Formulaic expressions in English and Japanese: implications for teaching and learning

Julie Norton

Introduction Japanese learners often fail to do themselves justice with regard to the mysterious phenomenon English conversation. In oral tests, which grade candidates on their ability to communicate interactively for example, to initiate topics, take turns, express opinions and thus develop the interaction according to Western norms of communicative behaviour, empirical evidence suggests that Japanese candidates tend to do worse than their European counterparts. The nature of conversational interaction Conversation is often described as the archetypal form of talk (see Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974). The study of conversational interaction can be approached in terms of formal descriptions of its structural organisation - such as those proposed by conversation analysts and discourse analysts. It can, however, be examined in terms of other component features. For example, the use of formulaic expressions, the influence of culture on communicative style, the question of how rapport is established between interactants, the role of speakers and listeners and aspects of non-verbal behaviour. Due to the confines of this paper, I will focus on one aspect only of conversational interaction, that is, the use of formulaic expressions and briefly mention the significance of this aspect for Japanese learners of English. Formulaic expressions

...much of what is said in everyday interaction is by no means unique. Rather, a great deal of communicative activity consists of enacting routines, making use of prefabricated units in a well-known and generally accepted manner. (Coulmas 1981:1)

The great body of literature on this subject testifies to the widely-held belief that much of conversational activity is based on the ability of members of a particular speech community to trot out highly conventionalised pre-patterned expressions (ibid:1; see also Edmondson, 1981: 273). One problematic aspect of discussion of this conversational phenomenon in the literature is the diffuse use of terminology - conversational routine; linguistic routine; routinized speech; pre-patterned speech; pre-fabricated speech; which are employed more or less interchangeably. Clearer definitions are required if we are to perceive the distinctions described by the scholars. Coulmas (1981:2), it must be noted, does define routine formulae as highly conventionalised pre-patterned units whose occurrence is tied to more or less standardised communication situations. He mentions greeting formulas, politeness routines such as please help yourself! (ibid:4) and automatic responses such as God bless you when someone sneezes (ibid:77). Laver (1981: 290) deems linguistic routine behaviour a tool of polite behaviour which includes greetings, partings, pleas, thanks, excuses, apologies and small-talk.

The function of formulaic expressions Wardhaugh (1985: 134) notes the pervasiveness of formulaic expressions in every day speech. For example, to clarify a point (Let me put it this way...), to buy time (Well, let's see now...), to refer to previous topics (Anyway, where was I?), to signal the end of a conversation (It makes you think...). The work of Sorhus (1977) gives empirical support to Wardhaugh's observation. The focus of Sorhus's investigation was on hesitation phenomena. From a corpus of 130,000 words of spontaneous Canadian speech, she uncovered the surprising result that twenty percent of all words uttered in daily conversational exchanges were fixed expressions. Sorhus posits that routine formulae act as fillers which allow the speaker time to find words for his ideas. Coulmas (1981:9-11) also points out that routine formulae can be retrieved from memory easily and thus, facilitate conversational planning. They are said to have the function of sustaining orderliness and maintaining a smooth flow of interaction (ibid:12). The frequency and distribution of routine formulae depends, it is claimed, on two factors:

the social organisation of a speech community the structural make-up of a particular language (ibid:11)

Japanese is said to have a particularly rich repertoire as the more tradition oriented a society is, the more its members seems to make use of situational formulae (ibid:11). Concerning Japanese, it has also been pointed out that they are very particular about using the appropriate form in the appropriate context. (ibid:11). There is less concern about originality and hence, no stigma attached to repeating the same formula as a previous speaker. What is more, the choice of possible locutions in Japanese is said to be very limited. (ibid:11). The significance of formulaic expressions for Japanese learners of English There is a strong link between routine formulae and culture: ...routines make the fullest use of cultural knowledge common to members of a community... (Coulmas, 1981:8) An anecdotal account given by Doi, a Japanese psychologist on a visit to the United States (reported in Coulmas 1981:13) illustrates this. For Doi, the expression, Please help yourself! carried the negative connotation of No one else will help you rather than the friendly hospitality it is supposed to engender. Hence, many routines, particularly politeness ones can only be interpreted in light of background knowledge of cultural values, habits and traditions as the sentiment encapsulated in the expression can often not be inferred from comprehension of the words in isolation. If routine formulae are closely linked to cultural values, this will lead to differences in conversational styles cross-culturally. For example, in many languages, the first part of a politeness formula prospects a particular response, establishing a mini-dialogue between interactants. (See Slama-Cazacu, 1991:398; Tannen and Oztek, 1981; Verscheuren, 1981:134; Wolfson, 1976:190).

