Impossible requests l2 users sociopragma

Impossible requests: L2 users’ pragmalinguistic choices in L1 acts of refusalAbstract: The study compares pragmalinguistic knowledge of the L1 in non-routine situations in L2 users and L

Anna Ewert

Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

Katarzyna Bromberek-Dyzman

Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

Impossible requests: L2 users’ sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic choices

in L1 acts of refusal

To appear in EUROSLA Yearbook 8 (2008).

Impossible requests: L2 users’ pragmalinguistic choices in L1 acts of refusal

Abstract:

The study compares pragmalinguistic knowledge of the L1 in non-routine situations in L2 users and L2 learners, aiming to see to what extent pragmalinguistic behaviours in the L1 are influenced by exposure to the L2 The first part of the paper discusses the nature of bilingual language knowledge and transfer in multicompetence In the experiment, refusals to untypicalrequests were elicited by means of a DCT The L2 users in this study appear to be “more native than the native speaker” (Cook et al 2003) in their choice of semantic formulas, as compared to monolingual speakers of their L1 Since pragmatic transfer is ruled out by the baseline data from native speakers of English, an alternative explanation is proposed, based

on the L2 users’ increased sensitivity to interactional demands (Genesee, Tucker and Lambert 1975), more varied experience at social interaction and changed perception of their L1

Impossible requests: L2 users’ pragmalinguistic choices in L1 acts of refusal

1 Introduction

The focus of this paper is on pragmalinguistic aspects of the first language of L2 users living

in their home country An L2 user is defined here after Cook (2002) as any person who uses a second language for a real-life purpose, for example receiving education through the medium

of the L2 The aim of the study is to see whether the fact of knowing and using another language will influence our subjects’ pragmalinguistic behaviours in their L1, Polish We are going to examine similarities and differences in the frequency of use of semantic formulas in L1 acts of refusal by two groups of subjects differing in L2 proficiency and amount of

exposure to the L2, English

In Cook’s (1991, 2002, 2003) view, the two languages in the L2 user’s mind are interconnected, forming a unitary multicompetence, rather than two entirely separate systems.Multicompetence is defined simply as “the knowledge of more than one language in the same mind” (Cook 2002: 10) Discussing evidence for multicompetence, Cook (1992) quotes a number of differences between L2 users and monolinguals The differences that are relevant for our present discussion concern L2 effect on L1, differences in metalinguistic knowledge and aspects of cognitive processing (discussed in section 2)

In the multicompetence model the two languages of an L2 user are integrated at different levels of language use – there are varying degrees of separation/integration between them Another conceptualization of bilingual language knowledge is Herdina and Jessner’s (2002) Dynamic Model of Multilingualism, in which all the languages of a multilingual are separate but interacting subsystems in a dynamic system: “language itself is in a constant

flow, and so are the language systems in a multilingual, depending on the various factors involved in the language acquisition process” (Herdina nad Jessner 2002: 75) The dynamic model is consistent with the multicompetence view (Cook 2003, Jessner 2003) and might be seen as a reconceptualization of the multicompetence construct within Dynamic Systems Theory (see also de Bot et al 2007 for a recent overview of DST in SLA).

Another reconceptualization of multicompetence belongs to the so-called

reconceptualized SLA (Lafford 2007) Hall, Cheng and Carlson (2006) adopt a

social-interactionist and emergentist approach to language, in which all language knowledge is inherently dynamic, variable, “provisional and sensitive to renegotiation and renewal” (Hall et

al 2006: 230); “rather than a prerequisite to performance, language knowledge is an emergentproperty of it, developing from its locally-situated uses in culturally-framed and discursively-patterned communicative activities” (Hall et al 2006: 228) In this approach, differences between bilingual and monolingual performance result from the bilinguals’ richer and more varied experiences of social interaction in more varied communicative contexts Hence, it is the more varied social activity and learning experience of the multi-competent speaker, who operates in more diversified social and cultural contexts, that gives rise to differences betweenmonolinguals and multilinguals

