Matthias HUTZ * Pragmatic Transfer and the Development of Pragmatic Competence in Second Language: A Cross-linguistic Study of Requests Abstract. The objective of this study is to investigate aspects of interlanguage pragmatics and discourse competence in German learners of English. In particular, the investigation attempts to compare requests in the interlanguage of German leamers ofEnglish with requests made by native speakers since this speech act is assumed to be one of the most sensitive areas in German-English interactions. The study examines a corpus of data of e-mail requests drawn from both academic and non-academic contexts. In the present study the moves necessary for writing a request were analysed as weil as the request strategies. lt was found that the German learners ofEnglish appear to rely on more direct forms of requests and that they use fewer supportive moves than native speakers of English and German. Despite the fact that the need to teach pragmatic functions is widely acknowledged, such issues are still rarely addressed in foreign language teaching. The paper therefore concludes by discussing some implications for language teaching, especially conceming the development of pragmatic competence in language leamers. 1. Cross-cultural Pragmatics and lnterlanguage Pragmatics The phenomenon of cross-cultural pragmatic variation is widely recognized. Cultures vary in their pragmatic behaviour and these differences may persist when learners start to communicate in a new language. At least initially, leamers may consider the rules guiding their interactions to be universally valid, for instance, when apologising or requesting something. Therefore, they might not be aware of subtle differences in pragmatic behaviour between their home culture and the target culture. The recognition that pragmatic behaviour is not necessarily govemed by universal principles, but to a certain extent culture-specific has led to a vast number of contrastive investigations, in particular on how specific speech acts are realised in different languages. Within the framework of cross-cultural pragmatics language use in different cultures is explored, taking pragmalinguistic as well as sociopragmatic aspects into account. Some of the basic assumptions are that people in different communities speak differently, that these differences in ways of speaking are profound and systematic and that they reflect different cultural values and different communicative styles (WIERZBICKA 1991: 69). Korrespondenzadresse: Prof. Dr. Matthias HUTZ, Univ.-Prof., Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg, Institut für Fremdsprachen, Abt. Englisch, Kunzenweg 21, 79117 FREIBURG. E-mail: hutz@ph-freiburg.de Arbeitsbereiche: Fachsprachenforschung, Textlinguistik, Interkulturelle Kommunikation und Zweitsprachenerwerbsforschung. lFlLuL 35 (2006) 212 Matthias Hutz One of the most well-known research projects in this field of enquiry is the Cross- Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (e.g. BLUM-KULKA [et al.] 1989; HüUSE 1989; WEIZMAN 1993) contrasting speech acts realisations such as requests and apologies from native speakers and non-native leamers. This seminal project and numerous other studies helped to pave the way for the development of interlanguage pragmatics, which is primarily concemed with language used by leamers in a social context rather than with language form. In analogy to Selinker's interlanguage theory, the term was coined focussing on the leamers' development of a pragmatic system in a second or foreign language. Since leaming a second language requires more thanjust the acquisition ofthe phonological, lexical and syntactic system, interlanguage pragmatics can provide us with insights on how leamers develop pragmatic knowledge over time. Research has mainly concentrated on communicative skills and speech act realisations by leamers; in particular, it has been investigated how leamers deal with the illocutionary force of individual speech acts and how they express politeness values in the target language. Deviations from pragmalinguistic norms in the target language are normally considered to be the result of pragmatic transfer from L 1, of overgeneralising principles thought to be universal or of simplification of pragmatic knowledge. This study explores the use of request strategies by native speakers and leamers of English. Based on a corpus of 100 e-mails written by native speakers of English, native speakers of German and two groups of German leamers of English, it addresses the question how the speech act of requesting is realized by these groups and whether there is any evidence of pragmatic transfer. In a second step, consequences for the development of pragmatic competence are discussed. 