fbr l2requests by japanese efl
TRANSCRIPT
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
Speed and Accuracy of Appropriateness JUdgments
fbr L2Requests by Japanese EFL Learners
Seiji FUKAZAWA
Hiroaki MAEDA
Shusaku KIDA Hiroshima Cinivensity
YukaYAMAUCM
Akiko TATSUMIGraduate SbhooL Hiroshima [inivensity
Abstract
The purpose of the present research is to examine how quickly and accurately JapaneseEnglish as a fbreign language (EFL) leamers can make apprepriateness judgments for secondlaiiguage (L2) requests. Previous studies in interlanguage pragmatics are limited in that they didnot distinguish between types of pragmatic inappropriateness and also in that they used only
oenine measurement through questionnaires. The present study therefbre distinguishes two types
ofpragmatic inappropriateness in L2 utterances (under-polite and over-polite) and measures the
reaction time ofIearners' appropriateness judgrnents. The participants were 45 Japanese university
students; they were asked to judge whether the presented L2 requests were appropriate or not inthe situation, as quickly and accuiately as possible. Six appropriate requests, five under-polite
requests, and five over-polite requests were judged. Further, the degree of inappropriateness inunder- and over-polite requests was manipulated from sligiitly inappropriate to very inappropriate.As a result, it was found that speed and accuracy of appropriateness judgments depend on thedegree of (in)appropriateness of requests. ln particular, extremely over-polite utterances were
dithcult fbr L2 learners to process.
1. Introduction
in interlanguage pragrriatic research, a great deal of research attention has been paid to
second language (L2) learners' pragmatic ewareness since the publication ofthe seminal paper onthis topic, by Bardovi-Harlig and D6rnyei (1998). Even though it has been replicated by studies in1ater years (e.g., Niezgoda & R6ver, 2002; Tagashira, Yarnato, & Isoda, 201 1), some limitationsofthe original wotk still remained. One is that neither the original study nor the subsequent studies
distinguished between types of pragmatic errors; another is that they exclusively used offline
125
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
measurement of L2 leamers' pragmatic awareness, meaning that no studies have examined
processing dimensions such as fiuency or processing speed as part of learners' pragrnatic
competence. Therefbre, the present study tries to bridge the gap between these two researeh fields
and shed more light on studies in interlanguage pragmatic awareness by examining how quickly
and accurately Japanese learners of English can identify different types of pragmatic
mappropnateness.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Politeness Theory
Many studies in interlanguage pragmatic research hewe employed the politeness theory
proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). This theory presupposes that all people bearface (socialdigriity or prestige) and maintain good interpersonal relationships with others by avoiding
face-threating acts (F[EAs), Face can be understood as "the
public selfimage that every rnember
wants to claim fbr himself' (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p, 61), According to Brown and Levinson,
two kinds or aspects of face exist and pertain te politeness: positive and negative face. Positive
face reflects one's desire to be approved ofby others, while negative face is one's desire not to be
imposed on by others, in this context, to estimate the weight of an FTA, Brown and Levinson give
a fbrmula involving mental distance between a speaker and a hearer, the power (hereafter,±Power) that the speaker has over the hearer or vice versa, and the rank ofimposition. Approp"ate
actions and utterances to show politeness vary by situation depending on the values ofthese three.
Even though many previous studies have rooted their theoretical frameworks in the theory
by Brown and Levinson (1987), fbcusing on how pragmalinguistic utterances become politeenough in a particular situation, Brown and Levinson's theory did not consider at which point
utteranees become oveitzpolite. Howeveg both underpoliteness and over-politeness are negatively
matked and inappropriate behavior (Culpepeg 1996; Kumon-Naicarnura, Glucksberg, & Brown,
1995; Wbtts, 2005); over-politeness, 1ike under-politeness, transgresses the boundary between
appropriateness and inappropriateness (Locheg 2004), and the appropriate level of politeness
seems to be located somewhere in between. Thus, undeFpoliteness and over-politeness could be
theoretically distinguished. In empirical studies, however, very few studies have distinguished the
two and shed light on over=politeness (Culpqpeg 2008).
2.2 Pragmatic Awareness
2.2.1 L2 Learners' Grammatical and Pragmatic Awareness
Thus far, L2 learners' pragrnatic awareness has been investigated by several studies
(Bardovi-Harlig & D6rnyei, 1998; Niezgoda & R6ver, 2001; Tagashira et al., 201 1; Xu, Case, &
Wang, 2009), The seminal paper iri this regard was the study condncted by Bardovi-Harlig and
D6rnyei (1998), who exarnined L2 learners' awareness to pragmatic and grammatical errors in a
126
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
target language. The participants were EFL learners and teachers in Hungary and ItalM and ESLlearners and teachers in the United States. Bardovi-Harlig and D6rnyei used a videotape and a
questionnaire in which grammatical but pragrnatically inappropriate, ungrammatical but
pragmatically appropriate, and both grammatically correct and pragrnatically appropriate
scenarios were shown, The participants were first asked to watch a given scene and then instmctedto judge whether the last sentence was appropriatefcorrect for seven seconds on the questiormaire.If learners chose no, they were asked to rate the severity ofthe problem on a six-point scale from
not had at all to vei:y bad. The results showed that EFL leamers tended to be more aware of
grarnmatical errors while ESL learners were more 1ikely to recognize pragrnatic errors.