2 Transfer in multicompetence

The concept of transfer, often referred to as transfer of learning, transfer of training, or

transfer of knowledge, was first introduced in psychological research on behaviour (Thorndike and Woodworth 1901a,b,c) In psychology, transfer relates to “[w]hat occurswhen the learning of one activity influences the learning of a second ability” (Sprinthall and Sprinthall 1987: 576) This differs considerably from operationalizations of

linguistic transfer in SLA research which, in the error analysis tradition, assume the influence of the structures of one language on the structures of another language or, in the words of Sharwood Smith and Kellerman (1986: 1): “incorporation of elements from one language into another” A similar approach has been advocated in pragmatics

by Kasper, who defines pragmatic transfer as “the influence exerted by learners’

pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information” (1992: 207) While such

operationalizations are methodologically convenient, they leave out a great deal of relationships and cross-interactions between the two or more languages in

multicompetence

As Odlin (1989: 28) remarks, the basic problem with defining transfer is that “a fully adequate definition of transfer presupposes a fully adequate definition of language” Since thedifferent views of the nature of bilingual language knowledge (see above) are, as a matter of fact, different views of language, each approach defines transfer somewhat differently To Cook, transfer is simply an effect of the integration of two language systems: “The verb transfer implies that someone moves something from one place to another [ ] language acquisition or use is not transferring something from one part of the mind to another, but two systems accommodating to each other” (Cook 2002: 18)

Herdina and Jessner (2002) choose to extend Sharwood Smith and Kellerman’s (1986)construct of crosslinguistic influence (CLI) to fit a dynamic model of language They propose

crosslinguistic interaction (CLIN) as “an umbrella term for all the existing transfer

phenomena [ ] These phenomena result from the interaction of two or more language

systems”, as well as “non-predictable dynamic effects that result from the development of the systems themselves” (Herdina and Jessner 2002: 29) In their view, transfer is intermodular, which means that it takes place not only between the language module and a more general cognitive domain as well

While these views of transfer constitute a radical departure from the traditional

understanding of it as incorporation of elements from one language to another, they are supported by empirical research: transfer is bidirectional (e.g Pavlenko and Jarvis 2002) and intermodular in the sense that bilingualism affects certain aspects of cognitive processing (cf Bialystok 2005)

Transfer from the L2 to the L1 has been documented by a number of studies (e.g Pavlenko and Jarvis 2002, Cook et al 2003, Balcom 2003, Jarvis 2003, Pavlenko 2003, Marian and Kaushanskaya 2007) Quite obviously, the L2 does not affect all areas of the L1 tothe same degree and the effect of L2 on L1 can not always be predicted in advance

Examining productivity and lexical diversity in acculturated L2 users’ narratives, Dewaele and Pavlenko (2003: 137) conclude that “some areas of pragmatic knowledge are either unaffected or less affected by L2 influence”

The differences between L2 users and monolinguals extend well beyond the linguistic domain Bilinguals differ from monolinguals on aspects of cognitive processing related to attentional control (see Bialystok 2005 for a review of relevant research) By virtue of

learning and using two different linguistic codes, bilingual children develop a better

metalinguistic awareness than monolinguals (see Bialystok 2001 for a review), which implies that they pay more attention to the formal properties of language What is more, L2 users also seem to have a different knowledge about communication Genesee, Tucker and Lambert

(1975), in a study of children in bilingual immersion and monolingual education programmes,have found that the bilinguals are more sensitive to interlocutor needs in interpersonal

communication, which is shown by their providing more specific information to blindfolded interlocutors while explaining the rules of a game than the monolinguals did The study also shows the effect of the amount of exposure to the L2 on the degree of specificity of

information provided in the L1 to blindfolded as opposed to seeing interlocutors

Increased attention to the properties of the linguistic code and the requirements of a particular communicative situation shows that discussion of L2 effects on L1 cannot be limited to transfer effects In a study of bilingual sentence processing, Cook et al (2003) showthat Japanese-English bilinguals demonstrate higher preference for animate subjects in their L1 than monolingual native speakers of Japanese, which cannot be an effect of transfer from the L2 English In a sense, the Japanese bilinguals in this study have become more Japanese

in their L1 than the monolingual native speakers Cook et al (2003: 212) ascribe this effect to

a change in cognitive processing and “the overall changed state of the L2 user (i.e their competence) rather than to the specific effects of learning a particular second language”

multi-Cenoz (2003a), reviewing research on the effects of bilingualism on third language acquisition, states that the effect of bilingualism is global rather than local She concludes her review by stating that “bilingualism affects cognition, metalinguistic awareness and

communicative skills and these in turn affect third language acquisition” (Cenoz 2003a: 82) Since all the languages in multicompetence are interconnected and the relationship between them is reciprocal, this statement may be paraphrased as: bilingualism affects cognitive aspects of attention and perception, language awareness and linguistic sensitivity and these, inturn, affect L1 perception

