those who use mixed methods are uncertain about the dimension of their study, and whether or not they should use broader methods to confirm what they find, such as the use of discourse.

Conclusions 

It appears, then, that the quantitative issues are the opposite of the qualitative, and the mixed-methods problems show a little of both. There is no solution for perfect control of the context in which data are collected. As for data analysis, the only solution to uncertainties about the categories selected for study and validity of the analysis is to examine both the fine-grained categories of analysis as well as their use in broader contexts, such as discourse. 3.  Future studies and conclusions A final consideration that we can offer relates to other ways that pragmatic variation can be studied, besides those quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods used in this volume or those suggested by Terkourafi (Chapter 10), including that of a dialogic analysis of variation and the presuppositional concept of a ‘minimal context’ as a basis for interpretation of meaning. One approach is that of studying how other areas of language interface with pragmatic variation. For example, the study of the interface between pragmatics and prosody/intonation would be particularly useful, since much pragmatic meaning is conveyed through intonation. A study of variation at the prosodic level--that is, looking at the effect of prosodic features for interpersonal purposes in talk-in-interaction (e.g. pitch, duration, loudness, tempo, rhythmicality, as well as features of voice quality such as ‘creaky’ or ‘breathy’ voice [Barth-Weingarten, Reber, & Selting 2010]), should yield interesting results. For instance, Félix-Brasdefer (2011) examined pragmatic variation at the prosodic level (pitch and duration) in two varieties of Spanish, one in Mexico and one in the Dominican Republic. Also, research in information structure, which has yielded interesting insights into the intersection of pragmatics, intonation, and syntax (e.g. Lambrecht 1994, 2010), could provide a basis for further study in pragmatic (contrastive) variation. Another area for exploration of pragmatic variation is that of languages in contact. Pragmatic variation that may occur in such situations, and the factors that promote such change, have been understudied. Such investigations would benefit our understanding of language change, salient factors that affect pragmatic variation over time, and how such variation interacts with other linguistic areas over time. Finally, further research is needed that examines the impact of other under-studied macro-social variables on communicative language use (e.g. age, social class, ethnicity, religion) not only in varieties across Spanish(es) (­ García & ­Placencia 2011), but also in other languages as well as in situations of lingua franca and in languages in contact, such as Spanish in the United States or ­Spanish in c­ ontact with indigenous languages such as Guarani in Paraguay or Maya in ­Yucatán, Mexico, and Guatemala.

 Dale A. Koike & J. César Félix-Brasdefer

In sum, the research in this volume has provided the groundwork for future study that can lead to greater insight into pragmatic variation in conjunction with other areas of linguistic research, and into language in general.

References Barron, A. & Schneider, K. 2009. Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language in interaction. Interlanguage Pragmatics 6(4): 425–442. Barth-Weingarten, D., Reber, E. & Selting, M. (eds). 2010. Prosody in Interaction [Studies in Discourse & Grammar 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (eds). 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Cameron, R. & Schwenter, S. Forthcoming. Pragmatics and variationist sociolinguistics. In The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics, R. Bayley, R. Cameron & C. Lucas (eds). Oxford: OUP. Cheshire, J. 2005. Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(4): 479–508. Cohen, A.D. 2004. Assessing speech acts in a second language. In Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning, D. Boxer & A.D. Cohen (eds), 302–327. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2010. Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays, and verbal reports. In Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical, and Methodological Issues [Language Learning & Language Teaching 26], E. Usó Juán & A. Martínez-Flor (eds), 41–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2011. Cortesía, prosodia y variación pragmática en las peticiones de ­estudiantes universitarios mexicanos y dominicanos (Politeness, prosody, and pragmatic variation in requests among Mexican and Dominican university students). In Estudios de variación pragmática en español (Studies of Pragmatic Variation in Spanish) C. García & M.E. Placencia (eds), 57–86. Buenos Aires: Dunken. García, C. & Placencia, M. E. 2011. Estudios de variación pragmática en español (Studies of ­Pragmatic Variation in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Dunken. Huang, Y. 2007. Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. Kasper, G. 2000. Data collection in pragmatics research. In Culturally Speaking: Managing ­Rapport through Talk across Cultures, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 316–369. London: Continuum. Labov, W. 1972b. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse. Cambridge: CUP. Lambrecht, K. 2010. Constraints on subject-focus mapping in French and English. In Comparative and Contrastive Studies of Information Structure [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 165], C. Breul & E. Göbbel (eds), 78–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Márquez Reiter, R. & Placencia, M. (eds). 2005. Spanish Pragmatics. New York NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Roever, C. 2004. Difficulty and practicality in tests of interlanguage pragmatics. In Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning, D. Boxer & A.D. Cohen (eds), 283–301. ­Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Conclusions  Schneider. K. 2010. Variational pragmatics. In Variation and Change: Pragmatic Perspectives [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 6], M. Fried, J.-O, Östman & J.Verschueren (eds), ­239–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Terkourafi, M. 2011. The pragmatic variable: Toward a procedural interpretation. Language in Society 40 (4): 343–372. Wolfram, W. & Schilling-Estes, N. 2006. American English: Dialect and Variation [Language in Society 25], 2nd edn. Malden MA: Blackwell.