2. Pragmatic transfer and failure The fact that pragmatic norms and conventions may differ across cultures is a potential risk to communicative success. Disregarding cultural distinctiveness may lead to conflicts or even breakdowns in communication or to the development of negative stereotypes (cf. BLUM-KULKA [et al.] 1989: 6; THOMAS 1983: 107). Different social frames ofreference may represent barriers to effective intercultural communication. In particular, differences in politeness behaviour (e.g. when asking for a favour or apologising) can become potential pitfalls for leamers. For instance, being overly direct, mayin the worst case result in misconceptions of rudeness. Common politeness routines in English (e.g. "nice to meet you", "see you later") may cause leamers tCi develop negative stereotypes such as superficiality, when interpreted too literally. Problems typically arise • when leamers transfer Ll pragmatic conventions to the target language without being aware that they are culturally determined • when the home culture is looked on as the norm and the target language culture as deviant • when leamers assume that some pragmatic norms are universal, when, in fact, they are not (cf. BARRON 2003: 25-26; RILEY 1989: 234). FLuL 35 (2006) Pragmatic Transfer and the Development of Pragmatic Competence in Second Language ... 213 Pragmatic transfer may thus be regarded as the carryover of existing pragmatic knowledge and social conventions from the Ll culture to an L2 setting, i.e. "from a situation of intracultural communication to a situation of intercultural communication" (ZEGARAC/ PENNINGTON 2000: 166). With regard to pragmatic failure, THOMAS (1983: 99) makes a general distinction between pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic errors, both, however resulting in inappropriate language use. Pragmalinguistic failure is language-specific, i.e. learners may have problems to identify and express meanings appropriately, while sociopragmatic failure is culture-specific, i.e. there is a failure to identify the situation and social reality correctly (cf. RILEY 1989: 235). In the first case, a speech act may be inappropriately transferred from LI to L2 as a result of different pragmalinguistic conventions (SPENCER- ÜATEY 2000: 42)for instance, a German learner requesting a beer in an English pub by saying ''I'm getting a beer" whereas in the second case different cultural principles and values may be responsible for communicative problems. An example of sociopragmatic failure could be the following situation. When asked 'How do you like the US? ', a German leamer on an exchange visit began to list all the things he liked and disliked. He interpreted the question as an invitation to express his personal opinion quite explicitly and was astonished to find his American hosts reacting in a somewhat embarrassed manner. Other examples would include the inappropriate use of informal terms of address or different concepts about signalling modesty. Although the literature abounds in evidence for both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic failure, it should be noted, however, that negative transfer must not necessarily lead to a breakdown in communication (cf. ZEGARACIPENNINGTON 2000: 169). As KASPER/ BLUM-KULKA (1993: 11) have pointed out, such differences should not be equated with negative transfer resulting in errors, since this equation has proved tobe just as inaccurate for pragmatics as for other types of transfer as well (e.g. in phonology, syntax or lexical semantics). Moreover, a prediction of potential transfer errors based on cross-cultural comparison is simply not possible. Nevertheless, because of the potential risks the influence from leamers' native language and culture on their IL pragmatic knowledge and performance should not be ignored. 3. The development of pragmatic competence in the foreign language lt is well established that pragmatic norms of interactions are acquired relatively late in the first language and that such knowledge seems to be partly unconscious (SCHMIDT 1993). To know what is appropriate behaviour in a given situation requires an immense amount ofbackground knowledge and cultural experience. For obvious reasons, this task is even more complex in a second language and poses a great challenge to leamers since they need to become familiar with potentially new pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic pattems and discoursal rules. This is also reflected in the following quotation by BYRAM: "[... ] to acquire and use a foreign language is to enter another way of life, another rationality, another mode ofbehaviour, however similar it may appear to that ofthe leamer (1988: 17)". FLuL 35 (2006) 214 Matthias Hutz Complete accommodation to L2 pragmatic norms might not be a realistic, perhaps not even a desirable objective since the individual communicative styles expressed by learners can also serve as a marker of cultural identity, but familiarity with the pragmatic norms ofthe target language and culture as well as the ability to behave appropriately in a given situation i.e. the development of pragmatic competence should be one of the essential elements of foreign language teaching. According to BARRON (2003: 10), pragmatic competence is understood as "knowledge ofthe linguistic resources available in a given language for realising particular illocutions, knowledge of the sequential aspects of speech acts and finally, knowledge of the appropriate contextual use of the particular languages' linguistic resources". Several studies have demonstrated, however, that even with advanced learners (cf. GAss/ HoucK 1999: 199) considerable deficits in appropriate pragmatic behaviour in the second language can be observed. For instance, ELLIS (1992) found that the request strategies used by the leamers he investigated did not correspond to L2 pragmatic norms even at more advanced stages of their development. However, he noticed a higher degree offlexibility in using the request strategies with increasing proficiency and a tendency to use more native-like strategies (e.g. indirect strategies) at later stages. This correlation between linguistic and pragmatic competence was also confirmed by Trosborg's crosscultural study of Danish leamers and native speakers of English: "Only when leamers have acquired a wider range of communicative strategies and modificational devices can they begin to deliberately select strategies and markers according to the demands of the social Situation" (TROSBORG 1994: 428). 