3 Pragmalinguistic aspects of multicompetence

3.1 Crosslinguistic influences in pragmatics

The pragmalinguistic aspect of multicompetence has been studied most of all by

interlanguage pragmatics, defined as “L2 learners’ developing (unstable, deficient, permeable)pragmatic knowledge” (Kasper 1992: 207) The primary objective of this research was

utilitarian in assumption, aiming at improving the process of teaching and learning a second language While interlanguage pragmatics has developed research instruments that can be used outside of its original domain, its underlying concepts and definitions seem to be

unnecessarily limiting One such concept is pragmatic transfer, defined as “the influence exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information” (Kasper 1992: 207) Kasper (1992) deliberately excludes from her definition other kinds of crosslinguistic

influence than incorporation of elements from one language into another, such as for example L2 influence on L1 If we agree that transfer is intermodular, than there seems to be no reason why a situation in which bilinguals deviate from the pragmalinguistic norms of both L1 and L2 should not be classified as an instance of transfer or crosslinguistic influence

The Hall et al (2006) reconceptualized approach seems far more suitable for the study

of the pragmalinguistic aspect of multicompetence, although they do not tackle the issue of pragmatic transfer In their view:

language knowledge [is] comprised of dynamic constellations of linguistic

resources, the shapes and meanings of which emerge from continual interaction

between internal, domain-general cognitive constraints on the one hand and one’s

pragmatic pursuits in his or her everyday worlds on the other, that is through

language use (Hall, Cheng and Carlson 2006: 226)

Differences between monolinguals and bilinguals do not originate in the linguistic code per

se, but in “the amount and quality of exposure to variable linguistic forms, and, more

generally, the unique social contexts and pragmatically-based communicative activities that individuals encounter in the process of becoming multilingual” (Hall, Cheng and Carlson 2006: 230) Although transfer is not mentioned explicitly here, this view is the opposite of Kasper’s (1992) understanding of pragmatic tranfer as incorporation of elements from one language into another It is closer to the original understanding of transfer as transfer of knowledge than to traditional conceptualizations of linguistic transfer Unfortunately, when such a view is adopted, we have few ways and means of ascertaining what constitutes this knowledge, i.e what is transferred, unless a difference between bilinguals and monolinguals can be demonstrated Such a view is compatible with the basic assumption of bidirectionality and intermodularity of transfer

Although L2 users’ pragmalinguistic behaviours in L1 have fallen beyond the scope ofinterest of interlanguage pragmatics, several studies have in fact examined this aspect of multicompetence using the methodology of interlanguage pragmatics Blum-Kulka (1991), studying American immigrants in Israel, came to the conclusion that bilinguals develop an intercultural style of speaking that is both related to and distinct from the styles prevalent in their two languages and they tend to rely on this intercultural style regardless of the language being used Cenoz (2003b) confirmed the development of an intercultural style in requests

made by Spanish students of English living in Spain Silva (2000) found out that Americans

living in Brazil are much closer to Portuguese monolinguals in their metapragmatic

judgements than Brazilians living in the US for 3 years or more who, in turn, have become

more like the Americans in their L1 Portuguese Marti (2006), in her study of requests made

by Turkish-German returnees, found that the bilinguals tend to be more indirect in their L1 than monolingual speakers of Turkish

3.2 Refusals

Linguistic behaviours we engage in while interacting with other language users are speech acts (Searle 1969) Speech acts performed in different languages differ in their form, function and usage (e.g Wierzbicka 1985) The same speech act may be realized differently across cultures, following specific sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic patterns of usage While the term pragmalinguistic refers to the particular linguistic resources employed to convey a particular illocution, sociopragmatic refers to differential use of language in different social situations and while addressing interlocutors of different social standing (Leech 1983)

