Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Hayder Mohamad Sadiq -B.A. Salahaddin University-Erbil-2007
Supervised by
Asst. Prof. Dr. Mohamed Basil Kasim Al-Azzawi
I certify that this thesis has been prepared under my supervision at Salahaddin
University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Arts in English Language and Linguistics.
Signature:
Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Dr. Mohamed Basil Kasim Al-Azzawi
Date: / / 2010
In view of the available recommendations, I forward this thesis for debate by the
examining committee.
Signature:
College of Languages,
Salahaddin University
Date: / /2010
II
Examining Committee’s Report
Signature: Signature:
Prof. Dr. Muhammad Ma‘ruf Fattah Asst. Prof. Dr. Wuria Azadin Ali
Chairman Member
Signature: Signature:
Dr. Hoshang Faruq Jawad Asst. Prof. Dr. Mohamed Basil Kasim Al-Azzawi
Date: / / 2010
Signature:
Name: Prof. Dr. Nawzad Hassan Khoshnaw,
Dean of the College of Languages
Date: / / 2010
III
Abstract
Chapter four dwells on some factors that affect language use and language
learning. Among many factors, the researcher sheds light specifically on the
IV
sociocultural and sociolinguistic aspects. There will be reference to some
cultural differences between Americans and Kurds, differences in cultural
values, assumptions and communicative or conversational style of Kurds and
Americans.
V
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................. IV
Chapter One ....................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................. 1
1.2 The Significance of the Study..................................................................... 1
1.3 Delimitation .............................................................................................. 1
1.4 Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 2
1.4 Procedure .................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Value of the Study ..................................................................................... 2
Chapter Two ....................................................................................................... 3
Emergence of the Notion “Communicative Competence” ................................. 3
2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Chomsky’s Theory of Language Acquisition ............................................... 3
2.1.2 Universal Grammar and Foreign Language Learning .............................. 5
2.2 Dell Hymes (Ethnography of Speaking)...................................................... 6
2.2.1 Criticism of Chomsky’s Theory ................................................................ 6
2.2.2 The Ethnography of communication ...................................................... 7
2.2.3 Units of Analysis and the SPEAKING Model ............................................ 9
2.2.4 Communicative Competence ............................................................... 13
2.3 Halliday’ view .......................................................................................... 17
2.4 Gumper’z view ........................................................................................ 19
Chapter Three .................................................................................................. 20
Communicative Competence and Communicative Language Teaching ............ 20
3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................... 20
3.1 Models of Communicative Competence ..................................................... 20
3.1.1 Canale and Swain (1980), Canale (1983) .................................................. 20
3.1.2 Bachman and Palmer (1996) Communicative Language Ability ............... 24
VI
3.1.2.1 Language Knowledge (Language competence) .................................. 25
1- Organizational competence .............................................................. 25
2- Pragmatic knowledge........................................................................ 26
3.1.2.2 Strategic competence ........................................................................ 27
3.1.3 Celce-Murcia’s (2007) Proposed Revision of 1995 Models ...................... 28
1-Sociocultural competence .......................................................................... 29
2-Discourse competence ............................................................................... 29
3- Linguistic Competence ......................................................................... 30
4-Formulaic Competence .............................................................................. 31
5-Interactional Competence.......................................................................... 31
6-Strategic Competence ................................................................................ 32
3.1.4 Other related views ................................................................................. 34
3.2 Communicative competence as the goal of Communicative Language
Teaching ........................................................................................................... 36
Chapter Four .................................................................................................... 42
Language, Culture and Communication............................................................ 42
4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................ 42
4.1 Defining Culture ...................................................................................... 42
4.2 Relation between Language and Culture: ................................................ 43
4.3 Comparing Kurdish and American Culture............................................... 45
4.3.1 Cultural Diversity ............................................................................... 47
4.3.2 Individualism ..................................................................................... 47
4.3.3 Privacy ............................................................................................... 51
4.3.4 Equality ............................................................................................. 52
4.3.5 Informality......................................................................................... 52
4.3.6 Change and Destiny ........................................................................... 55
4.3.7 Time .................................................................................................. 55
4.3.8 View of Human Nature ...................................................................... 57
4.3.9 Age.................................................................................................... 57
4.3.10 Male- Female Behavior.................................................................... 58
VII
4.3.11 High and Low Context Cultures ....................................................... 58
4.3.12 Small vs. large power distance ........................................................ 60
4.4 Communicative (Conversational) Style of Americans and Kurds.............. 60
4.4.1 Appropriate topics for conversation: ................................................. 62
4.4.2 Direct versus Indirect Communication: ............................................. 63
