Metapragmatic
Requesting Instruction in an Adult Basic Education-ESL Classroom:
A Pilot Study
Emily Suh
ABSTRACT
Pragmatics, or the ability to
communicate using language, is increasingly recognized as essential to language
competence and production (Thomas, 1983; Bachman, 1990). Much research exists on pragmatic acquisition
(Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989; Cenoz, 2003; Kasper & Rose, 2001;
Wildner-Basset, 1994). Researchers
currently advocate metapragmatic instruction which combines explicit
instruction, awareness-raising activities, and guided practice (Eslami-Rasekh,
2005; Kasper, 1997). Such instruction utilizes metalanguage and higher-level
thinking with which students from non-academic backgrounds may struggle. Previous research on the effectiveness of
metapragmatic instruction in request-making examined highly academic
participants literate in their first language (L1) as well as the second
language (L2). Additional research is
needed to determine the effectiveness of metapragmatics for lower-level
learners and those in non-university settings.
This
pilot study examines the effectiveness of metapragmatic instruction to teach
request-making to an intermediate Adult Basic Education (ABE)-ESL class of
Somalis and Mexicans. The study also
examines students’ responses to the instruction.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Pragmatics and
Request-making
Bialystok (1993) explains
pragmatic acquisition of request-making as using language for different
purposes, modifying requests to reflect context, and participating in
interactions following usage conventions. Pragmatic requesting requires that the speaker
be able to modify a request’s level of politeness as appropriate to the given
situation. Speakers vary their level of
politeness through the use of words or phrases which are conventionally
understood to convey respect, such as the word please. These words and
phrases are referred to as mitigators,
and speakers employ them to show the hearer respect (Blum-Kulka, House, and
Kasper, 1989). In the Cross Cultural
Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP), Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989)
categorize mitigators by their position vis-à-vis the speaker’s actual request
(i.e., “Can I have a raise?”), referred to as the head act. Mitigation can occur pre-request, within the
head act, or post-request (see Appendix A).
Speakers can employ several mitigators in a single request: “Could you
please walk the dog?” includes please and
the modal could rather than the more
direct can. In Western culture, politeness and directness
are inversely related (Brown & Levinson, 1978); thus, speakers must
consider the appropriate level of directness when making requests in English.
Not surprisingly, request-making can be especially difficult because of the complexity of the
linguistic elements used to convey sociopragmatic meaning and the subtlety of
mitigation devices. When speakers
choose dispreferred forms, pragmatic failure can result in socially inappropriate utterances or communication breakdown. For instance, a worker who
approaches the boss with the request “Can I have a raise?” may be labeled as
overly direct or even insubordinate and subsequently be refused the
request. As in this example, unpragmatic
requests may be grammatically correct; thus,
pragmatic failure alone does not easily identify a speaker as non-native, and
pragmatic failure is often seen as personal
failure (Cenoz, 2003; Thomas, 1983).
L2 Pragmatics Instruction
Given the cultural specificity
of politeness and the necessity of performing speech acts, pragmatics
instruction must discuss socially appropriate (i.e. polite) forms. Researchers advocate a combination of
explicit instruction, awareness-raising activities, and guided practice (Kasper,
2001; Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Kasper & Rose, 2001; LoCastro, 2006; Rose, 1994;
Takahashi, 2001). This
combination of activities and instruction involving the use of metalanguage and
higher level thinking skills is referred to here as meta-pragmatic instruction.
Explicit instruction provides
metalingustic explanations of target-structure forms and functions and
explanations of why certain forms are culturally
preferred. In their research with
Japanese learners of English, Takahashi (2001) and Tateyama (as cited in
Pearson, 2006) found explicit instruction successful at teaching requesting.
In awareness-raising
activities, learners draw form-function connections though exposure to
pragmatic aspects of language (Eslami-Rasekh, 2005). Awareness-raising equips learners with
multiple strategies for completing speech acts in different contexts (Kasper,
1997; Safont-Jorda, 2003).
Guided practice is
student-centered. Exercises include role
plays, dramas, and simulations (Eslaim-Rasehk, 2005; Kasper, 1997; Li 2000;
Rose, 1994).
Research shows positive results
for metapragmatic request instruction (Cenoz, 2003; Safont-Jorda, 2003;
Takahashi, 2001; Tateyama, 2001). After discussions about preferred forms,
production tasks, and a written Discourse Completion Task (DCT), Safont-Jorda
(2003) noted statistically significant increases in the use of request external
modifiers by beginning and intermediate English language learners at a Spanish
university.
Instruction must also introduce
communication tools to increase student agency and avoid learner perceptions of instructor ethnocentricity (Eslami-Rasekh, 2005; Hanson-Huff, 2005; Ishihara, 2000, 2008, in
press; Ishihara & Tarone, in press; Kasper & Rose, 2001; Li, 2000;
Thomas, 1983). Ishihara (2008) and Kim
(2001) found that many learners do not wish to adopt native speaker (NS)
pragmatics. Ishihara discusses pragmatic
resistance as a speaker’s conscious decision to avoid NS norms which are common
in the speech community and which the speaker is capable of producing; such
resistance allows non-native speakers (NNSs) to express subjectivity and
maintain distance from the target culture.