The study was replicated by Niezgoda and R6ver (2001) with ESL learners in the U.S. and
EFL learners in the Czech Republic, The results showed that while ESL learners were more 1ikelyto detect pragrriatic errors, EFL leamers tended to rate the severity of both pragrnatic and
grammatical errors higheg implying that the nature of EFL leamers' pragmatic awareness was
complex (not one-dimensional). SimilarlM [fagashira et al. (2011) investigated whether and to
what extent 162 Japanese university students' motivational factors affect their pragrnaticawareness in English through their motivational profiles, and did show the possibility that EFLlearners' motivational profiles affect their pragmatic awareness.
[IIhese previous studies have shown that EFL learners' pragmatic awareness is complex and
that many factors seem to affect it. Therefore, more detailed investigation is necessary ln addition,
one of the limitations of the previous studies is that they did not distinguish pragrnatic errors by
type. This is because most of them used the questionnaire developed by Bardovi-Harlig and
D6rnyei (1998), primarily focusing on differences in learners' awareness between grammaticaland pragmatic errors. Therefbre, under- and oveFpolite pragmatic errors were mixed up,
representing pragmatic inappropriateness all together. [[he other major limitation ofmost previousstudies is that they used only oMine measurement. Eyen though fast, efficient processing isnecessary in real-life communication, few studies shed light on EFL learners' fluency in
processing pragmalinguistic input. Therefore, to date, it is not clear whether leamers show
diffbrent pattems ofpragrnatic awareness ofunder- and over-polite utterances or how quickly andaccurately they process L2 pragrnalinguistic utterances.
2.2.2 The Distinction Between Undeb and OveFPoliteness in Interlanguage Pragmatics
[[b address the first limitation ofpast studies mentioned above, Sawai (2013) exarnined 135Japanese EFL learners' pragrnatic awareness in cases of under= versus over=politeness, She
developed a pragmaticality judgment task based on Bardovi-Harlig and D6myei's (1998)questionnaire. She prepared 26 scenarios, of which five were employed from the questionnairedeveloped by Bardovi-Harlig and D6rnyei, while the others were developed by Sawai based onBardovi-Harlig and D6rnyei's scenarios, Sawai then asked nine native speakers of English to ratethe degree ofpoliteness ofthe last sentence in each scenario on a seven-point scale (Figure 1).
127
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
Mike asks his teacher for a book.
Mike: Mr. Franklin?Mr. Franklin: Yes?Mike: Ma 1 ossibl borrowthis bookforthe weekend if ou don't mind?
-3 -2 -1 O 1 2 3
" Under-polite Appropriate Over-polite
jFVgune 1. Example of scenarios shown to native speakers of English fbr the development of the
questionnaire in Sawai (2013)
Sawai (2013) first asked the nine native speakers ofEnglish to rate three scenarios that were
regarded as pragmatically appropriate in Bardevi-Harlig and D6rnyei (1998). Four native speakers
out ofnine were excluded as raters because they did not judge the three scenanos as appropnate.
Sawai used the remaining five native speakers' evaluations to select scenarios for the
pragrnaticalityjudgrnent task; 16 (al-d5) scenarios were finally chosen fbr the task ([Ilable 1).
Table1E]valuation
ofEach Strenario 's
Politeness Level by Aiative EPeakers ofEnglish in Stiwai (20IopAppropriate +PAppropriate
-P Under-polite Over-polite
al a2 a3blb2 b3cl c2 c3 c4 c5dl de d3 d4 d5
Rater1Rater 2Rater
3Rater 4Rater
5
1o11oo1o1ooo11o -1oo11 oooooooooo-3-2-2-3-3-3-1-2-3-3-31-1-2-2-2-1-1-1-2oo-1-1-23223322233111321o122o1121
Msw O.6 O.4 O.4
05 O.5 O.502
O.O O.O -2.6 -2.4 -1.4 -1.4 -O.8 2.6 2.4 1.6 1.2 1.0
O.7 O.O O.O O.5 O.8 1.4 O.5 O.7 O.5 O.6 O.8 O.7 O.6
Aibte: +P and -P refer to ±Power in Brown and Levinson's (1987) sense; a and b refer to
appropriate scenarios, while c and d refer to inappropnate scenanos.
In the pragrnaticality judgment task, the participants were asked to judge how inappropriate
the 16 target utterances were on a seven-point scale from O (not inamprtzpriate at alD to 6 (vepy inappmpriate). The results showed that while Japanese EFL learners with high English
proficiency could be aware ofboth under- and over-polite inappropriateness, it was dirucult fbr
low-English-proficiency learners to detect over-polite inappropriateness. Further, whether learners
were sensitive to the degree of inappropriateness also dqpended on their L2 proficiency This
suggests that EFL learners show differerrt degrees of pragrriatic awareness according to the
different types of pragrnatic errors they encounter, showing the theoretical importance of
distinguishing under- and over-politeness in interlanguage pragmatic awareness research.