4. Request strategies in e-mails: A cross-linguistic corpus study 4.1 The speech act of requesting The purpose of the following study was to attempt an investigation into the strategies native and non-native speakers ofGerman and English use in order to request something. Requests represent a pragmatically sensitive area in the communication between Americans and Germans since they can be performed very directly or indirectly (e.g. WOOD- MAN 2003). A request in this context refers to the speech act with the illocution of"getting somebody to do something" which is primarily to the benefit of the speaker. These acts may range in illocutionary force from ordering to begging and are potentially face-threatening acts (TROSBORG 1994: 188). According to BROWN/ LEVINSON (1987: 91), request strategies and the degree of directness are influenced by the social distance and the relative power of speaker and hearer as well as the absolute ranking of impositions in the particular culture, including, for instance, the legitimacy of the request. The corpus contained 100 e-mails written by American and German students, both in German and in English, and by German software engineers, only in English. The group of German students were all quite advanced leamers of English compared with the second group who mainly used English for their job. E-mails were chosen because they lFLuL 35 (2006) Pragmatic Transfer and the Development of Pragmatic Competence in Second Language ... 215 constitute a very common activity resulting in a clearly recognisable genre, especially in academic and business settings (GAINS 1999). All ofthe e-mails contained requests. The approach which was used intended to bring together three important resources for language teaching, namely cross-cultural pragmatics, genre analysis and corpus analysis. The study of typical pragmatic and textual patterns from a cross-cultural perspective might be useful for language teaching. The analysis of a genre based on data obtained from a small corpus oftexts has become a widely used method of obtaining information about language use (HENRY/ RüSEBERRY 2001). The overall aim of a genre approach to language teaching is to make learners aware ofthe relationship between the communicative purpose of a genre, the context and the language chosen to achieve this purpose. According to SWALES (1990: 58) and BHATIA (1993: 13), genre is a highly structured recognizable communicative event characterized by a set of communicative purpose(s) identified and mutually understood by the members of a discourse community in which it regularly occurs. Learning a genre therefore also implies learning how to participate in the actions of a discourse community. In genre analysis texts are usually divided into so-called moves, i.e. elements of text structure that fulfil a partial purpose of the genre. All the moves together provide the genre's total communicative purpose. In the present study the moves necessary for writing a request were investigated. Within a genre framework, a speaker or writer often has a choice as to how to accomplish a particular move. The choices available are called rhetorical strategies (BHATIA 1993: 30-32). In this case the degree of directness involved in request strategies was analysed. With regard to directness several researchers (e.g. HOUSE 1996; WOODMAN 2003) state that the German preference for more direct and explicit forms may stem from an overall preference for clarity in communication and content-orientation. This is also claimed in the following extract from a book on cross-cultural business behaviour: "Clarity of understanding being the prime goal of communication for Germans, they pride themselves on speaking their mind. Whereas relationship-focussed people often use indirect communication, Germans value direct, frank, even blunt language" (GESTELAND 2002: 313). Whether this difference hypothesis concerning directness and explicitness also holds true for the requests found in e-mails written by Germans and Americans was one ofthe main objectives ofthis study. 4.2 Analysis of moves in e-mail requests In a first step, the frequency of individual moves in the requests was analysed. Apart from the greeting at the beginning and the closing of an e-mail five different moves can be distinguished following e.g. WOODMAN (2003), TROSBORG (1994) or HOUSE (1989): lFLuL 35 (2006) 216 Move 1: Preparing the request la: Introducing the topic: Matthias Hutz When introducing a topic, the requester can structure the e-mail in such a way the request fits naturally into the context, e.g. by presenting a specific problem: (1) I have started looking around for job offers and am now applying for a job as a trainee at the Goethe-Institut in Munich. I do need to give reference addresses from University teachers or former employers. (NNS-E-Students-17) lb: Social pleasantry The main purpose here is to create a friendly atmosphere: (2) How are you? I really hope you are doing fine! (NNS-E-Students-12) lc: Preparing the speech act The requester can also prepare the speech act in such a way that the person addressed can anticipate the request: (3) I'm in a bit of a rush, so I'll get right to the question: ... (NNS-E-17) (4) I need your help. (NNS-E-Students-14) Move 2: Softening the request Several interpersonal strategies may be used to soften a request, i.e. they are used as negative politeness strategies stressing the fact that the writer is aware of a possible imposition. 