Adult Basic Education (ABE)
Overwhelmingly, research on L2 pragmatics
instruction focuses on university-educated learners receiving instruction in
their L1. The handful of studies involving lower-level learners occurred at
universities with highly L1 literate participants (Tateyama, 2001; Tateyama et
al., 1997; Wildner-Basset, 1994).[1] Bigelow and Tarone (2004) note a similar
tendency in second language acquisition (SLA) research, arguing that theories
based solely in research on educated language learners have “limited
applicability and little value in guiding teachers who work with illiterate
learners” (p. 690). The same is true
for pragmatics instruction; research with highly literate learners cannot fully
inform the instruction of others.
Pragmatics is already included in many ABE
classes, but instruction occurs incidentally as issues arise in class. I could find no research discussing
pragmatics in ABE, perhaps because of the difficulty of implementing meta-level
discussions with lower-level learners.
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
Research on metapragmatic
instruction with non-university educated students could increase understanding of pragmatic acquisition and
instruction, assist teachers in planning relevant lessons, and facilitate students’
metalanguage development and higher thinking. These issues lead to the
following research questions:
1) How effective is metapragmatic instruction at teaching how to mitigate requests for
intermediate ABE English learners?
2) Do ABE-ESL students vary request-making in situations of varying
social distance and level of imposition?
If so, how?
3) How do intermediate ABE
English learners respond to metapragmatic instruction?
METHOD
Participants
The participants attended a
non-profit ABE center in a large Midwest metropolitan area. The
class was considered to be pre-GED level, and all students were advanced-intermediate level as determined by their scaled scores
on the Test of Adult Basic Education, M version. The students were Somali and Mexican, and
many experienced interrupted schooling which was often delivered in a language
other than their L1. Some claimed L1
illiteracy (see Table 1); however, all were literate in
English. Thus the students’ L2 language ability and past educational
experiences differed substantially from those of participants mentioned in the
literature review. Students were required to participate in
classroom activities but testing was optional.
Twelve students attended the class; the seven who completed the
post-test were considered in the final analysis.
Table 1. Students Considered in Data Analysis
|
Student |
Age |
Ethnicity |
Languagesi |
Years in US |
Self-Reported English Ability |
Years of English Instruction |
Hours of English/Day |
English Language Use |
|
Ibrahin |
42 |
Somali |
Somali (L), Arabic |
14 |
Conversational |
1 year or less |
2 |
Talking work watching TV newspaper reading |
|
Hamza |
34 |
Somali |
Somali (L), Kiswahili, Amharic |
1 1/2 |
Literate |
Since high school |
4 or 5 |
Working, talking, and newspaper |
|
Jafar |
26 |
Somali |
Somali, Kiswahili, Arabic (L) |
4 |
no response |
no response |
no response |
Everything I want |
|
Axmed |
30 |
Somali |
Somali, Arabic, Ethiopian |
2 |
Literate |
3 |
10 |
At school |
|
Fadumo |
23 |
Somali |
Somali |
13 |
Speaks, reads, writes |
5 |
all ways |
at work and school, with her children |
|
Ana |
63 |
Mexican |
Spanish (L) |
17 |
no response |
2 |
3 |
Watching TV, reading newspaper, talking at the school |
|
Juanita |
19 |
Mexican |
Spanish (L) |
4 |
Literate 60% |
1 |
5 |
Talking at work and school |
i No measures of students’ literacy were conducted; self-reports of
students’ languages are included for a general understanding of their language
learning experiences rather than a definitive literacy measure.
Treatment
The treatment included nine
lessons occurring in the students’ classroom during the regularly scheduled
class. The researcher designed and
piloted all materials with students of the same level the previous summer.
The unit began with
awareness-raising activities about politeness and request-making in students’
L1s, which they compared to American culture.
Request modification was presented through explicit instruction in three
categories: pre-requests, internal request modification, and post-requests. Students used metatalk to
make connections between grammar and pragmatics, such as in discussions of
linguistic distance, defined in class as the amount of space between the subject
of the sentence and the action of the request.
Lessons also included guided practice, and students viewed NS requests
from the movies Shrek II and A Few Good Men. Content was informed by Brown and Levinson’s
(1978) work on situational variance.
According to Brown and Levinson
(1978), three factors determine the appropriate level of politeness for
request-making: the hearer’s relative power over the speaker (dominance), social distance between the speaker and the hearer (how well they
know each other), and imposition of
the act (or the problems the hearer faces resulting from complying with the
request). These factors comprise situational variance, and Brown and
Levinson argue that speakers consider this variance when determining the level
of politeness to address their hearer.[2]
Instruments and Data Collection
Pretest A was a written DCT in
which students made three requests of varying imposition as if they were
speaking with someone from their culture.
Items prompted requests to individuals of higher and equal status, such
as below.
1. You want to talk to your teacher about a book
you did not understand. You know your
teacher is busy, but you think she can explain the story to you quickly. When you see her in the hall, you say:
The other situations involved asking for a ride and a
raise.
Pretest B was a written DCT with six items of varying imposition. Students were asked to respond as if they
were speaking to someone from another culture. Pretest B repeated the Pretest A
scenarios, with three additional scenarios.
Items prompted students to make requests to individuals of higher and
equal status.