128
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
2.3. Processing Speed and Fluency in Pragmatic Research
The second limitation of previous studies mentioned above is the lack of measurement of
L2 learners' .17uency in making appropriateness judgmerits. Although L2 competence can beunderstood from various perspectives, one of the most traditional approaches in second lariguage
acquisition (SLA) research is the distinction between learners' knowlecige of a lariguage and their
processing of it (e.g., Bialystok & Sharwood Smith, 1985). The processing dimension is oftenrelated to fluency or automaticity} and many theoretical frameworks used in human cognition or
SLA emphasize the importance ofthese capabilities (Anderson, 1983; Logan, 1988; McLaugh1in,Rossman, & McLeod, 1983). Although it is dithcult (and beyond the scope of this article) to
ultimately define the nature of automaticityl the characteristic that is most frequently associated
with it is speed ofprocessing (Segalowitz, 2003), Consideration ofprocessing speed is important
in L2 research because rapid comprehension ofL2 input is necessary in real-life comrriunication.
Howeveg researchers in many fields of SLA, including interlariguage pragmatics, have not paidadequate attention to this dimension oflaiiguage development. Therefore, even though the idea of
distinguishing knowledge tfom processing within 1inguistic competence seems clearly relevant to
pragmatic researz)h (Bialystok, 1993), very few studies have inyestigated L2 learners' processingspeed fbr pragrnatic input (faguchi, 2005). Taguchi's (2008a, 2008b) studies on pragmaticcomprehension (of refusals and statements of opinion) and processing speed revealed that
cornprehension skill and processing speed could be categorized as distinct aspects of ski11
acquisition, showing the importance for pragmatic research of investigating EFL learriers'
processing dimension, Moreover, processing speed can be enhanced by repeated practice and an
adequate (considerable) degree of exposure (Taguchi, 2008a), Given the fact that exposure to
English is limited in Japan, more and more research focusing on fluency will be necessary to help
understand complex nature ofEFL learners' pragmatic awareness.
2.4 Research Questions As mentioned al)ove, past studies were 1irnited in that they did not distinguish types and
degrees of pragmatic inappropriateness and did not fbcus on the processing dimension of L2
learners' pragmalinguistic input. [[herefore, this study examines Japanese EFL learners' pragmaticawareness, via the fo11owing two research questions.
1) Do different degrees of inappropriateness affect Japanese EFL learners' processing speed
and accuracy in judging under-polite requests?
2) Do different degrees of inappropriateness affbct Japanese EFL learners' processing speed
and accuracy injudging over-pelite requests?
129
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
3. Methed
3.1 Participants
[[he participants in the present study were 45 first-year university students. They were all
native speakers of Japanese and all had at least six years of fbrmal English instruction. Their
background inforrnation is shown in Tahle 2.
Table 2BackgTound
Injrormation ofParticipants in the Present SZudy (7V = 4"
Mean sw MinimumMaximum
AgeStarting
age oflearning English
Years of formal instmction
TOEIC score
SelfLrating: Listening
Speaking
Reading
Writing
18.96
11.91
6,58615,22
4.11 4.53
5.36
4.93
O.90
2.17
O.8996.56
1.72
1.79
1.85
1,84
18
4
6380
1
1
2 2
21
13
10780
7
8
9
9
Aibte. Selfiratings ranged from 1 (I have minimum prqf7ciency) to 10 <II have near-native
profcienay).
3.2 Materials
The experimenta1 materials were adopted from the questionnaire items developed by Sawai
(2013). They consisted of six appropriate and 10 inappropriate L2 requests. Among the six
appropriate ones, three were requests to those with higher power status in social context (+Power;;namely, in this case, teachers) (e.g., May Ipossibly borrow this bookfor the weekend ijlyou dbn 't
mind.2), while the other tlll:ee were requests to those of equal power (-Power; peers) (e.g,, Oh, ij"you are going to the librtzry can you please neturn ay book too2). Among the 1O inappropriate
requests, five were addressed to those of higher power status and the other five to those of equal
power. The former five were categorized as under-polite requests (e.g., I want you to neturn nty
textbook) and the latter five as over-polite requests (e.g., Jhope I don 't
interruptyou, but I amjust
wontiering tfyou wouldh 't
mind making a eup ofcojTeefor me.). The materials are shown in
Appendix.
3.3 Apparatus and Procedure
Epson ST12E computers with Windows 7 Professional (32-bit, Core 2 Duo CPU, 2,OO GB
RAM) were used in the experiment. For the presentation of experirnental materials and the
130
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
measurement ofparticipants' reaction times (RTs) and accuracy data, DMDX software (Forster &Forster, 2003) was used.
in this study, an appropriateness judgment task was used instead of the severity judgmenttask used in Bardovi-Harlig and Ddrnyei (1998), The task asked the participants to judge whether
or not the last sentence of the dialogue was appropriate in the provided context, as quickly Emd
accurately as possible. They pressed the yes button on the keYboard (the right control) if they
thought the sentence was appropriate and the no button (the left control) when they thought the
sentence was inappropriate. Therefore, four types of response were obtained:
(1)(2)(3)(4)Yey response to an appropriate request (called HiD,
Yes response to an inupprqpriate request (called iFlalse Alarm)
IVb response to an appropriate request (called Miss)
?Vb response to an inappropriate request (called Cbnect Rojection)
This study focuses on participants' Hit and Correct Rejection responses.
