Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language

357 Pages·2006·15.81 MB·English

by  Susan M. Gars

Speech Acts Across Cultures
W
DE
G
Studies on Language Acquisition 11
Editor
Peter Jordens
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin New York
Susan M. Gass and Joyce Neu
(Editors)
Speech Acts Across Cultures
Challenges to Communication
in a Second Language
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin New York 1996
Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)
is a Division ofWalter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.
The series Studies on Language Acquisition was formerly
published byForis Publications, Holland.
@ Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines
ofthe ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.
The Library ofCongress lists the hardcover edition as follows:
Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Speech acts across cultures ; challenges to communication in a
second language / Susan M. Gass and Joyce Neu (editors).
p. em. - (Studies on language acquisition; 11)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 3-11-014082-9 (alk. paper) ISBN978-3-11-019125-7
1.Second language acquisition. 2. Speech acts (Linguistics)
3.Interculturalcommunication. I.Gass,SusanM. II.Neu,
Joyce, 1950- III. Series.
PI18.2.S67 1995
303.48'2-dc20 95-40820
CIP
© Copyright 1995 by Walterde Gruyter & Co., D-I0785 Berlin
Allrights reserved, includingthoseoftranslationintoforeign languages. Nopartofthis book
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writingfrom the publisher. Printed in Germany.
Contents
Susan M. Gass
Introduction . 1
PartI
Methodological issues
Andrew Cohen
Investigating the production ofspeech act sets. 21
Noel Houck - Susan M. Gass
Non-native refusals: A methodological perspective. 45
Leslie M. Beebe - Martha Clark Cummings
Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data:
How data collection method affects speech act performance . 65
Part II
Speech acts in a second language
Initiating and maintaining solidarity
Miriam Eistenstein Ebsworth - Jean "W: Bodman
Mary ~arpenter
Cross-cultural realization ofgreetings in American English. 89
Gayle L. Nelson - Waguida El Bakary - Mahmoud Al Batal
Egyptian and American compliments: Focus on second language
learners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Michael L. Geis - Linda L. Harlow
Politeness strategies in French and English . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
VI Contents
Naoko Maeshiba - Naoko Yoshinaga - Gabriele Kasper
Steven Ross
Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing . . . . . . . 155
Face-threatening acts
Beth Murphy - Joyce Neu
My grade's too low: The speech act set of complaining. . . . . . . 191
Diana Boxer
Ethnographic interviewing as a research tool in speech act analysis:
The case ofcomplaints". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Myra Goldschmidt
From the addressee's perspective: Imposition in favor-asking. . . . 241
Dale April Koike
Transfer ofpragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish
foreign language learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Part III
Applications
Richard Schmidt - Akihiko Shimura - Zhigang Wang
Hy-sook Jeong
Suggestions to buy: Television commercials from the U.S., Japan,
China and Korea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
John L. Graham
Culture, negotiations and international cooperative ventures. . . . 317
Subject index . 343
Author index . 347
Introduction
Susan M. Gass
1. Introduction
This book investigates the notion speech act from a cross-cultural pers
pective. That is, the starting point for this book is the assumption that
speech acts are realized from culture to culture in different ways and that
these differences mayresultincommunicationdifficulties thatrange from
the humorous to the serious.
Early studies in speech acts stem from the field of philosophy (e.g.,
Austin 1962; Grice 1957, 1975; Habermas 1979, 1991 and Searle 1969,
1975,1979,1983,1986,1991) and have been extended and amplified on
by scholars from a number of different fields (e.g., linguistics - Sadock
1974; anthropology - Hymes 1974; Gumperz 1982; child language
Ochs - Schiefflin 1979). What these studies have in common is the
assumption that fundamental to human communication is the notion of
a speechact, that is, theperformance ofa certainactthroughwords (e.g.,
requestingsomething, refusing, thanking, greetingsomeone, compliment
ing, complaining)l. Not only does the linguistic realization of the same
speech act differ, but the force of a speech act might differ. For example,
in some cultures to refuse an offer of something may necessitate much
"hedging" or "beating around the bush" before an actual refusal might
be made. In other cultures, a refusal may not necessitate as much mitiga
tion. The result may, in some cases, be a misinterpretation ofwhether or
not an actual refusal has been made, but may also be a misunderstanding
ofthe intentionality ofthe refuser. In these latter instances, an individual
may be labelled as "rude", not because ofthe fact ofrefusal, but because
ofthe way the refusal was executed. Olshtain and Cohen cite the follow