4.4.3 Turn taking and pause time: .............................................................. 65
4.4.4 Silence ............................................................................................... 66
4.4.5 Nonverbal aspects of communication ............................................... 66
4.4.5.1 Kinesics........................................................................................... 67
4.4.5.2 Oculesics ........................................................................................ 68
4.4.5.3 Haptics ........................................................................................... 68
4.4.5.4 Proxemics ....................................................................................... 69
4.4.5.5 Paralinguistics ................................................................................ 69
Chapter Five ..................................................................................................... 70
The Study of Fourth Year Students’ Communicative Competence ................... 70
5.0 Introduction ............................................................................................ 70
5.1.1 Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning: ............................................ 70
5.1.2 Interlanguage pragmatics ..................................................................... 72
5.1.3 Pragmatic Transfer ............................................................................... 72
5.1. 4 Cross-cultural pragmatic failure........................................................... 74
5.1.5 Speech Act Theory ................................................................................ 75
5.2 A Review of the Speech Acts Examined ................................................... 78
5.2.1 Apology ............................................................................................. 78
5.2.2 Complaints ........................................................................................... 80
1-Direct Complaints ................................................................................... 81
2-Indirect Complaints ................................................................................. 82
5.2.3 Compliments / Responses .................................................................... 82
4. Positive Values of Mainstream Americans ........................................... 84
5.2.4 Refusals ................................................................................................ 84
VIII
5.2.4.1 Functions of Refusals ...................................................................... 84
1. Direct ..................................................................................................... 84
2. Indirect ................................................................................................... 85
5.2.4.2 American Refusals .......................................................................... 86
5.2.4.2.1 Refusals of Requests .................................................................... 86
5.2.4.2.2 Refusals of Invitations ................................................................. 87
5.2.4.2.3 Refusal of Offers .......................................................................... 87
5.2.4.2.4 Refusal of Suggestions ................................................................. 87
5.2.5 Requests ............................................................................................... 88
5.2.5.1 Direct Strategies ............................................................................. 88
5.2.5.2 Conventionally indirect strategies .................................................. 88
5.2.5.3 Non-conventionally indirect strategies ........................................... 89
5.2.6 Thanking ............................................................................................... 89
5.2.7 Speech Act of Correction ...................................................................... 90
5.3 The Study ................................................................................................... 90
5.3.1 Research Questions .............................................................................. 90
5.3.2 Participants .......................................................................................... 91
5.3.3 Study Objectives ................................................................................... 91
5.3.4 Methodology ........................................................................................ 92
1-Written discourse completion test (WDCT):............................................ 92
2- Multiple-choice discourse completion test (MDCT) ............................... 93
5.4 Analysis of the study and Students’ answers: ............................................. 93
1-Apologies ................................................................................................... 93
2- Complaining .............................................................................................. 96
3-Compliment and compliment responses .................................................... 97
4- Refusals ..................................................................................................... 98
5- Requests ................................................................................................... 99
6- Thanking ................................................................................................. 101
7- Correction ............................................................................................... 102
IX
8- Introduction ............................................................................................ 102
Chapter Six ..................................................................................................... 105
Conclusion...................................................................................................... 105
6.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................... 105
6.2 pedagogical Recommendations ............................................................. 106
6.2 Suggestions for Further Research .......................................................... 107
Appendix ........................................................................................................ 109
Bibliography ................................................................................................... 113
Abstract in Arabic
Abstract in Kurdish
X
Chapter One
Introduction
1.3 Delimitation
The present study reviews the causes that lead Dell Hymes disagree with
Chomsky on first language acquisition. Then it focuses on the extensions of
communicative competence in the field of language learning. The study then
1
limits its emphasis on the components of communicative competence with
sociocultural and pragmatic competence as two important components.
1.4 Hypotheses
The main hypotheses of this study can be put in the following points:
1.4 Procedure
The procedure followed in this study is based on two methods for eliciting
data from a questionnaire. First evaluation test is written discourse completion
test. Second way is called Multiple-choice discourse completion test.