Befbre the main session, the participants took part in a practice session in which two
appropriate and two inappropriate L2 requests were shown. in the appropriateness judgment task,
the panicipants first read a description ofthe situation in Japanese that appeared on the computer
screen, fbr instance thke wants to bomow a book.fi"om th. F7anklinfor the weekend. After they
read the description, they pressed the space bar to move onto the next screen, where the dialogue
was presented excluding the target sentence, After they read the dialogue, they pressed the space
bar again, and the underlined target sentence was shown until the participant made an
appropriateness judgment. The RT was measured from the time the target sentence appeared on
the computer screen to the time the participarrt made the yeslno judgment. The whole data
collection process lasted ahout 15 minutes, and no break was taken during the task. The procedureis visualized in Figure 2.
Mikel:Mr.Franklint:ptvaLJS5ltLrtigt.Mike:Mr,Franklin?Mr,Franklin:Yes?
Mike:Mike:Mr,Franklin?Mr,Frankljn:Yes?Mike:Ma1ossibl
borrowthisbookfortheweekendifoudon'tmind?
Iigure 2.The procedure of the appropriateness judgrnent task used in the present experiment.
131
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
4. Results
4.1 Overall Results
The results fbr the RTs along with 959'6 confidence intervals (CIs), standard errors, and
accuracy rates fbr each condition are shown in Table 3. ln this paper, only the RTs and accuracy
rates ofcorrect responses (Hit and Correct Rejection) are reported. Overal1, the RTs were flister in
the pragmatically appropriate conditions (Situations a and b) than in the pragrnatically
inappropriate conditions (Situations c and d); also, the accuracy rates were higher in the
appropriate conditions compared to the inappropriate conditions. The participants mostly judgedappropriate requests correctly (Hit), that is, they judged the requests properly under the givensituations, marking more than 80% accuracy rates on average; however, theyjudged inappropriate
requests correctly (Correct Rejection) only around 5096 ofthe time on average,
Table 37he
Overall Results ofPragmatic Jldidgmentsfor Fbur Situations (?V = 4sy
Situation and
response
Averagek number RT(ms) ofwords
[95% Cq sa(MS) ACrCal
titCY
(a) Appropriate +P
(b) Appropriate -P
(c) Under-polite(d) Over-polite
3355 14.3310.0010.2016.00 6,869
5,832
6,86211,469
[6,126, 7,612]
[4,958, 6,706]
[5,862, 7,863]
[10,143, 12,794]
37544150466982%81%44%56%
Arbte. RT refers to reaction tirne of correct responses (Hit and Correct Rejectioll) and CI to
confidential interval, while +P refers to an interlocutor of a higher status and -P to one of an even
status.
42 Results for Appropriate Requests
Although this study fbcuses on speed and accuracy ofjudgrnent on inappropriate requests, it
seems usefu1 to briefiy overview the results for appropriate requests as a per[fbrmance baseline in
order to compare perfbrrnance on inappropriate requests, Moreover, as explained in the literature
review, the scenarios in the material were carefu11y developed to refiect not only different typesbut also diffkirent degrees ofinappropriateness, which are another focus ofthis study. Accordingly,
we will look at the results for each scenario.
The results for appropriate requests are shown in Figure 3. ln Situation a (Appropriate +P),
RTs of Scenarios al, ad, and a3 were 7,724 miiliseconds (ms), 8,045 ms, and 5,209 ms, and the
respective accuracy rates were 71%, 80%, and 93%. Judgment was the fbstest and most accurate
fbr Scenario a3 and the slowest and least accurate for Scenario al. ln Situation b (Appropriate -P),
RTs ofScenarios bl, b2, and b3 were 8,632 ms, 4,542 ms, and 5,066 ms, and accuracy rates were
132
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
649i6, 84%, and 93%. Judgrrient fbr Scenarios b2 and b3 was quick and accurate, while that fbr
Scenario bl was slower and less accurate. These results show a general tendency: accurately
judged scenarios were processed quickly and inaccuratelyjudged scenarios, more slowly.
lo℃ RTs
and
Accu
racy
Rates
of Appropriate
+P
Requests2oo[
8 lo℃ RTs and Accurecy Rates of Appropriate -P Requests 2oo[:8
80 80 15000 15000
."evtu60 FOt- \'60 S g loooosg loooog
:4o 'k' '4o
"v.
e Mti 2 5000 5000 20 20
o o o o al a2 a3 bl b2 b3 Severity Severitv +O,6 +O.4 +O.4 +o.2 o,e o.oJudgment Judgment Number Number 14 17 12 IS 15 10 ofWords ofWords
]F7gur:e 3, Results of appropriate situations (Situations a and b), Severityjudgrnent was as assessed
by native speakers ofEnglish in Sawai (2013), as shown in Figure 1. RT refers to mean reaction
time ofHit responses. Error bars refer to standard errors.
NAccuracyrate-O-RT DAccuracyrate-O-RT
4.3 Results for Inappropriate Requests
4.3.1 Results for Under-Polite Requests
The results for inappropriate expressions are shown in Figure 4. Situation c (under-polite)consists of five scenarios, Scenario c1 being the most under-polite and Scenario c5 the least basedon the severityjudgrnents by native speakers of English in Sawai (2013). The RTs for Scenarioscl through c5 were 5,914 ms, 5,684 ms, 6,865 ms, 7,576 ms, and 18,167 ms, respectively. Theaccuracy rates were 69% in Scenario cl, fo11owed by 55% in Scenario c2, 44% in Scenario c3,42% in Scenario c4, and only 9% in Scenario c5. The accuracy rates obtained in this condition
were the lowest fbr any of the fbur conditions, as shown in Table 3. [[Ihese results show that RTsand accuracy rates for each scenario were very different depending on the degree of
inappropriateness. That is, judgment was fhster and more accurate for extremely underpolite
requests and slower and less accurate for slightly under-polite requests.