2a: Disarmers Disarmers may serve as general apologies for the request and may anticipate possible complaints. Disarming statements are, for example: (5) I'm very sorry for any inconvenience I'm causing. (NS-E-8) (6) I'm sorry to bother you again with this subject. (NNS-E-Students-1) 2b: Sweeteners Another possible strategy is to flatter and praise the person you are asking to do you a favour. The function here is, of course, to make the reader more favourably disposed to the request: (7) Because you know so much about Ireland and your seminar on Ireland was very good and interesting I thought that it would be good ifyou would be the second proofreader. (NNS-E-Students- 1) (8) I already made some corrections but I am sure that it needs a good proof-reader... (NNS-E- Students-14) 2c: Cost minimizing A requester can also point to factors that will minimize any costs thereby reducing the weight of imposition: (9) Since travelling is not a problem forme, I can also offer to see you at UWM ifthere should be any need for personal negotiations. (NS-E-Students-11) lFJLuL 35 (2006) Pragmatic Transfer and the Development of Pragmatic Competence in Second Language ... 21 7 Move 3: Explaining the request Here the requester may specify the reasons for making the request by hinting at a problern that has occurred or by justifying the request. This move generally anticipates a possible 'Why? ' and may either occur before or after the request, as the following examples show: 3a: Pre-request reasons (10) I've just had a really bad last few weeks and this class has been hard forme to keep up with. I'll try to get my midterm to you by tomorrow aftemoon. (NS-E-8) 3b: Post-request reasons (11) I was wondering ifyou would give one more day to turn in the midterm. I have to go out of town tonight for a funeral in the moming. (NS-E-16) An inductive approach, i.e. to give the reasons first, may often be the more effective strategy since the reader is prepared for the request in a better way. Move 4: Request The fourth move is the central one, the request itself. Move 5: Finalizing the request There are two potential strategies to end a request: Sa: Offering assistance (ifthe requester feels that further information might be helpful): (12) Please don't hesitate to ask questions or call me. (NS-E-6) or Sb: Expressing thanks: (13) Thanks, as always, for all your help. At the very least, I owe you lunch at your favourite place. (NS-E-4) For the purpose of the analysis the frequencies of the different moves were calculated per request strategy for each of the four groups of native and non-native speakers: a) English e-mails written by native speakers ofEnglish (American students) = NS-E b) German e-mails written by native speakers ofGerman (students) = NS-G c) English e-mails written by German leamers ofEnglish (students) = NNS-E-Stud d) English e-mails written by German employees of an international company = NNS-E- Bus FLuL 35 (2006) 218 Matthias Hutz Analysis of moves in requests (relative distribution in%) 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 111 NS-E (Stud.) 111 NS-G (Stud.) ONNS-E (Stud.) IIINNS-E (Bus.) Move 1 Move 2 Move 3 Move 4 Move 5 Frequencies per request MOVES GroupNS-E GroupNS-G GroupNNS-E GroupNNS-E (Students) (Students) (Students) (Business) Move 1: 0.76 0.67 0.54 0.46 Preparing the request Move2: 0.35 0.41 0.28 0.02 Softening the request Move3: 0.83 0.89 0.49 0.32 Explaining the request Move4: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Request MoveS: 0.31 0.27 0.36 0.13 Finalizing the request Total number of suppor- 2.25 2.24 1.67 0.93 tive moves (1+2+3+5) The analysis ofthe five moves brought several quite interesting results: In general, there is basically only one obligatory move, the request itself. The moves "preparing request" and "explaining request" seem to be of great significance as supportive moves. On the other hand, the moves "softening the request" and "finalizing the request" seem to be optional. There seems tobe a correlation between these moves on the one hand and the weight of imposition and the social distance on the other hand. The higher the social distance and the weight of imposition perceived by the requester the more likely supportive moves will be used. The analysis also revealed that the moves were variable. In some cases the central move, i.e. the request, was placed right at the beginning of the mail (deductive approach), in particular if the move was thought to be a legitimate one that did not put too much FLuL 35 (2006) Pragmatic Transfer and the Development of Pragmatic Competence in Second Language ... 