2
Chapter Two
He argues that the best form of language linguists should study is the
abstract knowledge an ideal speaker has. He calls this knowledge ―linguistic
competence‖. It refers to the perfect, unconscious, abstract rules of grammar in
the mind of an ideal speaker or listener. This ideal speaker should not be
affected by memory limitations or distractions.
3
Linguistic competence, according to Chomsky, enables a speaker to
become an expert in her own native language. It helps speakers produce an
infinite number of sentences or utterances, not only that but also new sentences
or utterances. Chomsky emphasized that linguists should study the rules of
grammar of their native languages. He devoted most of his works for analyzing
the underlying rules of English grammar.
Clearly, Chomsky‘s objective in paying all his attention to studying these
rules was to figure out the links that relate meaning inside the brain of the
speaker to sound forms that represent these meanings in the mouth of the
speaker. He called his perspective ―generative grammar‖: the rules generate an
endless number of sentences or utterances.
4
The answer to this and other queries was in Chomsky‘s rejection of
Skinners‘ theory of Behaviorism, and adoption his own notion of Language
Acquisition Device (LAD). According to him, human beings are endowed with
an in-built device for acquiring any language. He then called it Universal
Grammar (UG), and the goal of linguistic grammars was to discover the rules
and principles underlying all languages.
5
2.2 Dell Hymes (Ethnography of Speaking)
6
Hymes, further, argues against the pervasive theory of linguistics of that
time. He called on the linguists ―to transcend their notions of perfect
competence, homogeneous speech community, and independence of
sociocultural features‖ (1971, 274). He stated that there was a great need for an
alternative theory:
A theory is required that can deal with a heterogeneous speech community
differential competence, the consitutive role of sociocultural features that can
take into account socio-economic differences, multilingual mastery, relativity of
competence, expressive values, socially determined preception, contextual styles
and shared norms for the evaluation of variables.
Hymes states that performance is closely related to social life, and that any
linguistic theory must account for the study of performance:
The concept of performance will take on great importance, in so far as the study of
communicative competence is seen as an aspect of what from another angle may be
called the ethnography of symbolic forms, the study of the variety of genres,
narration, dance, drama, song, instrumental music, visual art, that interrelate with
speech in the communicative life of a society and in terms of which the relative
importance and meaning of speech and language must be assessed
(Hymes, 1971, p. 284).
7
aspects of culture. According to Hymes, both fields of study only complete one
another to help a child acquire a correct and appropriate language.
He turned to a new field that covers this interrelationship; he introduced
the new discipline in his essay ―The ethnography of speaking‖ in 1962. This
new discipline focused on the patterning of communicative behavior since it is
one of the crucial parts on which the system of culture is built. One of the
general questions the ethnography of communication asked was ―what does a
speaker need to know to communicate appropriately within a particular speech
community, and how does he or she learn to do so?‖ (Savile-Troike, 2003, p. 2).
What the speaker has to know is communicative competence. It is knowledge of
not only knowing the rules of communication (linguistics and sociolinguistics)
but also cultural rules that create the context of speaking. Hymes believed that
linguists need ―to transcend their notions of perfect competence, homogeneous
speech community, and independence of socio-cultural features‖ (1971, 274).
The goal of the ethnography of communication, the emphasis on functions
of language, was a clear departure from the goals set by other linguists. It was a
reaction to Chomsky‘s predominant idea ―if we hope to understand human
language and the psychological capacities on which it rests, we must first ask
what it is, not how, or for what purpose it is used‖ (1968, p. 62). Instead the
priority of the ethnography of communication was when, where, by whom, to
whom, in what manner, under which social circumstances something can be
said. A conversation taking place during a court meeting is completely different
from one happening between close friends. It took language as a ―socially
situated cultural form‖.
Since it requires studying other cultures, doing ethnographic researches
helps a person understand about their own unconscious rules of speaking. Some
examples will illustrate that point. Generally, a greeting is a question about the
other person‘s health: ―how are you?‖ but in Iraq sometimes wishing someone
good health can be greeting ―May God help them‖. Or if a male student, who
has learned English as a foreign language without interacting or living with
8
native speakers of English, compliments a male American friend‘s looks, he
might get in an embarrassing situation. Furthermore, but he might be thought of
as a homosexual person. These and other cross-cultural encounters between
speakers from different countries prove that culture and language are like bones
and meat in a human body; culture without language is incomplete and vice
versa. Values, beliefs, assumptions and superstitions are reflected in the
language of every nation.