4.3.2 Results for Over-Polite Requests
Situation d (over-polite) again consists of five scenarios, Scenario dl being the mostover-polite and Scenario d5 the least, again based on the native speakers' judgments in Sawai
(2013). The RTs for Scenario dl through d5 were 15,159 ms, 13,133 ms, 7,976 ms, 11,042 ms,
133
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
and 12,275 ms, respectively, and the accuracy rates were 48% in Scenario c1, 539,6 in Scenario c2,
78% in Scenario c3, 49% in Scenario c4, and 29% in Scenario c5. These results show that in
contrast to the results for the under-polite condition, the RTs and accuracy rates fbr over-polite
scenarios did not show the tendency for extremely inappropriate requests to be processed quickly
and accurately. lnstead, the RTs and accuracy rates for these types ofrequests (Scenarios dl and
d2) were relatively slow and inaccurate in the over-polite condition.
lo℃ RTs and Accuracy Rates of Under-Polite Requests 2oooMoS loig RTs end Accuraey
Rates ofOver-Polite
Requests
2oo[:8
80s26ov'ea4oe
20
o cl
Severity -2.6JudgmentNumber
sefWords
c2-2.48 c3-1.48 c4-1.410 cs-O,820
lsooe di
.l Fioooo8
.6
: ec5000
o
80s26olE84oe
20
o dlSeveFity
+2,6JudgmentNumber
19ofWerds
d2+2.422 d3+1.S14 d4+1.210d5+1,OIS
15000 e
.! le10000
S .b
8 ecseoo
o
]Figure 4. Results fbr inappropriate situations (Situations c and d). Severityjudgment was assessed
by native speakers of English in Sawai (2013), as shown in Figure l . RT refers to mean reaction
time for Correct Rejection responses. Error bars refer to staiidard erTors.
5. Discussion
ln this section, we wi11 briefly discuss the results fbr the appropriate requests. With regard to
the results fbr inappropriate requests in the present study, we will ascertain their generalizal)ility
through comparison with Sawai (2013), Further, we wi11 discuss the results for under- and
over-polite situations based on the distinction between pragmalinguistic and soeiopragmatic
knowledge (Leech, 2014),
First, the RT and accuracy rate results fbr appropriate requests showed a general tendency
for accurately judged scenarios to be processed quickly and inaccurately judged scenarios to be
processed more slowly. This was consistent with our intuition. Funher, the participams'
perforrnance on these requests was better than on inappropriate requests, The high accuracy rates
show that the task and scenarios used in the present study are valid and that the results can serve as
a baseline for the interpretation ofthe results obtained in the inappropriate conditions, The reason
fbr the faster RTs and higher accuracy rates in the appropriate condition may be attributal)le to the
134
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
amount ofinput participants received. Generally speaking, there are few chances to be exposed to
inappropriate utterances in natural communication, because people usually tend to be polite tosave their own face and their interlocutor's (Brown & Levinson, 1987). T[herefore, the amount of
pragmatically appropriate input encountered in language use or leaming should be much 1argerthan that of pragmatically inappropriate input, resulting in better perfbrmance on appropriate
utterances.
Second, in the under-polite situation, the results showed a similar tendency to those forappropriate requests; that is, accurately judged scenarios were processed quickly and inaccurately
judged scenarios more slowly. Both RTs and accuracy were clearly affected by the degree ofmappropnateness. More than half of the participants correctly recognized the inappropriateness of
severely under-polite requests (cl and c2) with a reasonable level of processing speed, while
detecting inappropriateness in an only sligtitly under-polite request (c5) was very difficult for the
participants and required a longer time to judge. Scenario c5 is a scene in which a student asks a
teacher to fi11 out a questionnaire, saying Helto. ILly na,ne is KLite Arista, ijyou don't mind Iwould like you toyfll this infor me (c5). The student's greeting is polite enough for the situation
(addressing a teacher), but the expression I would like you to ,., gives the teacher the impressionthat the student is implying that the teacher is not allowed to refuse the request. It is very diencultfor EFL leamers to detect this type ofvery slight inappropriateness. These results are consistent
with those obtained in Sawai (2013). In her study, Japanese university EFL learners with high,
intermediate, and low English proficiency were asked to make a severity judgrnent on a
seven-point scale from O (not inappmpriate at alD to 6 (vei)? inappropriate). [[he results showed a
simi1ar pattern to those in the prcsent study; that is, extremely under-polite requests were more
severely rated than slightly under-polite ones. ln particular, it was diMcult for students withintermediate or low L2 proficiency to detect the inappropriateness of the target utterance in c5;only students witli high English proficiency could recognize that the utterance was a littleinappropriate. Based on the results of the present study considered in combination with those ofSawai's studM therefbre, it can be concluded that the degree of inappropriateness in under-politerequests affbct EFL learners' pragmatic appropriateness judgments (specificallyl as the presentstudy revealed, their processing speed and accuracy).
