1887
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-109X
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1103
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Speech act studies often compare two or more groups of speakers by analyzing how often each group uses a given strategy to realize a speech act. Since the goal of such studies is to compare groups, they often do not discuss the variation that exists within the groups and, by extension, what can be considered a speech act tendency for a given group. To illustrate within-group variation and how such variation can be interpreted to identify the speech act tendencies of a group, this study used e-mail refusals of requests written by 50 native speakers of English as a case study. Data were collected using a discourse completion task and analyzed for participants’ strategies to refuse a request. Descriptive statistics show a considerable amount of variation in this rather homogenous group of English speakers but also allow for the identification of both commonly and rarely used refusal strategies. These findings highlight the importance of considering the commonly used strategies and the rarely used strategies when attempting to empirically identify speech act tendencies for teaching and assessment purposes. Implications of the results for future research, teaching, and assessment practices are discussed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ap.21011.dix
2024-01-18
2024-09-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allami, H., & Naeimi, A.
    (2011) A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 385–406. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (2012) Variation in the pragmatic use of conventional expressions. InJ. C. Felix-Brasdefer & D. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological issues (pp.141–173). John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.31.06bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.31.06bar [Google Scholar]
  3. (2019) Routines in L2 pragmatic research. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp.308–321). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-4 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S.
    (2010) Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barron, A.
    (2019) Norms and variation in L2 pragmatics. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp.308–321). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085‑29
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-29 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R.
    (1990) Pragmatic transfer in refusals. InR. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp.55–73). Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bella, S.
    (2014) Developing the ability to refuse: A cross-sectional study of Greek FL refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 611, 35–52. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.015 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berns, M.
    (2015) Pedagogy and world Englishes: The legacy of Yamuna Kachru. World Englishes, 34(1), 22–30. 10.1111/weng.12113
    https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12113 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G.
    (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chang, Y.-Y., & Swales, J. M.
    (1999) Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for non-native speakers?InC. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and practices (pp.145–167). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274311460_Informal_elements_in_English_academic_writing_Threats_or_opportunities_for_advanced_non-native_speakers
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Coulmas, F.
    (1981) “Poison to your soul”: Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. InF. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp.69–92). Mouton Publishers. 10.1515/9783110809145.69
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110809145.69 [Google Scholar]
  13. Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N.
    (2018) Second language pragmatics: From theory to research. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315692388
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315692388 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dixon, T.
    (2022) Proscribed informality features in published research: A corpus analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 651, 63–78. 10.1016/j.esp.2021.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  15. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Koike, D. A.
    (Eds.) (2012) Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological issues. John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.31
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.31 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F.
    (2017) Is academic writing becoming more informal?English for Specific Purposes, 451, 40–51. 10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D.
    (2014) Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315833842
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833842 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jackson, G. T., Lehman, B., & Grace, L. D.
    (2020) Awkward Annie: Impacts of playing on the edge of social norms. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, 731, 1–8. 10.1145/3402942.3402998
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3402942.3402998 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jucker, A.
    (2009) Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: The case of compliments. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1611–1635. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jung, E. H., & Kim, Y. J.
    (2008) First language transfer in pragmatic use by second language speakers. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 331, 517–543. 10.18855/lisoko.2008.33.3.008
    https://doi.org/10.18855/lisoko.2008.33.3.008 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kursicak, L. M.
    (2010) The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance. InA. Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp.23–39). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.26.02kur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.26.02kur [Google Scholar]
  22. Krulatz, A., & Dixon, T.
    (2020) Interlanguage speech act performance: Refusal strategies by Korean and Norwegian users of English. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 751–777. 10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.4.5
    https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.4.5 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kwon, J.
    (2004) Expressing refusals in Korean and American English. Multilingua, 23(4), 339–364. 10.1515/mult.2004.23.4.339
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2004.23.4.339 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lee, H.
    (2013) The influence of social situations on fluency difficulty in Korean EFL learners’ oral refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 168–186. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  25. Martí-Arnándiz, O., & Salazar-Campillo, P.
    (2013) Refusals in instructional contexts and beyond. Brill. 10.1163/9789401209717
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401209717 [Google Scholar]
  26. Morkus, N.
    (2014) Refusals in Egyptian Arabic and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 701, 86–107. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Nelson, G. L., Carson, J., Al Batal, M., & El Bakary, W.
    (2002) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 163–189. 10.1093/applin/23.2.163
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.163 [Google Scholar]
  28. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F.
    (2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. 10.1111/lang.12079
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 [Google Scholar]
  29. Salazar-Campillo, P., Safont, M., & Codina, V.
    (2009) Refusal strategies: A proposal from a sociopragmatic approach. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 81, 139–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Seidlhofer, B.
    (2011) Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Schneider, K. P.
    (2010) Variational pragmatics. InM. Fried, J. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Variation and change: Pragmatic perspectives (pp.239–267). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.6.18sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.6.18sch [Google Scholar]
  32. Taguchi, N.
    (2011) Rater variation in the assessment of speech acts. Pragmatics, 21(3), 453–471. 10.1075/prag.21.3.08tag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.3.08tag [Google Scholar]
  33. (2018) Data collection in developmental L2 pragmatics research: Discourse completion test, role play, and naturalistic recording. InA. Gudmestad & A. Edmonds (Eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition (pp.7–32). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.51.02tag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.51.02tag [Google Scholar]
  34. (2019) Second language acquisition and pragmatics: An overview. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp.1–14). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2021) Learning and teaching pragmatics in the globalized world: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 105(3), 615–622. 10.1111/modl.12716
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12716 [Google Scholar]
  36. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.
    (2017) Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Youn, S. J., & Bogorevich, V.
    (2019) Assessment in L2 pragmatics. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp.308–321). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085‑20
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-20 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.21011.dix
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.21011.dix
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): e-mail; English; pragmatic variation; refusal; speech acts
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error