The Language Teacher
05 - 2003

What is the Relevance of Sociopragmatic Failure to Language Teaching?

Megumi Kawate-Mierzejewska

Temple University Japan



Pragmatic failure can be divided into two types, pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure (Thomas, 1983). The former has to do with the inappropriate use of linguistic forms and is considered relatively easy to overcome. However, the latter refers to "the social conditions placed on language in use" (Thomas, 1983, p. 99), which are very difficult to influence or change. This paper begins with a brief definition of sociopragmatics and of sociopragmatic competence and then goes on to discuss possible causes of sociopragmatic failure with specific examples before considering the relevance of sociopragmatic failure to language teaching.

Definitions

Sociopragmatics is "the sociological interface of pragmatics" (Leech, 1983, p. 10) involving speakers' and hearers' beliefs built on relevant social and cultural values. Thus, sociopragmatic competence is the ability to adjust speech strategies appropriately according to different social variables such as the degree of imposition, social dominance and distance between participants of conversation, and participants' rights and obligations in communication (Harlow, 1990).

Possible Sources of Sociopragmatic Failure

There are many different sources of pragmatic failure although it is rare for any single source to be solely responsible. Linguistic, sociocultural and sociopsychological factors can be influenced by attributes of the person's L1/Home Culture (L1/HC) and by his or her proficiency or knowledge of the Target Language/Culture (TL/TC). Furthermore, failure can be attributed to multiple sources at any given time. Table 1 summarizes these sources of pragmatic failure.

Table 1. Differences among sources of pragmatic failure


Linguistic Sociocultural Sociopsychological
L1/HC L1 negative linguistic transfer Negative cultural transfer Generalized insensitivity or deviation from social norms Generalized misconceptions or illusions
TL/TC Gaps or deficits in TL proficiency Gaps or deficits in TC knowledge/proficiency Insensitivity or deviation from social norms but only in a TL/TC context Misconceptions or illusions of TL/TC

In the case of linguistic factors, the L1 may lead the learner to make inappropriate linguistic choices, which would lead to pragmalinguistic failure. However, the learner may also make poor pragmalinguistic choices because of gaps in proficiency or deficits in the target language. Sociocultural factors such as differences between the home culture and the target culture can lead to negative cultural transfer strategies. Furthermore, a lack of knowledge of the target culture norms may contribute to sociolinguistic failure. Finally, sociopsychological factors such as insensitivity to or deviations from social norms (home culture as well as target culture) or misconceptions and illusions about the target culture may inhibit a person's sociopragmatic performance. Since linguistic deficits are largely the sources of pragmalinguistic failure they will be set aside and this article will focus on sociocultural and sociopsychological factors.

Sociocultural factors

Many scholars (Harlow, 1990; Holmes & Brown, 1987; Kasper, 1997; Thomas, 1983) have commented that if the L2 speaker does not have proper knowledge of relevant social and cultural values and know how to vary his or her speech strategies in cross-cultural communication, sociolinguistic failure occurs. For example, in Poland, elderly women often care about the welfare of children, even those of strangers. They will scold the mothers if they see the children not wearing knitted caps. When we first arrived in Poland, we were told at the official orientation conducted by a Polish local government that we should be aware of the fact that such behavior was widely accepted in Poland. All of the Polish people to whom we talked about this issue told us the same thing and some attribute this situation to the previous communist political system. If, however, a Polish woman were to behave this way in a Japanese speaking community it would certainly be considered pragmatically inappropriate.

Sociopsychological factors: Insensitivity

This issue may be quite complicated. Speakers might not be sensitive about their own L2 utterances (i.e., they might not feel negative feelings such as embarrassment even when such emotions would be warranted). Even though the speaker would never consider using an utterance that would produce such a negative effect in their L1 this sensitivity might not transfer to the L2. For example, I was shown an email message in which a male Japanese wrote, "fire me if you don't need me anymore" when trying to negotiate the conditions of his contract in a cross-cultural situation. Another male Japanese wrote, "I got extremely hurt because you never responded to me" in this same situation. The company with which the men were negotiating later informed me that they had never expected such impolite and emotional reactions in a business setting. Needless to say, both cases resulted in sociopragmatic failure because their behaviors and manners were inappropriate. I am quite certain, however, that they would never use such expressions in the same situation if they were communicating in Japanese.

Sociopsychological factors: Misconceptions and distortions

People tend to create their own pictures of the cultural and social values of other nations based on information obtained from secondary sources such as TV, magazines, books, and/or anecdotes from other people's experience. As a result, they often construct haphazard, inconsistent views of cultural and social values. Here is one widespread example: It seems that Japanese students speaking English often call their American professors by their first names, based on their illusion that American students all call their professors by their first names. Yet at the same time, those same Japanese students call their Japanese professors by their family name followed by "sensei (lit. Professor)." In actual fact, American students seldom call their professors by their first names unless they are explicitly invited to do so. When Japanese students act on their illusions it results in sociopragmatic failure (and the potential for hurt feelings) since the American professors may quite understandably feel they are being treated with less respect than their Japanese colleagues.

The Relevance of Sociopragmatic Failure to Language Teaching

As shown in this paper, sociopragmatic failure can be attributed to many different sources. Then, what are the implications for language teaching? It appears necessary for L2 speakers at least to be properly taught that pragmatic rules of other languages are not always the same as those of their own, so awareness/consciousness-raising is important. It should be noted however that there is always a possibility that learners will continue to prefer their own social and cultural values to those of their target language even after explicit instruction and awareness building. In other words, some people may not want to alter their speech strategies even if they know those strategies may not be perceived well in their TL speaking community. Nonetheless, learners should at least be given an opportunity to obtain appropriate knowledge of TL social and cultural values.

As Kasper (1997) has stated, L2 speakers may appropriately deal with some of the factors easily while at the same time having difficulties in handling other factors properly. For example, it would likely be easy for L2 speakers to appropriately change their behavior in the example of how to politely address an American professor. On the other hand, an L2 speaker's inappropriate performance caused by insensitivity has individually variant social and psychological roots which lie outside of a language teacher's purview. Therefore, such behavior may remain a long-term problem. In any event, it is still considered very important to at least let learners know how pragmatic rules operate in the target language speaking community and perhaps draw attention to mismatches or inconsistencies in behavior. Moreover, in order for teachers to prepare to teach pragmatic rules of a TL, besides knowing how pragmatic rules actually operate in the TL, teachers may have to keep in mind that some learners continue to prefer their own speech strategies to those of their TL even if they know those strategies are not perceived well in their TL speaking community and that it is difficult to deal with an L2 speaker's inappropriate performance caused by their lack of sensitivity.

This paper attempts to show different sources resulting in sociopragmatic failure and its relevance to language teaching. The important issues brought up in this paper should be seriously considered by language teachers interested in preparing their students to communicate successfully and appropriately in their target language.

References

Harlow, L. (1990). Do they mean what they say?: Sociopragmatic competence and second language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 74, 328-51.
Holmes, J., & Brown, D. F. (1987). Teachers and students learning about compliments. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 523-546.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? NFLRC NetWork (6) Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Retrieved from www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/default.html.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91- 112.

Megumi Kawate-Mierzejewska is an assistant professor of the Academic Preparation Program at Temple University Japan. Her current interests are interlanguage pragmatics, neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and conversational analysis.


All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website