[Iliird, in over-polite situation, the results partially corresponded to the degree of
inappropriateness, but in a different way firom under-polite situations. Even though the results fbrmoderately and just slightly over-polite requests (d3, d4, and d5) seemed to show a generaltendency in which accurately judged scenarios were processed quickly and inaccurately judgedscenarios more slowly, the results for extremely over-polite requests (dl and d2) did not fo11owthis trend. These scenarios were conversations between two close friends: in Scenario dl, a
student is going to the post othce when the other student asks on, ifyou wouldu 't mina may I
inconvenience you by (zsking you to put this tetter into the mailbox.? (dl) while in Scenario d2 astudent fuids another student, who is preparing coffee, and says Ihope I dbn
't
intemtptyou, but l
135
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
amjust wondering ijlyou woulcin 't
mind maldng a cup ofcofeefor me (d2). [rliese two utterances
sound too distant for someone to ask a close friend. It seems obvious to the native speaker that
these utterances are too polite, but in fact, it was difficult fbr Japanese EFL learr)ers to correctly
determine that they should reject these sentences. Sawai (2013) reported similar findmgs; in her
study, 31% and 38% of interrnediate- and low-proficiency panicipants respectively rated these
scenarios as O (not inappropriate at alD on the seven-point scale, and only 209'6 and 159,6 of the
participants in these greups respectively rated them as 5 or 6 (very inalzpropriate). In contrast,
45% ofhigh-proficiency participants rated them as 5 or 6 on the scale. These results show that
extrernely over-polite requests are dithcult fbr Japanese EFL leamers; therefbre, it can be
concluded that the degree of inappropriateness of over-polite requests affects EFL learners'
pragrnatic appropriateness judgments, but different from that of under-polite requests. Given that
both the present study and Sawai supported this point, it seems likely that the results obtained are
robust and have certain levels ofgeneralizal)ility among Japanese EFL learners.
It is interesting to consider why extremely under-polite requests were processed quickly and
accurately while extremely over-polite ones were processed slowly and less accurately. One
theoretical concept ofpotential utility in understanding this discrepancy is the distinction between
pragmalinguistic politeness and sociopragmatic politeness (Leech, 2014). The fbrmer is an
al)solute, unidirectional scale measured from lexical, syntactic, and semantic perspectives, while
the latter is a relative scale whose norms are decided within the context of a specific society,
culture, group, or situation. Therefbre, even a pragmalinguistically polite expression, for example
Could Ipossibly intenupt2 could be too polite if it appears in a casual conversation within a
family (the example is from Leech, 2014, p. 88). Based on this distinction, it could be argued that
under-polite requests in the present study were pragrnalinguistically less polite but could
nevertheless be sociopragmatically appropriate if spoken to a close ltiend, Therefbre, it is
plausible to assume that the participants in the present study had been exposed to similarly
under-polite utterances through texrbooks or in real-life, making their appropriateness judgmenisfor under-polite requests easier. In contrast, the over-polite requests in this study were both
pragmalinguistically and sociopragrnatically inappropriate; generally "over-polite
utterances are
1ikely to be perceived as insincere" (Kumon-Nakamura et al., 1995). It is miikely that the
participants in the preserrt study had been exposed to such utterances befbre. Therefore, the
distinction ofunder- and over-politeness which has been paid little attention in Bardovi-Harlig and
D6rnyei (1998) and other previous studies has freshly shed light on the complex nature of L2
pragmattc awareness.
The results of the preserrt study have clear pedagogical implications. Both texrbooks and
classroom practice, the main source of learners' English input, should give EFL learriers the
chance to be exposed to rich pragrnatic inputs. In reality, however, the pragrnatic exposure
proyided by texrbooks is sharply limited compared to that yielded by native speakers' utterances
136
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
(Fukazawa, 1997, 2002). Therefbre, exposure to rich contextualized input along with some
explicit instmction on pragmatic violations should help fbster learners' pragrnatic competence.
There seem to be two major limitations to this study. The first is that the material includedonly 16 scenarios, three for each appropriate situation and five for each inappropriate situation.
There should be more scenarios fbr both under- and over-polite requests in data collection
procednre, The second limitation is that the number of words in the intended request scenarios
varied, which may have complicated the RT data and made it difficult to directly compare
between scenarios. These limitations remain to be addressed by future research.
6. Conclusion
The present study investigated the speed and accuracy ofL2 pragmatic judgments to under-and over-polite requests with different degrees of inappropriateness by Japanese EFL learners.
The findmgs revealed that the RTs and accuracy rates of pragmatic judgments of under-polite
requests were affected by the degree of inappropriateness, indicating a general tendency fbrseverely under-polite requests to be processed quickly and accurately. For the over-polite requests,
on the other hand, the RTs and accuracy rates partially corresponded to the degree of
inappropriateness, but not in the same way as under-polite requests: instead, the judgrnent of
extremely over-polite requests was slower and less accurate. To interpret these results, we applied
the distinction between pragmalinguistio and sociopragmatic politeness, and argued that there
might have been fewer opportunjties fbr L2 learners to be exposed to very over-polite expressions,
which would help slow processing speed and reduce accuracy ofjudgment. These distinctions
between degrees and types of pragmatic inappropriateness and the findmgs on processing speed
give us a wider perspective to analyze L2 learners' pragmatic awareness.