The posttest contained nine
written DCT items,
varying in level of imposition and speaker/hearer relationships. Situations included house
sitting, a ride, time off from work, weekend babysitting, apartment
information, a shift change, and asking a child and the child’s mother to stop
kicking a seat (see Appendix B). The
tenth was a ranking item, provided below.
10. Rank the following sentences from Most Polite
(5) to Least Polite (1). If you think
that some of the sentences are equally polite, give them the same number. For example, if I thought that sentence A was
the most polite, I would write 5 in the space after the sentence. If I thought that sentences A and B were both
the most polite, I would write 5 in both spaces.
A) Do you think it would be possible for you to
please give me the day off?
B) Give me the day off.
C) Could you please give me the day off?
D) Can you give me the day off?
E) I would appreciate it if you would give me
the day off.
Students completed a 15-item
course evaluation with open-ended questions about which activities they
preferred and found most helpful. Eleven
ranking items asked students to rate the strength of their (dis)agreement with
provided statements about the subject matter, activities, and quality of
instruction, such as below.
5. Directions and tasks were clearly
explained.
0 1 2 3 4 5
(I completely disagree) (I agree) (I completely agree)
Three items asked
students whether they would change the way they made and viewed request-making
in English based on course information.
Students signed informed
consent statements approved by the researcher’s university before treatment. All data
were collected by the researcher; participants were given unlimited time to
complete assessments and were allowed to opt out of requests but were asked to
explain why they would do so.
DATA ANALYSIS
The first research question
examined the effectiveness of metapragmatic instruction for teaching requesting. Students’ external and
internal mitigator
use from four pretest items was
compared to four posttest items of similar situational variation.[3] Situational variation was measured by (+/-)
Social Distance (SD),
(+/-) Dominance (x, y), and
(+/-) Imposition (IMP), as
defined by Brown and Levinson (1978). An
explanation of the situational variation coding for Pretest B item 1
follows.
1. You want to talk to your teacher about a book
you did not understand. You know your
teacher is busy, but you think she can explain the story to you quickly.
The hearer is the speaker’s
teacher so is well-known (-SD). As the
teacher, the hearer has more power (x < y).
Because the hearer can quickly explain the story, there is little
imposition involved in complying with the request (-IMP). The item was coded as –SD, x < y,
-IMP. Appendix B lists each DCT item’s
situational variation.
The researcher performed
frequency counts (means and standard deviations) of students’ use of
the eight mitigator types in pre and posttest
requests: Greetings
(i.e., Hello),
Concern for the Hearer (i.e., I know you
are busy), Transition (i.e. Before I
forget…), Linguistic Distance (i.e., I
was wondering, Would you…),
Lexical Downgrader Please, Lexical
Downgrader Thanks, Polite Modals (i.e. Could, Would), Grounder (i.e., No
one else can do it). Appendix A includes
a further discussion of
mitigators.
Inclusion of each of the eight
mitigator types
(i.e. Greeting, Concern) was counted as +1. Duplications
of the same mitigator type, or the use of multiple sub-types of mitigators
(i.e., the request
“I was wondering if you would take my shift,” employs
Linguistic Distance through Past tense and Continuous –ING) were counted once;
students received +1 for that type. Absent
types were counted as 0: “Can you work my shift?” contains no
lexical downgrader please so receives
a 0 count for that type.
The analysis examined
descriptive statistics for the DCT results.
There was no attempt to identify statistical significance due to the
small sample size and because the data set did not meet the assumptions of
parametric statistics.
The second research question
considered whether intermediate ABE English learners varied request politeness,
measured by mitigator use, based on situational variation. It was assumed that students would increase
the politeness of requests with greater imposition. Students’ mitigator use in Posttest items 5 and 7 (high-imposition
requests for weekend-long baby-sitting and a shift change) was compared to Posttest items 2 and 4 (low-imposition
requests for house sitting and time off) to
determine whether students varied their use based on imposition.
Because students did not appear
to vary requests based on situational variation, Pretest A items 2 and 3 (-SD, -IMP), involving requests for an
explanation of a book and house sitting, were
compared to Posttest 3 and 7 (+SD, +IMP), requests for
a raise and a shift change, to determine whether
students’ mitigation was influenced by L1 transfer.
The third research question
examined students’ reactions to metapragmatic instruction. Data from all eight students who filled out
an evaluation were included in this analysis.
Students’ ranking item responses were supplemented with written
comments.
RESULTS
Research Question #1
The first research question
considered the effectiveness of metapragmatic instruction on intermediate level
ABE-ESL learners. Students’ use of
mitigators in
pretest and posttest items (Pretest B 2, 3, 5, and 6 and
Posttest 2, 4, 5 and 7), matched for situational variation, were counted. (See Appendix A for discussion of
mitigators.) Because of the small sample size, it is
impossible to determine whether changes in students’ mitigator use were
statistically significant; however, as
Table 2 shows, every student increased his/her use of mitigators in the
posttest by at least four devices.
Fadumo and Axmed’s usage increased the most, by 12 and 10. This comparison of students’ total internal
and external mitigators use suggests that instruction produced a marked
difference in post-treatment request-making.