Refusals are inherently face-threatening acts The concept of face, developed by Brown and Levinson (1978) relates to the public image of themselves and their interlocutors that the participants want to maintain in the course of their interaction Refusals are

particularly taxing speech acts to perform, since the possibility of offending an interlocutor is inherent in the very act of refusing

Contrary to some other speech acts, like requests or apologies (e.g Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984), refusals have been relatively understudied Chronologically speaking, the Beebe and Cummings (1985) study has been the first one to address refusal strategies as utilized by native speakers of English Beebe, Takahashi and Ullis-Weltz (1990) have found instances of pragmatic transfer from the L1 in acts of refusal performed by Japanese speakers

of English The study was an important one also in providing a methodology that was used in

subsequent research on interlanguage and crosscultural refusals King and Silver (1993) examined the effect of classroom instruction on the performance of acts of refusals by L2 learners Chen (1995) investigated native English speakers’ perceptions of the pragmatic appropriateness of refusals performed by non-native speakers A number of studies focused oncrosscultural differences, comparing acts of refusal performed by speakers of different

languages: Mandarin Chinese and American English (Liao and Bresnahan 1996), Egyptian Arabic and American English (Nelson et al 2002), Latin American Spanish and American English (Félix-Brasdefer 2003), Korean and American English (Kwon 2004)

Ewert and Bromberek-Dyzman (2007) have studied acts of refusal in the first languageperformed by Polish students of English, finding differences between the subjects depending

on their L2 proficiency and amount of exposure to the L2 This means that crosslinguistic influence affects pragmatic performance in the L1, even in the case of L2 users who live and study in their home country The study by Ewert and Bromberek-Dyzman (2007) involved refusals to offers in typical social interactions, like refusing a piece of cake offered by a friend

in an informal interaction Socially stereotyped situations require a type of interaction that is highly routinized and influenced by a particular culture (Watts 2003, Wierzbicka 2003) Wierzbicka (2003) refers to such highly routinized interactions as cultural scripts She

describes a typical Polish script for a situation in which the host offers a guest some food in the following way:

A hospitable Polish host will not take ‘No’ for an answer; he assumes that the

addressee can have some more, and that it would be good for him or her to have

some more, and therefore that his or her resistance (which is likely to be due to

politeness) should be disregarded [ ] the social convention requires the host to

prevail upon the guest, to behave as if he or she was forcing the guest to eat and

drink, regardless of the guest’s desires, and certainly regardless of the guest’s

expressed desires, which would be simply dismissed The typical dialogue would be:

Proszę bardzo! Jeszcze troszkę!

Ale już nie mogę!

In the Ewert and Bromberek-Dyzman study, in a situation like the one described by

Wierzbicka (2003) the L2 users provided reason for their refusal (“I’m full”) and expressed gratitude (“thank you”) more often than other native speakers of Polish If in such stereotypedsituations L2 users behave differently in their native language from other native speakers, this might be due to transfer from the L2, which would imply integration of scripts from both cultures at some mental level, or to different awareness of interlocutor expectations Changed awareness of interlocutor expectations would actually imply better knowledge of what kind ofpragmalinguistic behaviours would be perceived as posing lesser threat to one’s own and the interlocutor’s face by members of the same community

In the present study we want to examine L2 users’ sociopragmatic and

pragmalinguistic behaviours of L2 users refusing untypical requests in L1 Untypical

situations have been chosen because, if it is very unlikely that the subjects have ever found themselves in a similar situation while interacting in either language, the likelihood of

pragmatic transfer will be reduced

The study has been inspired by Janney’s (1999) work on linguistic avoidance in the O

J Simpson transcripts Janney claims that under threat humans resort to universal strategies and draws a parallel between linguistic behaviours and animal behaviour His study implies that when the subjects’ vital interests are threatened, their pragmalinguistic behaviours might

be less influenced by a particular culture than in other kinds of interaction What we have decided to call “impossible requests” for the purpose of the present study are indeed situations

in which some vital interest of the subjects is threatened

4 The study

4.1 The aim of the study

The present study aims to see whether regular use of another language affects L2 users’

pragmalinguistic behaviours while refusing untypical requests in their L1 Two groups of native speakers of Polish, differing in L2 English proficiency and amount

of exposure to the L2, will be tested The methodology used in the study has been adopted from interlanguage pragmatics and crosscultural research on refusals