Index

A academic context  226, 229–230 actional level  19, 26–27, 38, 44, 141, 144–145, 154, 164, 166, 300, 302, 326 affective stance  52, 65–66, 71 alignment  9, 56, 60, 66, 70, 178, 189, 202, 204, 256, 263 appraisal theory  50, 53, 69 awareness  11, 70, 129, 132, 209, 211, 221, 224, 228–229, 237, 246–247, 249, 264, 283, 300, 314, 322, 328 B bushes  81, 85, 88–89, 101–102, 105, 107 C chat  60, 122, 184–185, 197, 225, 244–245, 249, 256, 260–261, 326 common ground  20, 180, 183, 185–186, 189, 307 communities of practice  22, 40, 123, 133–134, 273, 303, 311 conflict talk  9, 83–84, 105 context  1–2, 9–11, 13, 18, 28, 39–40, 42–44, 53, 82–84, 86, 91, 98, 108, 120–121, 133, 142–144, 147–149, 153–155, 158–159, 162–164, 166, 171, 175, 177–181, 185–186, 200, 210, 215–216, 226, 229–230, 240–242, 244–246, 252, 264–265, 271, 276, 278, 282, 289, 296–299, 301–302, 304–312, 314–315, 320, 322, 324–325, 329, 331, 333 conventional expressions  1–2, 10, 141–146, 148, 153, 164–168, 321, 328

conversational rejoinders  280 cross-cultural pragmatics  ix, 1, 6, 41, 50, 54, 272–273 cultura  50, 56–58, 60, 69–71 cultural models  49, 51, 54, 57–59, 61–63, 66, 68, 72 cultural scripts  9, 54–55, 57, 68, 71, 179, 320, 330 cultural shift  274 cultural standing  55, 63, 71–72, 320 D digital networks  274 diminutive  9, 21, 30–31, 36–39, 88, 92, 95–97, 100, 102–103 discourse completion task (DCT)  199, 211, 214, 239, 277, 285 discourse markers  5, 11, 144, 175–176, 196–198, 202–204, 300, 305, 325 E elliptical requests  39–40 embedded frames  179, 202 epistemic disclaimers  9, 88, 94, 100–103, 106 epistemic stance  52, 66 F face-threatening interactions  273 fluidity  123, 134, 327 footing  52, 175–183, 204 forms of address  24, 27, 35, 37, 41–44, 94, 106, 108–109, 252, 326 formula  67, 95, 141, 145, 148, 157, 161, 166 formulaic language  143, 145, 168, 263 frame mixing  191, 193