Table 2. Pre and
Posttest Student Mitigation Use
|
|
External Mitigation |
Internal Mitigation |
||||||
|
Student |
Total (of 32) |
Greet |
Con |
Trans |
Ground |
LexDi |
LD |
Modals |
|
Ana |
Pre:
14 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
|
Post:
18 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
Juanita |
Pre:
13 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
Post:
20 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
|
|
Hamza |
Pre:
9 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
Post:17 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
Axmed |
Pre:
8 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
Post:
18 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Fadumo |
Pre:
8 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Post:
20 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
|
|
Ibrahin |
Pre:
8 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
|
Post:
17 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
Jafar |
Pre:
5 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Post:
15 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
i x/8 (+1 for please and
+1 for thank you/thanks)
Students’ mean use of total
mitigators further supports claims of the treatment’s effectiveness. Table 3
lists mean scores and standard deviations for each mitigator and total
mitigator use from Pretest B and the Posttest.
Table 3. Pre and Post-test Total Mitigator Use
|
|
Pretest B |
Posttest |
Pre-Post |
||
|
|
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
Mean Difference |
|
Greetings |
2.57 |
0.97 |
3.42 |
0.78 |
0.85 |
|
Concern |
0.71 |
0.75 |
2.00 |
1.15 |
1.29 |
|
Transitions |
1.42 |
1.40 |
1.71 |
0.75 |
0.29 |
|
Grounders |
2.14 |
1.57 |
3.14 |
1.22 |
1.00 |
|
Lex.Downgraders |
1.85 |
1.77 |
2.57 |
2.06 |
0.72 |
|
Total Mitigators |
9.28 |
3.14 |
17.71 |
2.42 |
8.43 |
To provide a thorough account of
students’ mitigation, external and internal mitigation as well as request
strategy use were analyzed.
Use of External Mitigation
Overall, students’ use of each type of external mitigation
increased (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Pre- and Posttest External Mitigator Use
The greatest improvement
occurred with Shows of concern (most
commonly, “How are you?”), which nearly tripled to 14 uses in the posttest.[4] In the posttest, every student used concern at
least once, suggesting that the instruction may have increased metapragmatic
knowledge of concern as a mitigating device.
Instruction divided concern
into three subtypes: references to the hearer’s time (“I’m sorry I know busy”),
pleasantry statements (“how are you”), and references to the hearer’s
willingness/ability to perform the request (“if you do[n’t] mind,” “if you
can”). As a whole, the class used an
even distribution of all three subtypes in the pretest; however, the posttest
showed a strong preference for pleasantry statements. Every student except Jafar used pleasantry
statements to mitigate at least one request in the posttest. Instead of pleasantry
statements, typically occurring pre-request, Jafar used two post-request
references to the hearer’s time.
In the pretest Fadumo and
Juanita used no concern mitigators, but in the posttest they both used several,
including Juanita’s use of back-to-back pleasantry devices (“How are you? I haven’t seen you in a while”). Before the treatment, students were familiar
with statements showing concern and pleasantry devices; however, as Juanita and
Fadumo illustrate, after instruction, students seemed to better understand that
such statements can mitigate requests.
The use of Grounders (such as “My car is not work for some reason it is not
ignite”) increased by almost half in the posttest. Everyone used a grounder in at least one
posttest request, and four students increased their total use of grounders. Axmed, who used no grounders in the pretest,
used a grounder in all four posttest requests. Students’ increase in the use of grounders
suggests that instruction may have influenced their understanding of this
aspect in request-making.
Use of Internal Mitigation
Posttest requests included a
substantial increase in internal mitigators.
Figure 2 illustrates the use of Linguistic
Distance (LD) and Polite modals
(Modals) to mitigate the head act of the request; use of both types increased
in the posttest.
Figure 2. Pre- and Posttest Internal Mitigator Use
No student used linguistic
distance in the pretest. Class-wide
posttest use of linguistic distance increased to 15 occurrences; everyone but
Fadumo and Hamza used linguistic distance.
Students favored two forms: hypothetical modal would and Past+Continuous ING.
Juanita used Past+Continuous ING to mitigate all four of her posttest requests, using “I was thinking” and “I was
hoping” twice each.
Ana used both types of
linguistic distance. When making a
low-imposition request of a hearer with equal power, she used hypothetical
modal would. However, when making a high-imposition
request and a request to a +SD hearer, she used Past+Continuous ING. Ana’s choices were appropriate based on the
treatment which specified that a request was considered more polite if there
was greater linguistic distance between the subject of the requesting sentence
and the action of the request.
Instruction specified Past+Continuous ING as having the most linguistic
distance and being the most polite.
Because Ana was the only student to apply linguistic distance in a
manner consistent with instruction, it is uncertain whether the instruction was
effective at teaching the relationship between linguistic distance and
situational variation.
Students’
use of polite modals increased by five and half times in the posttest; each
student modified at least two requests this way. In the posttest, Juanita mitigated all four
requests with a modal, using would to
mitigate a low-imposition request to a stranger. This was consistent with instruction stating
that would was considered to be the
most polite modal and that Americans tend to be most polite to strangers.