219 pressure on the reader. However, in the overall data, the request most often occurred much later in the text after some extensive preparation of the negative message. The comparison ofthe two groups ofnative speakers showed that the total number of supportive moves used in requests was virtually the same. With regard to the frequency, they did not differ significantly in ANY ofthe moves, which may be taken as an indication that at least as far as the structuring of text elements is concemed - German students support their requests equally well as their American counterparts. However, the results also show that the German leamers of English, in general, provided significantly fewer supportive moves for the requests than both groups of native speakers. In the case ofbusiness e-mails this may be partly explained by the fact that employees often have to write their e-mails under great time pressure. This means that they do not have much time to soften or even prepare or explain a request they just focus on the central move, the request itself. In the case of German students writing request mails in English the reasons may be different, especially since the control group, the native speakers of German, produced a much higher number of supportive moves. The shortcoming found in leamers may be either ascribed to a lack of linguistic means, e.g. to produce disarmers, or it may indeed be the result of a lack of familiarity with request pattems in English. This would confirm the findings by ELLIS (1992) and TR0SB0RG (1994) mentioned earlier. 4.3 Analysis of request strategies In a second step, the individual request strategies were analysed in particular with regard to their degree of directness. Based on previous research in the framework ofthe Cross- Cultural SpeechActRealizationProject(BLUM-KULKA! OLSHTAIN 1984; BLUM-KULKA! HousE 1989) as well as TR0SB0RG (1994) and AIJMER (1996) four different categories were distinguished showing an ascending degree of directness: Indirect requests, readeroriented requests, writer-oriented requests and finally direct request. CAT I: lndirect requests/ hints Hints are the most implicit form of requests. A speaker or writer who does not want to state the purpose of the request explicitly may rely upon hinting strategies, where the desired action is not mentioned. This lack of transparency is intentional (TR0SB0RG 1994: 193), it is left to the reader or hearer to infer the writer's intention. (14) As you know, good applications always include good letters of recommendation. (NNS-E-12) (15) I've missed a few classes and I'm falling behind. (NS-E-8) CAT II: Reader-oriented request Another strategy in formulating requests is to refer to the reader's willingness or ability to accept the requester's desired action. Reader-oriented requests are often routinized constructions which imply that the reader "is in a position of control to decide whether or not to comply with the request" (TR0SB0RG 1994: 197). They are often considered tobe lFLuL 35 (2006) 220 Matthias Hutz more polite than writer-oriented requests (CAT III) since the requester also takes noncompliance into account, at least on the surface. (16) Could you please confirm ... ? (NNS-E-Business 19) (17) Would it be possible to distribute the exam next Monday and have it due back on Wednesday? (NS-E-9) CAT III: Writer-oriented request In writer-oriented requests the writer focuses on his or her own wishes, desires and needs. However, the weight of imposition is relatively high since such requestive strategies do not really give the reader or hearer a choice to opt out of the desired action. Therefore such explicit requests are often regarded as more direct and less polite. Examples from the corpus are: (18) I would like to know whether you already know the results ofthe term papers in lntercultural Communication. (NNS-E-Students 4) (19) I will need copies ofall previous ... forms. (NS-E-21) CAT IV: Direct requests In the most direct form of requesting one of the following options might be chosen: • a performative verb (e.g. to ask, to urge, to order) which explicitly signals the illocutionary force: (20) I'm asking you to make payments like all my other business partners (NNS-E-Business-7) • an obligation or necessity: (21) You should read the information in the attached document. (NS-E-10) • an imperative, which may signal that the utterance is an order, perhaps modified by please: (22) Please answer asap. (NNS-E-Business-3) General categories of request strategies (relative distribution in % ) Request strategies GroupNS-E GroupNS-G GroupNNS-E GroupNNS-E (Students) (Students) (Students) (Business) CATI: 179 16.3 2.4 0 Indirect requests CATII: 32.8 41.9 33.3 6.6 Reader-oriented requests CAT III: 29.9 32.6 47.6 6.6 Writer-oriented requests CATIV: 194 9.2 16.7 86.8 Direct requests Total 100 100 100 100 lFLuL 35 (2006) Pragmatic Transfer and the Development of Pragmatic Competence in Second Language . .. 221 The request strategies were classified as belonging to one of the four major categories. For each e-mail, the number of strategies was computed and the scores were compared across groups. 