Keywords
appropriateness
pragmatics
phonology
How to Cite
Number of views: 184
Number of downloads: 156
Abstract
English has become an international language (EIL) as speakers around the world use it as a universal means of communication. Accordingly, scholars have investigated different aspects of EIL affecting communicative success. Speech scholars have been interested in speech constructs like accentedness, comprehensibility, and acceptability (e.g., Kang et al., 2023). On the other hand, pragmatic researchers have examined lexico-grammatical features of EIL that contribute to first language (L1) English listeners’ perceptions of appropriateness in speech acts (e.g., Taguchi, 2006). However, little is known about: a) how appropriateness is perceived by users of EIL of diverse L1s and b) how those appropriateness perceptions are related to lexico-grammatical and phonological features. Therefore, the present study had 184 listeners (L1 = English, Spanish, Chinese, and Indian languages) evaluate 40 speech acts performed by 20 speakers (L1 English and Chinese, 50% each) in terms of appropriateness on a 9-point numerical scale. Results from linear mixed-effects regressions suggested that: a) listener L1 did not contribute to listener ratings and b) speakers’ rhythm and lexico-grammatical features (i.e., use of different pragmatic strategies) significantly contributed to listener appropriateness ratings. The findings provide empirical evidence to support the phonology-pragmatics link in appropriateness perceptions and offer implications regarding the operationalization of English interactional appropriateness.
References
Alemi, M., Eslami, Z. R., & Rezanejad, A. (2014). Rating EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic competence by non-native English-speaking teachers. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 171-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.403
Alemi, M., & Khanlarzadeh, N. (2016). Pragmatic assessment of request speech act of Iranian EFL learners by non–native English–speaking teachers. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 19-34.
Alemi, M., & Motamedi, M. (2019). Pragmatic criteria in the holistic and analytic rating of the disagreement speech act of Iranian EFL learners by non-native English speaking teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 1-36.
Al Masaeed, K., Taguchi, N., & Tamimi, M. (2020). Proficiency effects on L2 Arabic refusals: Appropriateness, linguistic strategies and multidialectal practices. Applied Pragmatics, 2(1), 26-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.19007.mas
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
Beebe, L.M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-94). Newburry House.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0. 37.
Brazil, D. (1997). The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge University Press.
Cunningham, D. J. (2017). Second language pragmatic appropriateness in telecollaboration: The influence of discourse management and grammaticality. System, 64, 46-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.006
Dewaele, J.-M. (2008). “Appropriateness” in foreign language acquisition and use: Some theoretical, methodological and ethical considerations. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46(3), 235-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2008.011
Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (2022). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. SIL International.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2003) Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish. Multilingua, 22, 225-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2003.012
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (forthcoming). Undoing competence: Coloniality, homogeneity, and the overrepresentation of whiteness in applied linguistics. Language Learning.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 34(1), 65-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00996.x
Ghanem, R., & Kang, O. (2021). Groenwold, R. H. H., Palmer, T. M., & Tilling, K. (2021). To adjust or not to adjust? When a “confounder” is only measured after exposure. Epidemiology, 32(2), 194-201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001312
Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3588378
Herrero, C., & Devís, E. (2020). Unintentional impolite intonation in L2 Spanish requests produced by Chinese workers living in Madrid. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Speech Prosody 2020, Tokyo, Japan, 848-852. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2020-173
Hirschberg, J. (2017). Pragmatics and prosody. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1-19). Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 475-505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000150
Kang, O. (2010). Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38, 301-315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.01.005
Kang, O., & Rubin, D. (2009). Reverse linguistic stereotyping: Measuring the effect of listener expectations on speech evaluation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28, 441-456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09341950
Kang, O., Yaw, K., & Kostromitina, M. (2023). The effects of situational contexts and occupational roles on listeners’ judgements on accented speech. Psychology of Language and Communication, 27(1) 1-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58734/plc-2023-0001
Kostromitina, M. (in press). An exploratory study of intonation variation in L1 and L2 English speakers’ pragmatic production of high imposition requests and refusals. Applied Pragmatics.
Krulatz, & Dixon, T. (2020). The use of refusal strategies in interlanguage speech act performance of Korean and Norwegian users of English. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 751-777. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.4.5
Lindemann, S., Litzenberg, J., & Subtirelu, N. (2014). Problematizing the dependence on L1 norms in pronunciation teaching: Attitudes toward second-language accents. In J. Levis & A. Moyer (Eds.), Social dynamics in second language accent (pp. 171-194). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511762.171
Miao, Y. (2023). The relationship among accent familiarity, shared L1, and comprehensibility: A path analysis perspective. Language Testing, 40(3), 723-747. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231156105
Pickering, L. (2001). The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 233-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3587647
Pickering, L. (2018) Discourse intonation: A discourse-pragmatic approach to teaching the pronunciation of English. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 5(2), 328-332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.00012.bol
Prieto, P., & Rigau, G. (2012). Prosody and pragmatics. In L. Payrató & J. Cots (Eds.), The pragmatics of Catalan (pp. 17-48). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238693.17
Purpura, J. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733086
Rajadurai, J. (2007). Intelligibility studies: A consideration of empirical and ideological issues. World Englishes, 26(1), 87-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00490.x
Saito, K., & Shintani, N. (2015). Do native speakers of North American and Singapore English differentially perceive comprehensibility in second language speech? TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 421-446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.234
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Webb, S. (2017). Re-examining phonological and lexical correlates of second language comprehensibility: The role of rater experience. In T. Isaacs & P. Trofimovich (Eds.), Second language pronunciation assessment: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 141-156). Multilingual Matters.
Salazar Campillo, P., Safont-Jordà, P. M., & Codina Espurz, V. (2009). Refusal strategies: A proposal from a sociopragmatic approach. Revista Electróni-ca de Lingüística Aplicada, 8, 139-150.
Sydorenko, T., Maynard, C., & Guntly, E. (2014). Rater behaviour when judging language learners’ pragmatic appropriateness in extended discourse. TESL Canada Journal, 32(1), 19-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i1.1197
Taguchi, N. (2002). An application of relevance theory to the analysis of L2 interpretation Processes: The comprehension of indirect replies. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics, 40(2), 151-176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2002.006
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513-533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.16.4.05tag
Taguchi, N. (2011). Rater variation in the assessment of speech acts. Pragmatics, 21(3), 453-471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.3.08tag
Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence. Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847696106
Taguchi, N. (2013). Refusals in L2 English: Proficiency effects on appropriateness and fluency. In O. Marti-Arnandiz & P. Salazar-Campillo (Eds.), Refusals in instructional contexts and beyond (pp. 101-119). Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401209717_007
Taguchi, N., Hirschi, K., & Kang, O. (2022). Longitudinal L2 development in the prosodic marking of pragmatic meaning: Prosodic changes in L2 speech acts and individual factors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(3), 843-858. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000486
Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2014). Pragmatic rater training: Does it affect non–native L2 teachers’ rating accuracy and bias? Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1), 66-83.
van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783091409
Vanderplank, R., (1993). Pacing and spacing as predictors of difficulty in speaking and understanding English. ELT Journal, 47, 117-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/47.2.117
Wennerstrom, A. (1998). Intonation as cohesion in academic discourse: A study of Chinese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198001016
Wharton, T. (2012). Pragmatics and prosody. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 567-584). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.031
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Masha Kostromitina, Yongzhi Miao
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.