10
conversation may request, insult, offend, praise, compliment, and
apologize. They may use verbal or nonverbal channels of communication.
In the context of a communicative event, silence can have meanings. For
example, at a funeral, silence can mean empathy and solidarity with the
relatives of the deceased person.
To illustrate these concepts, a communicative situation at a mosque
will explain more. The scene is a mosque. It typically consists of these
communicative events like: reciting Quran, sermon, supplication, and
praying. Within each communicative event, a range of communicative
acts are performed: Remembering God, advice, request, and thanks. Each
communicative event and its act are conducted in a manner different from
the previous or following communicative event: people sit quiet during a
sermon, speak softly during supplication and take different body positions
when praying.
Most of the communicative events fall into regular patterns in
similar forms with expected beginnings and ends. For instance, it is easy
to point out the patterns of communicative events such as greetings,
leave-takings, compliments, sermons, jokes and ordering food at
restaurants. When encountering more complex communicative events,
ethnographers first seek to discover some patterns resembling those of
simpler communicative events.
11
within particular settings and activities). Moreover it looks at context, the
cultural impacts and factors that shape a particular speech event. Below is a
summary of the main key elements of the Speaking model:
1- S - Setting and Scene: "Setting refers to the time and place of a speech
act and, in general, to the physical circumstances" (p.55).The living room
in the grandparents' home might be a setting for a family story. Scene is
the "psychological setting" or "cultural definition" of a scene, including
characteristics such as range of formality and sense of play or seriousness
(pp 55-56). The family story may be told at a reunion celebrating a
birthday party of one of the family members, grandmother, for instance.
At times, the family would be festive and playful; at other times, serious
and commemorative.
2- P – Participants: refers to speaker and audience. Linguists will make
distinctions within these categories; for example, the audience can be
distinguished as addressees and other hearers (pp.54 & 56). At the family
reunion, an aunt might tell a story to the young female relatives, but
males, although not addressed, might also hear the narrative.
3- E – Ends: Purposes, goals, and outcomes (pp. 56-57). The aunt may tell a
story about the grandmother to entertain the audience, teach the young
women, and honor the grandmother.
4- A - Act Sequence: Form and order of the event. The aunt's story might
begin as a response to a toast to the grandmother. The story's plot and
development would have a sequence structured by the aunt. Possibly there
would be a collaborative interruption during the telling. Finally, the group
might applaud the tale and move onto another subject or activity.
5- K – Key: Cues that establish the "tone, manner, or spirit" of the speech
act (p. 57). The aunt might imitate the grandmother's voice and gestures in
a playful way, or she might address the group in a serious voice
emphasizing the sincerity and respect of the praise the story expresses.
12
6- I – Instrumentalities: Forms and styles of speech (pp. 58-60). The aunt
might speak in a casual register with many dialect features or might use a
more formal register and careful grammatical "standard" forms.
7- N – Norms: Social rules governing the event and the participants' actions
and reaction. In a playful story by the aunt, the norms might allow many
audience interruptions and collaboration, or possibly those interruptions
might be limited to participation by older females. A serious, formal story
by the aunt might call for attention to her and no interruptions as norms.
8- G – Genre: The kind of speech act or event; in this case, the kind of
story. The aunt might tell a character tale about the grandmother for
entertainment, or an example as moral instruction. Different disciplines
develop terms for kinds of speech acts, and speech communities
sometimes have their own terms for types.
The speaking model is significant for students and others who find
themselves interacting with people from other cultures because of the way it
helps people understand the ways that communication differs in different
cultural situations. From all these discussions Hymes makes it clear that
communication and speaking between members of any speech community are
governed and restrained by cultural rules and norms. Each component of the
SPEAKING grid raises various questions about aspects that affect ant speech
event. These rules and norms vary from one speech community to another. A
member of any speech community has to be equipped with special knowledge in
order to participate in speech events successfully. Chomsky called it
competence. Hymes had a different thought.