Acknowledgment
This wotk was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 25370690, Grant-in-Aid fbr
Scientific Research (C).
References
Anderson, J. R, (1983), the arehitecture ofcognition. Carnbridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1997), The place of second lariguage acquisition theory in language teacher
preparation. ln K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. Hartfbrd (Eds.), Bayond methods: Cbmponents of second language teacher education (Pp. 18-41), New Ybtk, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Bardovi-Harlig, K, & D6rnyei, Z. (1998). Do language leamers recognize pragmatic violations?
Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 leaTning. 7ES(2L euarterly, 32,
137
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education
233-262. doiil02307!3587583
Bialystok, E, (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence, ln
G Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), ]interianguagepragmaties {lpp. 43-59), New Ybrk, NY:
Oxfbrd University Press.
Bialystok, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation
of the construct for second-laiiguage acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 6, 101-117.
doi:10.10931applin!6.2.101
Brown, R, & Levinson, S, (1987). Politeness: Sbme universals in tanguage usage, Cambridge
University Press,
Culpepeq J. (1996). [Ibwards an anatomy of impoliteness. .lournal ofpragmaties, 25, 349-367.
doi:10,1016!0378-2166(95)OOO14-3
Culpepeg J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational worlc and power, In D, Bousfield & M.
A. Locher (Eds,), impoliteness in languager SZudies on its interplay withpower in theoT:v and
practice (pp, 17-44). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.
Forsteg K, I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond
accuracy Behavior Reyearch Mdethods, lhstruments, & Cbmputers, 35, 116-124.
doi:10.3758BF03195503Fukazawa, S, (1997). Application ofresearch into pragmatic competence ofJapanese learners of
English: Analysis ofrefusals in EFL textl)ooks. (]4SELE Research Bulletin, 2 7, 287-292.
Fukazawa, S. (2002). A comparative study of requests in authentic language use and EFLIESL
textbooks, enSELE Research Butletin, 32, 79-85.
Kumon-Nakamura, S,, Glucksberg, S., & Brown, M. (1995). How al)out another pie¢ e ofpie: The
allusional pretense theory of discourse irony, in R. ViL Gibbs Jr. & H. L. Colston (Eds.), 1lo,ty
in ldnguage and thought (Pp. 57-95). New Ybtk, NY: [[laylor & Francis Group.
Leech, G (2014). 71hepragmatic y ofpotiteness. New Ybtk, NY Oxford University Press.
Locheg M. A. (2004). Power andpoliteness in action; Disagreement in oral communieation.
Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.
Logan, G D. (1988). Tbward an instance theory of automatization, Rsycholagical Review, 95,
492-527.doi:10,1037!O033-295X.95.4.492
McLaugh1in, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language leaming: An
infbrmation-processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135-158,
doiilO.1111lj.1467-1770.1983.tl)O0532.xNiezgoda, K., & R6veq C. (2001), Pragrriatic and grarnrnatical awareness: A fUnction of the
leaming environment. In K. Rose & G Kasper CEds.), P}ragnzatics in language teaching (pp. 63-79). Cambridge University Press.
Sawai, Y (2013). Efacts of Jizpaneye univensity students' L2 prqficiencly on their pragmatic
awareness of undle-loveF polite neguests in English (Unpublished master's thesis).
Hiroshima Universityu Hiroshima.
138
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
Japar ユ Society of English Language Education
Segalowi重z , N (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C。 J. Doughty& M . H , Long (Eds.),
The handbook qズsecond 9anguageαcquisitゴon (茎)p.382qO8 ). Oxfbrd, UKI BIackwell,
Tagashira, K .
, Yamato, K .,
& Isoda,工 (2011). Japanese EFL leamers’pragmatic awareness
through the looking glass ofmotivational profiles.」肌 TJouxnal,33,5−26.Taguchi
, N (2005). Comprehending implied mean 血 g in English as a fbreign language.77ie
M ()dern Language丿burnal,89
,543−562. doi:10,llll石.1540−4781.2005,00329.x
Taguchi, N .(2008a). Cognition
, language contact, and the development of pragmatic
comprehension in a study −abroad context . ヱLanguage Learning, 58, 33− 71. doi;10.1111石,1467−9922.2007.00434.x
Taguchi, N .(2008b). The role of learning environment in血e development of pragmatic
comprehension StUdies in Second Language /4cquisition, 30
, 423− 452.
doi:10.10171SO272263108080716
Watts, R J,(2005), Lhlguistic politeness and politic verbal behavior:Reconsidering claims fbr
universality In R W 磁 s, S. Ide
,& K . Ehlich(Eds,). Politeness加 language; Studies in its
histoiy, theoTJ? andpractiee (pp 43−69), Berlin, Ge皿 any :Mouton de Gruyter
Xu, W .
, Case, R E., & Wang
, Y .(2009). Pragrnatic and grarnmatical competence
, len帥 of
residence , and overall L2 proficiency. Sγstem , 37, 205−216.
doi:10.1016fj,system .2008,09.007
Appendix
(a1)Mike は Mr, Fran】dinに本 を借 りよ うとして い ます。Mike:Mr, Franklin?Mz Franklin:Yes?