Use of Request Strategies
Request strategies, which refer
to the level of directness associated with requesting, were not explicitly
taught in the treatment.[5] However, students were exposed to a variety
of strategies through class activities highlighting mitigators. Pre and posttest comparisons suggest that
students may have altered their strategy use as a result of the instruction;
however, the effect was minor. The most
popular strategy in both the pre and
posttest was the preparatory
strategy, which refers to a precondition for the feasibility of the hearer’s
compliance with the request (i.e., “Can you give me the day off?”) (Blum-Kulka,
House, & Kasper, 1989). The majority
of students’ preparatory strategies made use of what Wigglesworth and Yates
(2004) refer to as the “Canonical can” statement—“Can I...?” “Can I” comprised 12 of the 18 preparatory
strategies in the pretest; each student used it at least once, but the strategy
went largely unmitigated.
In the posttest, almost every
student increased their use of want
statements, expressing the speaker’s desire that the hearer perform the
request, (“I would appreciated if you do that for me”) and hedged performatives,
modals that modify requesting verbs (“I was wondering if you could be change my
schedule for the morning”) (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989). Left unmitigated, want statements and hedged
performatives are more direct, and less polite, than preparatory; however, in
the posttest students mitigated these strategies, producing more polite
requests. Only two of the 14 posttest preparatory strategies used an
unmitigated form of “Can I.” The
majority of the posttest requests, regardless of strategy, were modified
internally through the use of modals could
or would.
Students’ posttest preference for polite modals suggests that they
learned how to mitigate request head acts.
Juanita’s posttest suggests
that her understanding of request strategies increased. She used hedged performatives (a direct
strategy) to realize low-imposition requests to hearers with equal power and
want statements (less direct) to realize a high-imposition request and in a
request to a +SD interlocutor. Juanita’s
choice may suggest that post-instruction she understood the increased need for
politeness in the two situations.
Overall, the data seem to
indicate that metapragmatic instruction was effective at teaching these
learners how to use mitigators to increase request politeness. Although some students’ strategies increased
in directness, this potential movement towards impoliteness was reversed by
large increases in external and internal mitigation. Students’ increased use of greetings and
concern (external mitigation) and their use of linguistic distance and polite
modals (internal mitigation) were particularly noteworthy. In addition, students’ posttest use of requests that varied in their
directness suggests that students increased their ability to control the
directness of their requests. Instead of
relying upon a common lexical chunk (“Can I…”), students demonstrated their
ability to compose requests of varying directness, modified by mitigators.
Research Question #2
Posttest requests were examined
for evidence of mitigation based on level of imposition, social distance, and
speaker/hearer relationship. Students
did not appear to consider situational variation in their mitigation
decisions. If situational variation had
influenced students’ mitigation, one would expect to see the total mitigators
decreasing from left to right in Table 4.
This is not the case. Table 4
illustrates that situational variation did not influence students’ total
mitigator use. Nor was it related to the
decision to use individual mitigators.
Some students favored the use of a single mitigator, employing it to
increase the politeness of all four requests considered in this question.
Table 4. Student’s Total Posttest Mitigator Use by Situational Variation
|
|
Post7: x < y,
+SD, +IMP |
Post4: x
< y, +SD, -IMP |
Post5: x =
y, -SD, +IMP |
Post2: x = y, -SD, -IMP |
|
Ana |
2 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
|
Juanita |
4 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
|
Hamza |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
Axmed |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
Fadumo |
5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Ibrahin |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
Jafar |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
Students’ mitigation decisions
appeared unrelated to situational variation.
To examine whether students’ mitigation choices resulted from transfer,
requests from two items in Pretest A
were compared to the posttest. However,
few mitigation devices were used in Pretest A, and there was no evidence of
transfer.
Post-instruction, learners did
not appear to consider situational variation in requesting.
Research Question #3
Eight students completed the Course Assessment. Reactions were extremely positive, and
students felt they learned a considerable amount about request-making and
culture. All students completely agreed
with the statement “The teacher was respectful of my culture and the cultures
of my classmates.” Students also agreed
that “The teacher made me interested in the cultures of my classmates.” Responses suggest that the instruction
facilitated understanding of other cultures, particularly American culture.
Students also indicated that
the instruction increased their understanding of request-making and
politeness. Students agreed that “Now
that I have taken this course, I know how to make my requests more polite and
the situations when I should make polite requests.” Responses to the statement “Now that I have
taken this course, I understand why American people make requests the way that
they do” expressed similar sentiments.
Students’ favorable responses suggest that they felt instruction
provided useful information about request-making and American culture and that
they could apply this knowledge outside of class.
Additionally, individuals’
comments suggested that they benefited from the use of meta-talk in pragmatic
instruction. One student wrote:
I am
learen a lot of Things For exemple prequst, Liungts destence [linguistic
distance] and How deal whit Them people or How to ask peope what ever you want
How to you Ask Boss Friendd or you Family and people do you now and different
request.
This specific reference to
linguistic distance suggests that the student found the class’ challenging
language and concepts accessible and subsequently felt that he could better
navigate the world around him.[6] Another wrote, “This class is very good class
and I like very mach because I learn more English words and sentences….I am
anderstadning [understanding] ever think easy that is why I Like This class.” This student’s comment suggests that he
benefited from the use of meta-talk. The
fact that each student increased mitigator use in the posttest suggests the
accuracy of these students’ assessments.
Perhaps more important was how they felt this knowledge would influence
their communication styles.