13
Hymes (1972) translated Chmosky‘s competence into ―systemic
potential‖ and took competence ―as the most general term for the capabilities of
a person‖. This abstract knowledge, which only focused on coding and decoding
language, could not be sufficient for successful communication. Because the
speech communities are heterogeneous, there is a context for every
grammatically correct utterance they use. Thus the theory of generative
grammar had totally overlooked the aspect of appropriacy; Hymes refers to it in
this statement:
We have then to account for the fact that a normal child acquires knowledge of
sentences not only as grammatical but also as appropriate. He or she acquires
competence as to when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about with
whom, when, where, in what manner. In short, a child becomes able to
accomplish a repertoire of speech acts, to take part in speech events, and to
evaluate their accomplishment by others . . .
(Hymes, 1972, p. 277–8)
Instead of grammaticality as a criterion, Hymes established acceptability
as a replacement, as well as several other dimensions of competence. He put
these aspects in the form of four questions that need to be asked to understand
competence and language use:
14
This question is related to cognitive and psychological aspects of
communication. A patient with memory limitations may not be able
to repeat after a doctor word-for-word.
3- Whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate? Contextual
factors are brought into action here. The participants in a situation
try to act and speak in an appropriate way, according to cultural and
social norms of their speech community. For example, it is
considered inappropriate for a male person to kiss another male
person in the United States.
4- Whether (and to what degree) something is done?
This question is about the occurrence of linguistic structures or
other forms of communication. It is about how common they occur.
They might be considered inappropriate and strange, but since they
happen in communicative interactions, they are correct.
Any sentence, utterance, speech or social act meeting these four criteria
can be acceptable in respective speech communities. And this is what any theory
of competence should encompass:
In sum, the goal of a broad theory of competence can be said to show the ways in
which the systemically possible, the feasible, and the appropriate are linked to
produce and interpret actually occurring cultural behavior (Hymes, 1972, p.
286).
Out of the above discussions and explanations, one can understand how
Hymes augmented Chomsky‘s competence by communicative competence, a
term that entails competence as one of many components. Communicative
competence does not stop at grammar, it includes grammar. Saville-Troike
states that
15
how to request, how to offer or decline assistance or cooperation, how to give
commands, how to enforce discipline, and the like – in short, everything involving
the use of language and other communicative modalities in particular social
settings.
(Saville-Troike 2003, p.18)
Further, Halliday (1973) points out that his concept of meaning potential
is different from Chomsky‘s notion of competence. The difference lies in that
competence refers to what a speaker knows, while meaning potential implies
what the speaker can do and what she can mean.
Furthermore, Halliday claims that meaning potential ‗‗is not unlike Dell
Hymes‘ notion of ―communicative competence‖, except that Hymes defines this
in terms of ―competence‖ in the Chomskyian sense of what the speaker knows‖.
It should be remembered that Hymes‘ notion of communicative competence is
very different from Chomksy‘s notion of competence; Hymes retains the idea of
knowing, though. Halliday‘s focus on the functions of language and its social
context has contributed to field language pedagogy and learning.
18
functions of language. He specified seven functions of language that help
children acquire their first language:
1. the instrumental function : using language to get things;
2. the regulatory function: using language to control the behavior of
others;
3. the interactional function: using language to create interaction with
others;
4. the personal function: using language to express personal feelings
and meanings;
5. the heuristic function: using language to learn and to discover;
6. the imaginative function: using language to create a world of the
imagination;
7. the representational function: using language to communicate
information.
3.0 Introduction
In this chapter, the models and extensions of communicative competence
in the field of language teaching will be discussed. More will be said about the
communicative language teaching.
20
systems of knowledge and skill required for communication‖ (Canale, 1983,
p.5). What is interesting about their framework of communicative competence
is that even the aspects of skills that are needed to employ the knowledge are
now assumed to be part of one‘s competence. The communicative
competence is, then, distinguished from what Canale calls ―actual
communication,‖ which is defined as ―the realization of such knowledge and
skill under limiting psychological and environmental conditions such as
memory and perceptual constraints, fatigue, nervousness, distractions, and
interfering background noises‖ (Canale, 1983, p.5). If we are to compare
Canale and Swain‘s construct of communicative competence with that of
Chomsky‘s in a broad sense, Chomsky‘s ―competence‖ is equivalent to the
―grammatical competence‖ mentioned by Canale and Swain, and all other
areas of their framework are lacking in Chomsky‘s definition.
As far as performance is concerned, Chomsky‘s performance and
Canale and Swain‘s actual communication point to roughly the same
phenomenon of uttering sentences in real communicative situations.