....M.壟≦皇:.単§、..、..1....黛§景1!〜具_夐9攣9蕚ζ、.迦§..hg9塩.、魚瓢.真h梟.轣ζ龕§1≦黨無4、.茎至.....9具..99塾’t need it?
(a2 )Ame は Mr , Fran亅din と個別 面談を して い ます 。
…Ame :Mz Franklin?
…Mr. Franklin:Yes?
1.…、鋤 e :1’
mso but if ou don’t mind would it be
エ ア コ ン の せ い で部屋 が とて も寒い です 。
ossible to tし u the air conditionin ?
…(a3)A e は リス ニ ン グ の授業をとっ て い ます。
… きとれませ ん。
iA皿 1e:Excuse me but could〜.冂.冂..1「.1「.1’..’...’.”.”.’..」.」
’1「門
冂
..
凵
彼女 の 席は ス ピーカー
か ら遠い の で, 音
Anne は M 上Franldinに音量 を上 げる よ うに頼み ます。 lease?ou tu臓 1 u the volume a bitF 幽 .
を よく聞
(bl)Mikeは図書館に行こ うとして い ます。 Johnは Mi鸛 ピ自芬「あ.薗’善館1ぢ
1禾を
.返却テ
.る.』[…一..’う’.1ど頼
..
みます 。
Mike:Wel1, 1’11 see you later. 1,
ve got to go to the library to retUrn my bookS. 1
...」9嘸i...9皇.....工£....鯉 翆 ..黛in....!,9...冀he libr can Qu lease retUrn m .h99k.里9?
1
(b3)Anne は図書館ま で の 道の りを知 りた い の で , 近 くに い る学生に道を尋 ねます。
Anne : Excuse me could ou tell me where the libr is?
(b2)Kateは授業の前にカ フ ェ に行 っ て 何か飲 もうとして い ます 。
iShop staff May 1 help you?
1....1〜無僉三..ムCU O£20壌§ leas曇・....................「........、「.、「....................一、 ....」F.」.剛
139
N 工工一Electronic Library
Japan Society of English Language Education
NII-Electronic Library Service
Japar ユ Soclety of Engllsh Language Educatlon
1(a)M 丘
冂振m n が配6たプ リン トが 足 りな か っ たの で ,Anne はも う
一枚プ リン トが必要です』
Anne:Give me one more handout.
1(62)Ka肥は授業中1こ Mfs. Clintonに教科書を貸しました。しかし Mrs. Clintonは一週間た っ ても
. 返す の を忘れて い る よ うです。.Kate ;Mrs . Clinton?Mrs , Clinton:Hi.
[Kate:Iwant ou to retum m textbook.L冂
てc3 )Mike lま忘年会の 幹事を して い ます。出欠の返事の期限は昨 日であ っ た の に, Mrs ・cli11tonか
らの 返事がまだ あ りませ ん、Mike は廊下で Mrs. Clintonを見か けま した 。
Mike :Hello, Mrs. Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton:Hi,:Mike:Please confirm eur attendance as soon as ossible. .L ’ ’ ’’ ’ :(c4 )Jo は Mr. Fran】dinに何冊か本を借 りよ うとします。
Jo :Mr . Franklin?
Mr . Fran klin: Yes?John:Please lend me some of our books f{)r the weekend . 、
i(635’Kafe は M 駕 . Oiintonにア ン ケ
ートに答えるよ うに頼み に い きます。 K 且te は研 究室 の ドア を ノ
ッ クします 。
iKate :(Knocks on the door)Mrs . Clinton:Yes
, come in.
lKate :Hello. M name is Kate Arista. If ou don’
t min I would like ou to fi11 this in for me .1(dl)Anne はハ ガ キを買 い に郵便局に行こ うと して い ます。 Mike は A e に手紙をポ ス トに出す
, よ うに頼み ます 。
;Anne :V陀乢 rll catch you later. I am going to the post of 行ce to buy postcards.、Mike:Oh if ou wouldn
’t mind ma I inconvenience ou b askin ou to ut this letter into
the mailbox ?
(d2)A 皿 e は研究室に い て,コーヒーが飲みたい と思 っ て い ま凱 ち ょ うど Jo が コ ーヒーを入れ
・ よ うと して い ます 。
:Anne :Jo ?
.Jo :Yes?.Anne :Iho e I don ’t interru t ou but 1 am iust wonderin if ou woUldn
’t mind makin
acu of coffee for me ..(d3)Mike は授業の 前に カ フ ェ に行 っ て何か 食べ よ うとします 。
lShop staff:May 1 help you?Mike :Wbuld ou be so kind as to ive me a sandwich and o lease?1(d4)Johnは授業中に書き間違い を しま したが,消 しゴ ム を持 っ て い ませ ん。 Jo は Mil(e に消 し
. ゴ ム を貸 し て もらお うとします。: John:Mike?
Mike:Yes?lJo ;1’
m wonderin if ou wouldn’t m 血d lendin me our ・eraser.
L
(d5)Mike は病院に行 くためにバ ス の 時刻を調 べ た い の ですが,携帯電話を忘れて しまい ま した 。
Mike: John?John:Yes?Mike;1
’
m so b耳t ma I bother ou to hel me check 韓 彑us tlmes 璽 se ?.. ...
140
N 工工一Electronlc Llbrary