Seven students completely
agreed with the statement “Now that I have taken this course, I will change the
way I make requests to American people.” The eighth completely disagreed. This response may be an example of pragmatic
resistance, which occurs when speakers intentionally avoid a community norm of
which they are aware and capable of producing (Ishihara, 2008). Although he rejected American request-making
norms, the student indicated in previous questions that he learned a considerable
amount about request-making and why Americans request the way they do. Even with this knowledge, he felt certain
that he would not modify his style when speaking with an American. Personal convictions aside, the student did modify his request-making style in the
posttest, as he increased his mitigator use.
Students generally
responded positively to class activities,
and all completely agreed with the statement “Tasks were interesting and made
me think about the differences between how people from different cultures make
requests.” Students listed several
preferences for which activities were most helpful. Overall, students preferred reading, “because
like learn things when I reading,” and “I practice more the words.” Two other students stated that teacher
explanations were the most helpful.
However, another student completely disagreed with the statement “The
teacher was helpful and explained things I did not understand.” The student may have felt that the learning
was too student-centered or that his questions were not adequately
addressed.
Even though individuals had
specific preferences about which activities were most helpful, the variety of
activities made students feel like they were able to take something from the
instruction. Students responded
favorably to metapragmatic instruction and felt that they could apply this
knowledge outside of class, if they so chose.
DISCUSSION
Analysis of the Results
While
students increased their use of mitigators and request-making strategies, their
posttests indicated that they did not yet
understand the influence of situational variation on politeness in
request-making. Research on pragmatic
acquisition supports this assumption; learners who have acquired pragmatic
knowledge also need to learn how to use and automatize it (Bialystok, 1993;
Safont-Jorda, 2003).
It is
also possible that students learned how and when to use mitigators in
accordance with American norms, but that they chose not to do so for personal
reasons. However,
only one student displayed evidence of pragmatic resistance, stating that he
would not change his request-making.
Other students indicated that they would use the mitigators they
practiced in class. Thus, resistance to
acculturation cannot fully explain why the rest of the class failed to exhibit
an awareness of situational variation.
A
second possible explanation for the results is that students’ requesting was
influenced by L1 transfer. Throughout the treatment, Fadumo repeatedly emphasized that
English and Somali requesting were exactly the same—only the language
differed. Fadumo’s insistence could be
related to her level of acculturation; at the time of the study, she had spent
13 years—over half of her life—in the United States. However, the data generally do not support
the theory of L1 transfer for these students.
For example, Hanson-Huff (2005) identified the Somali tendency to appeal
to the relationship with the hearer in order to emphasize resulting obligations. Several of the Somali students in this study
used endearment terms, but they did little else to refer to a reciprocal
relationship or show concern for the hearer.
Another factor influencing
students’ request-making choices was attendance. Fadumo’s total mitigator use increased by 12
in the posttest, and she increased her use of all mitigators except linguistic
distance, introduced during the one lesson she missed. Classes began with a review, which may
explain how some students produced types of mitigation introduced when they were absent. For
example, Hamza missed both classes on external mitigation but increased his use
of external mitigators by a total of four in the posttest.
There are two final points to
consider. The first is that even without
a firm understanding of situational variation, after the treatment, all of the
students’ requests could have successfully accomplished their goals outside of
the classroom.
Second, use of each of the
mitigating devices analyzed in this research would most likely not occur in a
single request in the real world. Such a
request would be too long and non-native like and would reduce speaker
individuality.
The instruction provided
students with a small way to control their world by controlling their language
use. Post-instruction, students
demonstrated that they knew how to vary request politeness. This knowledge contributes directly to their
communicative competence, which is essential for acquiring personal and social
control (Li, 2000). Even if an
individual chooses not to adapt to target norms, as was the case with one
student, understanding that such a choice is theirs to make is part of that
control. Speaker empowerment is closely
related to speaker choice, and it was encouraging to see that at least one student chose to problematize the norms presented in class and decide
that they were not an accurate reflection of his identity or the messages he
was trying to convey.
Limitations
This study has several
limitations. The sample size was too
small for a control group and made statistical analysis impossible. Students’ sporadic attendance may have
limited the treatment’s effectiveness.
Data collection decisions
further limited the analysis. No
information was collected allowing students to explain their mitigation
choices. It was assumed that mitigation
was based on situational variation; however, this incorrect assumption may have
erroneously influenced the data analysis.
The use of DCTs also limited
the study. Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford
(1993) criticize written DCTs, stating that respondents may write what they
feel should be said rather than what they would actually say, and Varahese and
Billmeyer (as cited in Cohen, 2004) argue that traditional DCT prompts cannot
provide enough meaningful information about speaker-hearer relationships. A final problem with the DCT was that it was
a written assessment of oral communication.
Several students indicated that they had limited L1
literacy, so they may have performed differently had they been asked to speak
their requests.
Because of researcher
oversight, the pre and posttests did not include identical request-making
situations. Slight speaker-hearer
relationship variations between corresponding pre and
post-test items may have affected students’
requests in unpredicted ways, decreasing the strength of claims made about
changes in students’ post-instruction request-making.
A final limitation involved the
amount of data analysis. Additional data
were collected but excluded from analysis because of time constraints. These data included surveys about students’
learning styles and strategies, and pre and
posttest measures in which students
ranked a series of requests and modals according to politeness. A more thorough understanding of the students’ request-making might have been had if these data had
been included in the analysis.
Pedagogical Implications
Because of its cultural
specificity, pragmatics is an important topic for NNSs and requires thorough
attention in language classrooms.