50 40 30 20 10 0 Comparison of both groups of native speakers CATI CATII CATill CATN 1ii1 NS-E (Stud) ~NS-G(Stud) The results again are similar for the two groups of native speakers. Both revealed a tendency for rather indirect and reader-oriented requests. American and German students writing in their mother tongue primarily relied on the three least direct strategies: hints, requests conceming ability or willingness, and the expression of wishes and needs. In both cases the occurrence ofhints is relatively high compared to the other groups. Hints largely rely on shared knowledge, high linguistic proficiency and on the reader's skill to infer the intended meaning. Perhaps quite surprisingly, the number of reader-oriented requests is even higher among German students than among American students whereas the direct requests are higher among the Americans. However, the imperative is mainly used for minor requests in such cases e.g. "please e-mail me back"). However, this is certainly an indication that at least for this corpus the idea that Germans in general tend to be very direct in their requests cannot be maintained. Comparison of native speakers of English and learners of English/ native speakers of German and learners of English lFLuL 35 (2006) 50 40 30 20 10 0 CATI CATII CATill CATN l! ! INS-E(Stud) ~NNS-E(Stud) 222 50 40 30 20 10 0 CATI CATII CATIII CATN Matthias Hutz iiNS-G(Stud) l§INNS-E(Stud) If we compare the group of student leamers with both groups of native speakers, we find some more remarkable differences. Firstly, German students ofEnglish hardly make use ofhints, possibly because of their potential ambiguity and the lack of clarity. lt might also be hypothesized that hints or indirect strategies might be found more often with more advanced leamers than with beginners or intermediate leamers since they require a relatively high degree oflinguistic proficiency. Instead, German students relied more on readerand writer-focussed requests and often expressed their needs and desires very explicitly, revealing a higher degree of selforientation. lt has to be conceded, however, that these rather direct requests often contained mitigating devices. They often used pre-packed verbal request routines a typical request, for example, would include phrases like J just wanted to ask you or I would like to know, which are found much more often in leamer texts than in the American data. The usage of such expressions might be an indication that leamers rely on unanalyzed formulas {KASPER/ ROSE 2002: 140; ELLIS 1992). Comparison ofnative speakers ofEnglish and learners ofEnglish (business group) 100 80 60 40 20 0 CAT I CAT II CAT III CAT IV DNS-E (Stud) ~NNS-E(Bus) The data gathered from the business e-mails proved to be extremely oriented towards directness and explicitness in their request strategies. More than 86% of the requests were lflLuL 35 (2006) Pragmatic Transfer and the Development of Pragmatic Competence in Second Language ... 223 categorized in the last category, most of which were very explicit imperatives, often modified by please. A typical example would be "Please send me the manual." This frequency of imperatives can largely be explained by the fact that the requests often involved urgency and immediate compliance. "Please" is almost always placed at the beginning of a request, which may even serve as a visual marker of requests in the case of scan reading. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, hints were completely avoided-=probably because of the <langer of creating ambiguity and the lack of clarity. Judging from the data in this section, however, the lack of indirect request strategies in the English mails written by non-native speakers is perhaps not so much the result of a pragmatic transfer from the mother tongue, but rather the result of a lack of stylistic ranges and the consequence of an orientation toward clarity and content. In general, the contrastive genre analysis and the analysis of the request strategies demonstrated a large amount of overlap between the English and the German native speakers. For this reason, a more differentiated perspective conceming the discussion about the degree of directness suggested for both cultures should be considered. At least in the data of the written communication analysed here, there are no indications that Germans per se show less indirectness and thus may appear to be less polite. Instead, the problem seems to lie elsewhere. Leamers, even those who are more advanced, seem to rely on more direct forms of requests which may have a linguistically less sophisticated structure, e.g. imperatives or formulaic expressions. This may, of course, provoke difficulties in communication with native speakers, especially when directness is equated with rudeness, when, in fact, the students do not have the necessary linguistic means and a wider range of pragmatic strategies at their disposal in the foreign language. With increasing proficiency in the second language it is quite likely that leamers will use the same strategies they use in their first language. 