Japanese learners of English may find the plethora of formulaic expressions used in English quite bewildering. Their use in Japanese seems highly predictable with regard to particular situations. For example, it is absolutely necessary to say Itadakimasu before eating. The fact that no corresponding expression exists in English may induce anxiety in the learner (see Slama-Cazacu, 1991:400), especially bearing mind that violating a social rule involves loss of face and that maintenance of face is said to be a central value governing interaction in Japanese (Coulmas, 1981:83). Edmondson (1981:273) notes that prevalence of routines leads to strong expectations as regards what someone might say and the type of conversation likely to occur (see also Tannen, 1981:225). Hence, the anxiety induced through attempting to converse in a foreign language may be compounded as the learner feels unsure as to how the interaction will develop. In addition, it must be noted that the scale of fixity of formulaic expressions could prove troublesome for foreign language learners. A notice in a shop announcing, All pigs fed and ready to fly! (S. Mandela, 1995, personal communication) exemplifies how the fixity of a particular expression may be exploited to humorous effect. On a more mundane level, there is far greater licence to exploit particular frameworks in English such as Have a nice day! or Have a good day! The latter possibility is related to the positive cultural value attached to novelty of expression as a means of communicating sincere sentiments in the West. As has already been pointed out, this is not the case in every culture and Tannen and Oztek (1981: 38) note that those who come from cultures in which formulae constitute a large proportion of their every day speech find it very difficult to get along without them. Pedagogical implications of formulaic expressions Coulmas (1981:8) suggests there are several reasons why formulaic expressions are significant to second language learners. Firstly, the rote memorisation of prefabricated patterns is a strategy identified in the second language learning of infants (see Hakuta 1974, Schieffelin 1979, Wong Fillmore 1976, 1979). This could mean it may be worthwhile to teach particular phrases as unanalysed wholes or chunks which learners may utilise to quickly achieve a communicative aim. However, as Hakuta (1974:296) notes, we still do not know if such rote memorisation accelerates or decelerates the acquisition of a particular structure into one's communicative competence. Hakuta questions whether the prefabricated pattern would signal or inspire the learner to seek its internal structure or hinder the search as it is far simpler to use the pattern automatically. Furthermore, if a learner does finally perceive the internal structure of a prefabricated pattern, will the pattern remain a convenient short-cut to production? (ibid:276). Keller (1981) terms formulaic routines gambits and stresses their important role in the way conversation is organised. For this reason, he believes they should be taught in foreign language classrooms. Students would clearly need to appreciate the precise situations in which such gambits may be utilised, taking into account such contextual features as the relationship between the interactants and other situational constraints, if pragmatic failure is to be avoided. Having said that, it would seem useful to teach Japanese learners expressions such as just a minute or let me think to fill silences which may be embarrassing for their Western interlocutors and so gain time to organise their ideas, rather than have their speaking turn usurped by an unsympathetic conversation partner. Indeed, many of the expressions previously identified by Wardhaugh seem easily teachable and useful in this respect.

Finally, it must be noted that much of the interaction in conversation takes place on a non-verbal level as well as a verbal level (see Urmston-Philips, 1976:94; Tannen, 1981:222.) Thus, in a classroom context, it is insufficient to merely focus on the role of formulaic expressions and the domain of purely verbal behaviour if the aim is to teach conversational competence to Japanese learners of English. It may be useful to incorporate video and film into lessons to provide an accurate model of interaction and allow learners to focus on the role of speakers and hearers and the regulation of the interaction in terms of how turn-taking is controlled through, non-verbal as well as verbal devices. Conclusion In this paper, I have tried to exemplify one aspect of verbal behaviour in conversational interaction, that is, the use of formulaic expressions. I have tried to link this linguistic behaviour with particular cultural values in the hope of raising the awareness of English language teachers and making a limited number of recommendations for language pedagogy. My final justification for this comes from Edmondson et al (1983): Learning about conversational conventions and norms in the target culture seemed to us to presuppose an awareness of one's own communicative procedures, and those operating in the native culture. Hence, I feel there is place for reflection on the part of both teacher and learner alike as to how particular cultural values may be linked to verbal and non-verbal behaviour respectively in one's first language and in the target language if we are to demystify the phenomenon of English conversation for Japanese learners of English. References Coulmas F. 1981. ‘Poison on your soul: thanks and apologies contrastively viewed'. In F. Coulmas (Ed.) Conversational Routine (pp.69-91). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Edmondson, W. 1981. ‘On saying sorry' in F. Coulmas (Ed.) Conversational Routine (pp.273-288). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Edmondson W., House J., Kasper G. and Stemmer B. 1983. ‘Learning the pragmatics of discourse' in Applied Linguistics 5/2 (pp.113-125), Oxford University Press. Hakuta K. 1974. ‘Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition' in Language Learning 24/2 (pp.287-297). Keller E. 1981. ‘Gambits: conversational strategy signals' in F. Coulmas (Ed.) Conversational Routine, (pp.93-113). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Laver J. 1981. ‘Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting' in F. Coulmas (Ed.) Conversational Routine, (pp.289-304). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Sacks H., Schegloff E., Jefferson G. 1974. ‘A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation' in Language 50/4 (pp.696-735).

Slama-Cazuca T. 1991. ‘Politeness strategies and contrastive foreign language teaching' in Vladimir Ivir and Damir Kalogjera (Eds.) Trends in Linguistic Studies and Monographs 54: Languages in Contact and Contrast. Essays in Contact Linguistics, (pp.391-406). Mouton de Gruyter. Sorhus H. 1977. ‘To hear ourselves - implications for teaching English as a second language' in English Language Teaching Journal 31/3 (pp.211-221). Tannen D. 1981. ‘Indirectness in discourse: ethnicity as conversational style' in Discourse Processes 4. (pp.221-238). Urmston Philips S. 1976. ‘Some sources of cultural variability in the regulation of talk' in Language and Society 5 (pp.81-95). Cambridge University Press. Verscheuren J. 1981. The semantics of forgotten routines' in F. Coulmas (Ed.) Conversational Routine, (pp.133-153). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Wardhaugh R. 1985. How Conversation Works. Basil Blackwell. Wolfson N. 1976. ‘Speech events and natural speech' in Language and Society 5 (pp.189-209). Cambridge University Press. This article was originally published in Teaching English to Japanese Students in Britain (Issue 8: March 1996), with the title Japanese and English patterns of communicative behaviour in conversational interaction and its implications for Japanese learners of English.