ABE-ESL classes offer an environment conducive for pragmatics
instruction because they contain diverse student-bodies and are often the site
of target-culture exploration. Guy
(1999) advocates learning based on racially, ethnically, and linguistically
marginalized learners’ sociocultural experiences, suggesting that adult
educators can minimize the potential for further exclusion of minority
groups. One way to do this may be
through open discussions about the beliefs behind majority values and norms and
how they influence choices, such as the use of mitigators, within a
language. Analysis of what certain
cultural practices mean could facilitate language development and encourage
further pragmatic exploration.
Students in this study
successfully accessed the material and seemed to benefit from the use of
metapragmatic instruction. Even though
metalanguage was ineffective for explaining the importance of situational
variation, its continued presence in the classroom seems warranted and perhaps
even necessary to encourage pragmatic and language development. Metapragmatic instruction also exposes
students to a new way of thinking about language.
Before using metapragmatic
instruction, teachers must clearly identify their goals and determine the level
of understanding they want their students to demonstrate. In addition, instruction must be presented as
a series of choices for empowerment rather than a checklist for acculturation.
Further Research
Further
research should include a
larger sample size and control group. Retrospective interviews could offer valuable information about the
factors affecting participants’ mitigation choices, possibly highlighting
examples of pragmatic resistance or helping to identify pragmatic knowledge
which has been acquired but not yet automatized.
Additional research should also
examine students’ oral requesting, perhaps in the performance of requests when
students are unaware that they are being assessed. Such an assessment could offer insight into
the treatment’s impact on students’ real-world requesting. It could also highlight changes not captured
by the students’ written assessments as a result of their limited literacy
skills. This is especially important for
students, like the participants in this pilot study, whose English fluency
cannot be captured in written assessments.
Future studies should also examine the effectiveness of metapragmatic instruction
on lower-level learners to determine what basic organizational knowledge, if
any, is required in order for metapragmatic instruction to be effective.
Finally, this study examined
only request-making instruction; further research is needed to develop
effective metapragmatic instruction for additional speech acts.
Author
Emily Suh received her MA in ESL from the University of Minnesota,
where she worked in the Center for Writing and the Commanding
English program. Her interests include immigrant/refugee education and
literacy. She worked as a volunteer teacher
at the Minnesota Literacy Council and currently teaches EFL in
South Korea.
References
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language
testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., &
Hartford, B.S. (1993). Redefining the DCT: Comparing open questionnaires and dialogue
completion tasks. Pragmatics and Language
Teaching, 4, 143-165.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic
representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper
& S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage
pragmatics (pp. 43-63). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bigelow, M., & Tarone, E.
(2004). The role of literacy level in second language acquisition: Doesn’t who
we study determine what we know? TESOL
Quarterly 38, 689-699.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J.,
& Kasper, G. (1989). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An
introductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and
apologies (pp. 1-36). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.
(1978). Politeness: Some universals in
language use. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cenoz, J. (2003). The intercultural style hypothesis: L1 and L2
interaction in requesting behaviour. In
V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second
language on the first (pp. 62-80).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cohen, A.D. (2004). Assessing
speech acts in a second language. In D. Boxer & A.D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language
learning (pp. 302-327). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005).
Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59, 199-208.
Guy, T.C. (1999). Culture as
context for adult education: The need for culturally relevant adult education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 82, 5-18.
Hanson-Huff, A. (2005). Exploring the face wants of Somali women:
Making requests in English. Unpublished Masters Double Plan B paper,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Ishihara, N. (2000). Subjectivity,
second/foreign language pragmatic use, and instruction: Evidence of
accommodation and resistance.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Ishihara, N. (2008). Transforming community norms: Potentials of
L2 speakers’ pragmatic resistance. Temple
University Japan Applied Linguistics Colloquium 2008 Conference Proceedings.
Ishihara, N. (In press). Maintaining an optimal distance: Nonnative speakers’ pragmatic choice. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), TESOL nonnative English speaking teacher resource book. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Ishihara,
N. & Tarone, E. (In press). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2
Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In N Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence in Japanese as a second
language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kasper, G. (1997). The role of pragmatics
in language teacher education. In K.
Bardovi-Harlig & B. Hartford (Eds.), Beyond
methods: Components of second language teacher education (pp. 113-136). New
York: McGraw Hill.
Kasper,
G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose & G.
Kasper (Eds.) Pragmatics in language
teaching. (pp. 33-62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka,
S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction. In G. Kasper & S.
Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage
pragmatics (pp. 3-17). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kasper,
G., & Rose, K. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In K. Rose & G.
Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language
teaching (pp. 1-12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, Y.Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative
theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Li, D. (2000). The pragmatics
of making requests in the L2 workplace: A case study of language socialization.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 57,
58-87.
LoCastro, V. (2006). An introduction to pragmatics: Social action
for language teachers. University of
Michigan Press.
Meier, A.J. (1995). Defining politeness:
Universality in appropriateness. Language
Sciences, 17, 345-56.
Pearson, L. (2006). Teaching
pragmatics in Spanish L2 courses: What do learners think? In K. Bardovi-Harlig,
J.C. Felix-Brasdefer & A.S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp.109-134). Honolulu, HI:
National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
Rose, K. R. (1994). Pragmatic
consciousness-raising in an EFL context. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru
(Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning
(vol. 5, pp. 52-63). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International
Language, University of Illinois.