ing example of a misunderstanding due to the realization of the speech
act of apology:
One morning, Mrs. G, a native speakerofEnglishnow livinginIsrael, was
doing her daily shopping at the local supermarket. As shewas pushing her
shopping cart she unintentially bumped into Mr. Y, a native Israeli. Her
2 Susan M. Gass
natural reaction was to say "I'm sorry" (in Hebrew). Mr. Y turned to her
and said, "Lady, you could at least apologize." On another occasion the
very same Mr. Y arrived late for a meeting conducted by Mr. W (a native
speaker ofEnglish) in English. As he walked into the room he said, "The
bus was late," and satdown. Mr. W, obviously annoyed, muttered to him
self, "These Israelis, why don't they ever apologize!" (Olshtain - Cohen
1989:53)
In other instances, cross-cultural differences (and cross-gender
differences - cf., Tannen 1982, 1986, 1990) may reflect the degree of
indirectness (cf., Brown - Levinson 1978). For example, when some
one says "I'm hungry", it often means something more than a mere
statement of fact. It can serve as a suggestion (let's go get something to
eat); or it can serve as an exultation (hurry up and finish so we can eat);
it can serve as a request for information (when will dinner be ready,
I'm hungry). While it may be the case that all languages/cultures have
the means to express a suggestion, an exultation or a request for
information, it is not necessarily the case that a statement of fact such
as "I'm hungry" will serve all of these functions. This book is dedicated
to the empirical study of a variety of speech acts in diverse cultural
settings and to the implications and applications of empirical speech act
data.
In this book we deal with three major areas ofSpeech Act research: 1)
Methodological Issues, 2) Speech Acts in an L2, and 3) Applications. In
the first section we deal with issues of methodology. As in any field and
clearlyinall areasofsecondlanguageresearch, issuesofmethodologyare
central to an understanding of the phenomenon in question. A major
question is: to what extent can different methodologies contribute to
differential results? As Tarone - Gass - Cohen (1994: xiii) state: "The
validity of any discipline is predicated on the assumption that the
research methods used to gather data are sufficiently understood and
agreed upon." Speech act research is no exception, as all three chapters
in this section aptly illustrate. Human behavior and human interaction
are complex phenomena and are subject to many intervening variables.
Hence, any attempt to examine data and draw conclusions has to do so
fully aware ofthe multi-faceted nature ofthe data.
Introduction 3
2. Section One
Leading offin this section, Cohen considers both theoretical and applied
aspects of speech act research. He notes that a first step in speech act
research is a description of the sociocultural and sociolinguistic abilities
needed to produce a given speech act. A second step is the determination
of the research methodology. A third area that needs to be addressed
(in those instances when the data are from non-native speakers) is the
identification of interlanguage features in the data.
Mostrelevantto this sectionis his discussion ofresearch methodology.
Manyearlier discussions ofvarious approaches to research methods have
focused on the advantages and/or disadvantages of one method over
another. Cohen argues against this approach and in favor of one that
combines different research methods. He argues that research methods
play different roles in the cycle of generating hypotheses, manipulating
variables, determining the range of speech acts and validation. For
example, ethnographic data are most important in generating initial
hypotheses; they are also useful when dealing with some speech acts,
particularly those that occur naturally in discourse. Ethnographic data
are less usefulwhen investigatingspeechacts thatdo notoccurfrequently
and/or that are so sensitive to sociocultural constraints that the cons
training variables could not be controlled. Similarly, role-plays, written
tests, verbal report data are all relevant, but all come with their own
baggage of advantages/disadvantages and appropriate and inappropriate
uses.
In addition to his discussion of theoretical issues surrounding the use
of various methods, Cohen considers more practical applications of
various methodologies drawn from his own data based on role plays and
follow-up interviews (using videos of the role play) of apologies,
complaints and requests. He makes the important point that particularly
when dealingwith non-native speakers, as he was, itiscrucial to separate
a learner's adeptness with the situation from his/her adeptness with the
language. Forexample, itmaybethecaseina role-playsituation, thatthe
situation itself is foreign to the subject, making the linguistic production
more "unnatural" than itwould be in a situation in which the learnerfelt
comfortable.
In his chapter, Cohen discusses some of the pros and cons of his
particular methodology. In addition, he focuses on a number of
aspects ofthe retrospective comments of his subjects. He points out that
through these comments we are able to gain additional information