G gender variation  8, 30, 39–40, 320 generalized conversational implicatures  296–297 grammars of stance  57, 69 H hedges  85, 88–89, 100–101, 103, 105, 107, 116–117, 125, 300 I implicit request  29 indexicality  244, 246 indirect strategies  86 informal non-familial settings  119, 135 institutional discourse  ix, 6–7, 17, 47, 82, 109 interactional features  4, 49, 119, 122, 135 interactional level  27, 31, 40, 44, 102, 144, 300, 302, 326 interculturality  13, 272, 275, 277, 281, 291–292 intercultural pragmatics  3, 8, 11–13, 54, 271–274, 276–277, 280–281, 291, 322, 324, 328 interlanguage pragmatic development  272 intersubjectivity  11, 49, 56, 66, 180, 202 issue-oriented negation  10, 120, 122, 125, 127, 132, 135 K keys  178–179, 184, 204, 265 L language play  199–200 lexical core  159, 163 literal force hypothesis  302 longitudinal study  185

 Index L2 pragmatics  129, 143, 167, 239, 242, 265, 271–272, 275–276, 281, 283, 285, 291 M macro-social factors  5–6, 83, 108, 300, 304–305, 308–315 metapragmatic awareness  209, 211 mixed methods  49, 51, 72, 244, 332–333 motivational interviews  9, 81–82, 100, 104, 109 multiple methods  13, 57, 272, 291 multivariate  240, 249–250, 253, 255 N nativelike selection  142, 159 naturalistic data  280–281 nonverbal behaviors  280 O oral DCT  285 other-oriented negation  10, 120, 122, 125, 127, 133, 327 P parenthetical verbs  88, 91, 101, 103–105 person-oriented negation  127, 132–133, 135 phraseology  60, 64 positioning  9, 51, 56, 60, 67, 70, 275 pragmalinguistic knowledge  142, 213, 215, 219, 222, 228, 232 pragmatic behavior  205, 272–273, 275, 286, 289, 291, 329 pragmatic conflict  276, 288 pragmatic resources  175–176, 179–182, 184, 193, 198, 204–205

pragmatic routines  143 pragmatic strategies  145, 153, 155, 157 pragmatic transfer  129, 135 primary frame  181, 193–194, 196, 202, 204–205 proficiency  117–118, 121, 129, 134, 142, 144, 153, 165–166, 181, 184–185, 205, 213, 216, 290, 321, 323–325, 327, 329, 331 proverbial sayings  88, 97, 106 R reduced forms  163–164 request for service  21, 23, 26–28, 30–31, 33–34, 38, 41 role-plays  212–213, 215–217, 219, 222–224, 227, 231, 284, 308 role-play task  11, 217, 219, 285 retrospective verbal report  210, 213, 230 S schemas  54, 179 schemata  182–183, 202, 204 scripts  9, 50–51, 54–55, 57, 68, 71–72, 176–177, 179, 320, 330 self-oriented negation  10, 120, 122, 125, 127, 133 service encounter  17–19, 21, 23, 43 shields  81, 85–86, 88, 93, 100–103, 106–107 sociocontextual variables  231 sociopragmatic knowledge  213, 215, 223, 228–229 speech act sequence  8, 19 sphere of interculturality  13, 275, 277, 291–292 status-equal/unequal  211–212, 224, 227

strong disagreement  113, 116–117, 119–120, 122, 124–133, 135 stylistic level  21, 27, 34, 41, 44 T tag questions  9, 88, 95, 100–101, 103–104, 106 telecollaboration  49–50, 247 thanking expressions  157, 161, 167 therapeutic discourse  2, 81–83, 86–87, 91, 98, 330 transformational frame  186–190, 194, 198, 202 U uptake  11, 204, 305–308, 312, 314 utterance-type meaning  296–297 V VARBRUL  12, 249–250, 252–254, 264, 326 variational pragmatics  1–2, 4–6, 13, 26, 47, 86, 167, 299–302, 304, 308, 313–314, 319, 324 variationist sociolinguistics  1, 3, 12, 44, 239–242, 296–297, 301, 319, 326 variationist methodology  12–13, 252, 255, 262–263, 265, 295, 301, 313, 322, 325–327, 332 verbal report  x, 3, 44, 209–211, 215, 229, 232, 283–286, 289, 329 veridicality  210, 230 W weak disagreement  113, 116, 120, 122, 124–128, 130–133, 135, 328