Safont-Jorda, M. (2003).
Instructional effects on the use of request acts modification devices by EFL
learners. In A. Martinez Flor, E. Uso
Juan, & A. Fernandez Guerra (Eds.), Pragmatic
competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 211-232). Castello de la
Plana, Spain: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role
of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. Rose & G.
Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language
teaching (pp. 171-199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tateyama, Y. (2001) Explicit
and implicit teaching of pragmatics routines: Japanese sumimasen. In: K.R. Rose
& G. Kasper (Eds), Pragmatics in
language teaching (pp. 200-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui,
L.P., Tay, H., Thananart, O., (1997). Explicit and implicit teaching of
Japanese pragmatics routines. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (vol.
5, pp. 163-178). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International
Language, University of Illinois.
Thomas, J. (1983).
Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied
Linguistics, 4, 91-112.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural
pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wigglesworth, G. & Yates,
L. (2004). Making difficult requests: What learners need to know. Unpublished manuscript. Parkville, Australia; Department of
Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, University of Melbourne.
Wildner-Basset, M. (1994). Improving pragmatic aspects of learners’
interlanguage. Tubingen, Germany: Narr.
Appendix A
Mitigation Devices (Modified
from CCSARP)
I. Pre-requests (a part of conversation
that happens before requests)
A. Greetings (a way to begin a conversation)
Hello.
Maria (instruction
highlighted the American preference for use of first names to emphasize
perceptions of speaker-hearer equality)
B. Concern for the Hearer (showing the hearer that the
speaker cares about hearer wants and needs)
I know
you’re busy, but…
Do you
have a minute to talk?
C. Transition (moves a conversation that has already begun
into the request head act; used when the speaker makes a request in the middle
of a conversation)
That reminds
me, I was wondering…
Before I
forget…
II. Request Head Act Internal
Modification (words/phrases speakers use to increase a request’s politeness)
A. Linguistic Distance (the amount of space between
important words in a sentence, where increased linguistic distance makes a
request more polite, because there is more space between the subject of the
sentence and the action of the request)
1. Past + Continuous –ING (past tense verb+ING,
used to increase the linguistic distance between the subject of a sentence and
the action of the request; the following lexical chunks were included in
instruction)
I
was wondering if…
I
was thinking that…
I
was hoping that…
2. Hypothetical Modal would (a modal verb that increases a request’s linguistic distance)
I was wondering if you would be willing to…
B. Polite Modals (modals were discussed as verbs that are
used to explain the degree of certainty that something will happen. When used in a request, a modal is a helping
word that shows the willingness or ability of the subject to do the action of
the verb) [7]
Would you please be quiet?
Could you please be quiet?
III. Post-request (speaker’s
last chance to convince hearer to agree to the request) [8]
A. Grounder (provides background information,
often including reasons why the hearer should comply with the request)
1.
Recognition of request’s imposition
(speaker’s recognition of the difficulties hearer encounters resulting from
performing the request action)
I know you are busy
right now, so I appreciate your help.
2.
Justification of the request (describes compliance of the request as necessary
for the speaker)
I need a ride, since my car is broken.
3. Promise to return the favor (explains compliance with the request as beneficial to the hearer)
If you buy
my dinner tonight, I will pay for you
next time.
Appendix B
Situational Variation of DCT Items
|
Request Situation |
Social Distance |
Dominance |
Imposition |
|
Pre-test A |
|
|
|
|
PreA1: Explain book |
- SD |
x < y |
- IMP |
|
PreA2: Ride to doctor |
- SD |
x = y |
- IMP |
|
PreA3: Raise |
- SD |
x < y |
+ IMP |
|
Pre-test B |
|
|
|
|
PreB1: Explain book |
- SD |
x < y |
- IMP |
|
PreB2: Ride to doctor* |
- SD |
x = y |
- IMP |
|
PreB3: Raise* |
- SD |
x < y |
+ IMP |
|
PreB4: Pick up kids |
- SD |
x = y |
- IMP |
|
PreB5: Extra shift* |
+ SD |
x = y |
- IMP |
|
PreB6: Babysitting* |
- SD |
x = y |
- IMP |
|
Post-Test |
|
|
|
|
Post1: House-sitting neighbor |
- SD |
x = y |
- IMP |
|
Post2: House-sitting friend* |
- SD |
x = y |
- IMP |
|
Post3: Ride to store |
- SD |
x < y |
- IMP |
|
Post4: Time off* |
+ SD |
x < y |
- IMP |
|
Post5: Weekend babysitting* |
- SD |
x = y |
+ IMP |
|
Post6: Apartment info |
+ SD |
x = y |
- IMP |
|
Post7: Change of shifts* |
+ SD |
x < y |
+ IMP |
|
Post8: Seat kicker |
+ SD |
x > y |
- IMP |
|
Post9: Seat kicker’s mother |
+ SD |
x = y |
- IMP |
x: Speaker
y: Hearer
+ SD: Great social distance
- SD: Little social distance
* Item considered in data
analysis for research question 1
(Table modified from Blum-Kulka,
House, & Kasper, 1989)
©
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 26, 2009