To see if there are any differences between the two groups of subjects, we are going to compare the frequency of semantic formulas in their acts of refusal A semantic formula

“consists of a word, phrase or sentence which meets a particular semantic criterion or strategy,and [ ] can be used to perform the act in question” (Fraser 1981, as quoted by Olshtain and Cohen 1989:20) Semantic formulas are, for example, direct refusal (e.g “No”, “I refuse”, “noway”) or statement of regret (e.g “I’m sorry”, “unfortunately”) Thus, the frequency of semantic formulas in the speech acts performed by a particular group of subjects in a

particular situation informs us what is typically said in this situation or what kind of behaviour

is considered appropriate by this group

Three kinds of effects are to be expected:

- the L2 users will use certain semantic formulas more often than other native speakers of Polish,

- the L2 users will use certain semantic formulas less often than other native speakers of Polish,

- there will be no difference in the frequency of use between the groups

Differences between L2 users and L2 learners can be caused by pragmatic transfer from the L2 or by changed pragmatic awareness of the L1 If the L2 users diverge from L2 learners in the frequency of a semantic formula and at the same time they approximate L2 values in their L1, the difference will be attributed to pragmatic transfer from the L2 If the L2 users diverge from L2 learners in any other systematic way, changed pragmatic awareness of the L1 has to

be considered as an explanation for the difference In each case of a difference between the groups it will have to be decided whether this difference results from pragmatic transfer from the L2, changed pragmatic awareness of the L1, or none of these

6.2 The subjects

The experimental sample for the study consisted of 190 Polish adults, divided into two

groups: L2 users of English and L2 learners The subjects were all university students, aged 19-24 Since the objective of the study is to examine the effect of L2 use on L1 performance in communication, it would have been good to recruit a monolingual sample for comparison However, a monolingual sample of native speakers of Polish could not have been recruited since in such populations real monolinguals with no knowledge of English are practically non-existent Recruiting a monolingual sample would mean recruiting subjects with less education and a different social background, and this would entail sociolinguistic differences

The criteria for dividing the subjects into the two groups were degree of proficiency and amount of daily exposure to the second language Cook’s (2002) distinction between L2 users and L2 learners was adopted as a matter of convenience L2 users are defined as personsusing the L2 for real-life purpose, which in this case was primarily receiving education through the medium of the second language L2 learners are defined as persons learning English in the classroom for future use

The L2 users (N = 106, 12 male, 94 female, mean age: 21.07) in this study were

students in the English Studies programme at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań Their level of proficiency in English is advanced to proficiency, as this is the level of the English exams they have to take in the course of their studies English is the medium of instruction in all but a few courses they take at the university, so they have at least several hours of exposure

to the L2 on a daily basis, participating in the courses and preparing homework assignments The students have 15 to 20 class hours per week of courses taught in English These include

courses in English and American literature, British and American life and institutions, as well

as numerous courses in linguistics They also take a course in German as a foreign language (2 class hours per week)

The L2 learners (N = 84, 29 male, 55 female, mean age: 21.13) were students in

Biology and Education Studies programmes at the same university, taking also a course in English as a foreign language at the university (2 class hours per week) The English courses they were taking were at the pre-intermediate level

Additionally, data were collected from a group of native speakers of English (N = 13,

12 male, 1 female, age range: 30-40, 7 British, 4 American, 1 Canadian, 1 Australian), who were at the same time employed as instructors in the English Studies programme at the university, using an English version of the same questionnaire These data were collected to check for the possibility of pragmatic transfer from the L2 in the group of L2 users Because

of the size and composition of this group, the data from the native speakers are not

comparable with the data from the two Polish samples The raw data from native speakers of English will be reported below

6.3 The instrument and procedure

The instrument used in this study was a discourse completion test (DCT) DCTs are described

as “written questionnaires including a number of brief situational descriptions, followed

by a short dialog with an empty slot for the speech act under study” (Kasper and Dahl 1991: 221)

DCTs have their advantages and disadvantages A major disadvantage is that they do not elicit spontaneous natural speech According to Manes and Wolfson (1981), the best