5. Implications for teaching: The road to pragmatic competence The implications that can be drawn from cross-cultural pragmatics, may, among other things, include the following aspects: the exploration of pragmatically critical areas in interactions (e.g. requests or complaints) is of great significance to foreign language teaching awareness should be raised for a range of possible strategies and linguistic pattems to realize speech acts in the first andin the second language (however, both differences and similarities between L1 and L2 should be focussed on) an attempt should be made to increase the acceptability ofthe other culture's preferences in pragmatic behaviour to increase mutual understanding and the avoidance of stereotypes. For these reasons, it seems evident that knowledge of speech act realisations should be a central objective of foreign language teaching. The issue now is how these features of language should be taught in order to reach the ultimate goal of improving leamer's lFLuL 35 (2006) 224 Matthias Hutz pragmatic competence. In this last section I would like to present a few ideas that may be used forthe teaching ofpragmatic skills based on the following sequence: 1. Exploring relevant speech acts 2. Raising cross-linguistic awareness 3. Developing pragmatic skills 4. Engaging in language use activities 1 In a first step, speech acts should be identified which are relevant for the learners as well as material that might be used to explore relevant speech acts. lt is important to use authentic materials (e.g. internet, films, TV interviews) that can be recorded and analyzed for speech-act content. The speech act in question might be pointed out to the learners (explicit teaching) or students are asked to identify the speech act themselves. For instance, a letter written by a native speaker might be selected which contains a request. The task could then be to discover and underline the main request and all the politeness strategies which can be found in the letter. Another exercise might be to fill out questionnaires (e.g. "How do you react when your American host asks you "How do you like the US? "? ) testing the learners' reactions in potentially critical situations. Learners might also gather their own examples of speech acts from their own environment. However, simple exposure to characteristic input is not very likely tobe sufficient for second language acquisition of pragmatic and discoursal knowledge because the linguistic realizations of pragmatic functions may not become transparent to the learners (SCHMIDT 1993: 36). Therefore, in a second step, cross-linguistic awareness could be raised. With the teacher's guidance, students can discuss which cross-linguistic differences exist between the native and the TL speech acts and perhaps why they exist. Self-reflection on one's own culture might also be a good starting-point. In this way learners might become aware of the fact that the other culture is just as differentiated as their own. Letters, e-mails or other genres could be analysed from a cross-cultural perspective, possibly by contrasting them with L 1 examples. This way discussions could be stimulated which draw on the learners' existing but largely unconscious knowledge ofhow texts are created in their own cultural context. Finding out about cross-linguistic differences and similarities in pragmatic behaviour can be an essential part of exploratory learning in the classroom. Attention can be drawn to both the linguistic forms that are employed and the sociolinguistic variables that may determine the pragmatic behaviour (e.g. age, gender, status, relationship ofthe participants): Task: Here are five ways in English to express the wish that someone leave. Try to order the expressions on a scale from very polite to very impolite. In which situation would you use these expressions? See also the model suggested by JUDD (1999: 162) containing five components: teacher analysis ofspeech acts, cognitive awareness skills, receptive/ integrative skills, controlled productive skills and free, integrated practice. FLuL 35 (2006) Pragmatic Transfer and the Development of Pragmatic Competence in Second Language ... 225 a) Please go. b) I think I would like to be alone now. c) J'd appreciate it if you would leave. d) Get out of here e) Would you be willing to leave? In the third stage, pragmatic skills could be further developed, i.e. the attempt is made to incorporate the pragmatic pattems into the leamers' speech production and to encourage students to use specific speech acts, e.g. in guided simulations or role plays. Students are asked to adopt certain roles that would require them to produce certain speech acts. For example, to practice the speech act "complaining" the students might be given the following situation (cf. JUDD 1999: 159): Student A: You have ordered food in a restaurant and the waiter brought you a different dish. Student B: You know that you brought the correct meal and that the customer has forgotten what was originally ordered. Similarly, contrastive role plays could be used (JUDD 1999: 165) to help students to develop pragmatic competence. A series of role plays is presented with differing sociolinguistic variables in each case to demonstrate how these factors might influence the performance ofthe speech act. For instance, the leamers may have to apologize to their mother for coming late, to their teacher for forgetting the homework or to a policeman for riding a bicycle at night without turning the lights on. By assessing role and status relationships leamers are forced to reflect upon crucial sociolinguistic variables. The final stage then is to have students put their pragmatic knowledge into practice. Free activities simulating various speech act pattems could be set up, for example, the leamers might have to organize a party conference, a business meeting or a ceremony where prizes