1887
Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine the cross-cultural differences between (in)direct Spanish and French request formulations, adopting a pragmatic approach. More specifically, this study focusses on pragmatic equivalences in request formulations in informal and educational contexts, in French and Spanish corpora. In order to do so, a taxonomy was developed, based on the literature and on the analysis of the Spanish and French corpora. The analysis of the data shows that, on the one hand, direct strategies are among the most frequent request formulations in both corpora and, on the other, some formulations are similar in Spanish and in French but that their pragmatic interpretation or their frequency differs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00006.mar
2018-02-22
2019-08-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Albelda, M. and Cestero, A. M.
    2011 De nuevo, sobre los procedimientos de atenuación lingüística. Español Actual96: 121–155.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alcón, E. , Safont, P. and Martínez-Flor, A.
    2005 Towards a Typology of Modifiers for the Speech Act of Rrequesting: a Socio-pragmatic Approach. RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada4: 1–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bataller, R.
    2010 Making a Request for a Service in Spanish: Pragmatic Development in the Study Abroad Setting. Foreign Language Annals43(1): 160–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2010.01065.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01065.x [Google Scholar]
  4. 2013 Role-plays vs. Natural Data: Asking for a Drink at a Cafeteria in Peninsular Spanish. Íkala18(2): 111–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Beebe, L. C. and Cummings, M. C.
    1996 Natural Speech Act Data versus Written Questionnaire Data: How Data Collection Method Affects Speech Act Performance. InSpeech Acts across Languages: Challenges of Communication in a Second Language, S. M. Gass and J. Neu (eds), 65–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blum-Kulka, S.
    1987 Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different? Journal of Pragmatics11: 131–146. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90192‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blum-Kulka, S. and House, J.
    1989 Cross-cultural and Situational Variation in Requesting Behavior. InCross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. S. Blum-Kulka , J. House and G. Kasper (eds), 123–54. Norwood: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blum-Kulka, S. , House, J. and Kasper, G.
    (eds) 1989Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, P. and Levison, S.
    1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Carduner, J.
    1998 Politeness Strategies of Intermediate to Advanced Learners of Spanish. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, PA.
  11. CORLEC, Corpus Oral de Referencia de la Lengua Española Contemporánea
    CORLEC, Corpus Oral de Referencia de la Lengua Española Contemporánea 1991–1992 Directed by Prof. Dr. Francisco Marcos Marín. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Available atwww.lllf.uam.es/ESP/Corlec.html [last accessed12 April 2017].
  12. CIEL-F, Corpus International Écologique de la Langue Française
    CIEL-F, Corpus International Écologique de la Langue Française 2008–2013 Available atwww.ciel-f.org/ [last accessed12 April 2017].
  13. Cruse, D. A.
    1986Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Curcó, C.
    1998 ¿No me harías un favorcito?InLa pragmática lingüística del español: Recientes desarrollos, H. Haverkate , G. Mulder and C. F. Maldonado (eds), 129–172. Barcelona: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Economidou Kogetsidis, M.
    2013 Strategies, Modification and Perspective in Native Speakers’ Requests: a Comparison of WDCT and Naturally Occurring Requests. Journal of Pragmatics53: 21–38. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  16. Edmonds, O. P. and Hirst, G.
    2002 Near-Synonymy and Lexical Choice. Computational Linguistics. 28(2): 105–144. doi: 10.1162/089120102760173625
    https://doi.org/10.1162/089120102760173625 [Google Scholar]
  17. Enghels, R. and Jansegers, M.
    2013 On the Cross-linguistic Equivalence of sentir(e) in Romance Languages: a Contrastive Study in Semantics. Linguistics51(5): 957–991. doi: 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0034 [Google Scholar]
  18. Escandell Vidal, M. V.
    1996 Los fenómenos de interferencia pragmática. Didáctica del Español como Lengua ExtranjeravolIII. 95–109. Madrid: Expolingua.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2009 Social Cognition and Second Language Learning. InPragmatics Applied to Language Teaching and Learning, R. Gómez-Morón , M. Padilla Cruz , L. Fernández Amaya and M. O. Hernández López (eds), 1–39. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Felix-Brasdefer, J. C.
    2005 Indirectness and Politeness in Mexican Requests. InSelected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium, D. Eddington (ed), 66–78. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Flores Salgado, E.
    2011The Pragmatics of Requests and Apologies Developmental Patterns of Mexican Students. Language Arts & Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.212
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.212 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fraser, B.
    1990 Perspectives on Politeness. Journal of Pragmatics14: 219–236. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90081‑N
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N [Google Scholar]
  23. Gili Gaya, S.
    1943Curso superior de sintaxis española. Barcelona: Bibliograf.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gras, P.
    2011 Gramática de Construcciones en Interacción. Propuesta de un modelo y aplicación al análisis de estructuras independientes con marcas de subordinación en español. PhD Thesis, Universitat de Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Grévisse, M. and Goosse, A.
    2007Le bon usage. Grammaire française. Brussels: De Boeck-Duculot. 14th edition.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Grice, P.
    1989Studies in the Way of Words (SWW). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hassall, T.
    2003 Requests by Australian Learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics35: 1903–1928. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00115‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00115-2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Haverkate, H.
    2006 Aspectos pragmalingüísticos de la interrogación en español con atención especial a las secuencias de preguntas. Cultura, lenguaje y representación3: 27–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.
    2001Les actes de langage dans le discours. Théorie et fonctionnement. Paris: Nathan.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Levinson, S.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Marsily, A.
    (in press). ¿Es normal que sea un poco difícil de leer la consigna? La atenuación en las peticiones de hablantes no nativos del español. Estudios de Lingüística Universidad de Alicante.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Merritt, M.
    1976 On Questions Following Questions (in Service Encounters). LiS5(3): 315–357.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mulder, G.
    1993 ¿Por qué no coges el teléfono? Acerca de los actos de habla indirectos. InAproximaciones pragmalingüísticas al español. H. Haverkate , K. Hengeveld and G. Mulder (eds), 181–207. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ogiermann, E.
    2009 Politeness and In-directness across Cultures: a Comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian Requests. Journal of Politeness Research6(4): 189–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2015 Direct Off-record Requests? – ‘Hinting’ in Family Interactions. Journal of Pragmatics86: 31–35. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  36. Pinto, D. and Raschio, R.
    2007 A Comparative Study of Requests in Heritage Speaker Spanish, L1 Spanish, and L1 English. International Journal of Bilingualism11: 135–155. doi: 10.1177/13670069070110020101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069070110020101 [Google Scholar]
  37. Pizarro Pedraza, A.
    2016 Pragmemes in the Sociolinguistic Interview: a Case Study on Expanded Polar Answers. InPragmemes and Theories of Language Use, K. Allan , A. Capone , I. Kecskes and J. L. Mey (eds), 351–374. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43491‑9_19
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_19 [Google Scholar]
  38. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española 2017 Consultas lingüísticas. www.rae.es/consultas/infinitivo-por-imperativo. [last accessed08 April 2017].
  39. Romero, C.
    2000 Sur quelques actes de langage polis en français et en espagnol. Les Langues Modernes, Association des professeurs de langues vivantes94(1): 34–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Searle, J.
    1969Speech acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  41. 1979Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  42. Schauer, G.
    2009Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: the Study Abroad Context. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Trosborg, A.
    1995Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110885286
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885286 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00006.mar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00006.mar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): directness , French/Spanish , pragmatic equivalence , pragmatics and request
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