are awarded. In such scenarios students would be required to use various speech acts (e.g. thanking, criticizing, agreeing, disagreeing) so that the complexity of pragmatic behaviour could be simulated in the foreign language in meaningful contexts. As far as the leaming and teaching of second language pragmatics is concemed "attention to linguistic forms, functional meanings, and the relevant contextual features is required" (SCHMIDT 1993: 35). Therefore, task-based language leaming constitutes an ideal approach to developing pragmatic competence. In general, however, it is essential to help leamers create an awareness that pragmatic behaviour is not necessarily universal, but can be culturally determined. FLlllL 35 (: 2006) 226 Matthias Hutz References AIJMER, Karin (1996): Conversational Routines in English. Convention and Creativity. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. BARR0N, Anne (2003): Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Amsterdam [etc.]: John Benjamins. BHATIA, Vijaj K. (1993): Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman. BLUM-KULKA, Shoshana / H0USE, Juliaue ( 1989): "Cross-cultural and situational variation in requestive behaviour". In: BLUM-KULKA, Shoshana / HousE, Juliaue/ KASPER, Gabriele (eds.): Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 123-154. BLUM-KULKA, Shoshana / H0USE, Juliaue/ KASPER, Gabriele (eds.) (1989): Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. BLUM-KULKA, Shoshana / OLSHTAIN, Elite (1984): "Requests and apologies. A cross-cultural study of speech act realization pattems (CCSARP)". In: Applied Linguistics 5.3, 196-212. BR0WN, Penelope / LEVINS0N, Stephan (1987): Politeness: Same Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BYRAM, Michael (1988): "Foreign language education and cultural studies". In: Language, Culture and Curriculum 1.1, 15-31. ELLIS, Rod (1992): "Leaming to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language leamers' requests". In: Studies in Second Language 14.1, 1-23. GAINS, Jonathan (1999): "Electronic mail a new style of communication or just a new medium? An investigation into the text features of e-mail". In: English for Specific Pwposes 18, 81-101. GASS, Susan M. / HoucK, Noel (1999): Interlanguage Refusals. Berlin: de Gruyter. GESTELAND, Richard R. (2002): Cross-Cultural Business Behaviour: Marketing, Negotiating, Sourcing and Managing Across Cultures. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. HENRY, Alex/ R0SEBERRY, Robert L. (2001 ): "Using a small corpus to obtain data for teaching a genre". In: GHADESSY, Mohsen / HENRY, Alex/ R0SEBERRY, Robert L. (eds.): Small Corpus Studies and ELT: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 93-133. H0USE, Juliaue (1989): "Politeness in English and German: The functions of please and bitte". In: BLUM- KULKA, Shoshana / H0USE, Juliaue/ KASPAR, Gabriele (eds.): Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests andApologies. New Jersey: Ablex, 96-119. HousE, Juliaue (1996): "Contrastive discourse analysis and misunderstanding: The case ofGerman and English". In: HELLINGER, Marlies / AMM0N, Ulrich (eds.): Contrastive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 345-361. JUDD, Eliot L. (1999): "Some issues in the teaching ofpragmatic competence". In: HINKEL, Eli (ed.): Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: CUP, 152-166. KASPER, Gabriele/ BLUM-KULKA, Shoshana (1993): "Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction". In: KASPER, Gabriele/ BLUM-KULKA Shoshana: Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3-18. KASPER, Gabriele/ ROSE, Kenneth R. (2002): Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Maiden: Blackwell. RILEY, Philip (1989): "'Weil don't blame me', On the interpretation ofpragmatic errors". In: OLEKSY, Wielslaw: Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam [etc.]: John Benjamins, 231-251. SCHMIDT, Richard (1993): "Consciousness, leaming and interlanguage pragmatics". In: KASPER, Gabriele/ BLUM-KULKA, Shoshana: Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21-42. SPENCER-OATEY, Helen (ed.) (2000): "Rapport management: A framework for analysis". In: SPENCER- OATEY, Helen (ed.): Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Cassell, 11-46. JFLuL 35 (2006) Pragmatic Transfer and the Development of Pragmatic Competence in Second Language ... 227 SWALES, John M. (1990): Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CUP. THOMAS, Jenny A. (1983): "Cross-cultural pragmatic failure". In: Applied Linguistics 4, 91-112. TR0SB0RG, Anna (1994): Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints andApologies. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. WEIZMAN, Elda (1993): "Interlanguage requestive hints". In: KASPER, Gabriele/ BLUM-KULKA, Shoshana: Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 123-137. WIERZBICKA, Anna (1991): Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. W00DMAN, Gill (2003): Intercultural Communication Online: Designing a Training Concept for German-British Interactions. Münchener Beiträge zur Fremdsprachen-Forschung. München: Langenscheidt-Longman. ZEGARAC, Vladimir / PENNINGT0N, Martha C. (2000): "Pragmatic transfer in intercultural communication". In: SPENCER-OATEY, Helen (ed.): Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Cassell, 165-190. ' lFLulL 35 (2006)