Figure 3.1 Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale‘s (1983) model of
communicative competence
22
or a business letter. Unity in text is brought about through cohesion and
coherence. Cohesion unifies the form of the text through the use of
pronouns, synonyms, ellipsis, conjunctions and parallel structures on
the level of utterances. Coherence makes relationships on the level of
different meanings in a text, whether literal or communicative acts.
4- Strategic competence: ―this competence is composed of mastery of
verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may be called into
action‖ (p.10). A speaker may resort to these strategies in two cases:
(a) to make up for breakdowns in communication, inability to remember
the correct word or expression, or insufficient competence in one or
more of the other areas of communicative competence. A persons who
has learned English as a foreign language may not know all the
necessary words. For example, if a learner doesn‘t know the word for
train station, she may try to paraphrase it or describe it through clues
she has at hand and say: ―the place where trains go‖, or ―area for
trains‖. These strategies also help a learner who doesn‘t have
sociolinguistic competence in the target language.
(b) ―To enhance the effectiveness of communication‖. This refers to
deliberate manipulation of language for rhetorical effects.
As it is clear from the way their framework is described, their intention
was to illustrate the kinds of knowledge and skills that any foreign language
learner needs to be taught and to develop the theoretical basis for a
communicative approach in the foreign language teaching based on an
understanding of the nature of human communication (Canale and Swain,
1980). But as Canale himself states ―how these components interact with one
another (or with other factors involved in actual communication) has been
largely ignored‖.
23
3.1.2 Bachman and Palmer (1996) Communicative
Language Ability
Bachman (1990) presents a more detailed description of the construct
of communicative competence in his proposed framework. This model was
first designed for language-testing and evaluation considerations.
Bachman stressed the importance of describing ―the processes by
which [the] various components interact with each other and with the context
in which language use occurs‖ (Bachman, 1990: 81). He pointed out the fact
that earlier theories on language proficiency apparently failed to take into
account the distinction between linguistic knowledge and the four basic
language skills (speaking, listening, writing, and reading), arguing that it was
difficult to see whether the knowledge components were understood in their
theories as simply manifested in the language skills in different modalities
and channels, or whether they are fundamentally different in quality
(Bachman,1990).
24
Using a different terminology for the object of description (Bachman
calls it ―Communicative Language Ability,‖ which is abbreviated as CLA), he
developed three central components for CLA that are essential to define one‘s
competence in communicative language use: language knowledge, strategic
competence, and metacognitive strategies.
25
organization (conventions for initiating, maintaining and closing
conversations).
2- Pragmatic knowledge
A second component of Bachman‘s (1990) model refers to the
relationship between the language and the language users, namely that
of pragmatic competence. Bachman (1990) provides a description of
the pragmatic component on the basis of van Dijk‘s (1977) work. In
this sense, pragmatics is understood as dealing with the relationships
between utterances and the acts performed through these utterances on
the one hand, and as the features of the context that promote
appropriate language use on the other. The former conceptualization
concerns the illocutionary force, whereas the latter, which relates to the
context, involves those sociolinguistic conventions that are related to
language use. Therefore, the pragmatic component in Bachman‘s
model is made up of two subcomponents, those of functional
(illocutionary), in Bachman and Palmer (1996), and sociolinguistic
competence.
a- Functional knowledge: Bachman (1990) calls it ‗Illocutionary
competence‘. Functional knowledge ―enables us to interpret
relationships between utterances or sentences and texts and the
intentions of language users‖ (1996, p.69). For example, the utterance
‗Can I see your lighter?‘ most likely functions as a request for using the
hearer‘s lighter. If the hearer holds her lighter without handing it to the
speaker, she has misinterpreted the function of the utterance.
Interpretation of the pragmatic meaning of the utterances also requires
knowledge of the setting and participants. Bachman and Palmer also
incorporate four of Halliday‘s functions of language into functional
knowledge. First, knowledge of ideational functions refers to
knowledge that enables speakers to express their experience of the real
world. Expressions of feelings like anger, happiness and sorrow are
26
examples of these ideational functions. Second, knowledge of
manipulative functions, this knowledge helps speakers affect the world
around them. Some examples are requests, suggestions, rules, laws,
greetings, and insults. Third, knowledge of heuristic functions, this
knowledge is involved in ―extending our knowledge of the world
around us‖ (p.70). Use of language for learning, teaching and problem
solving are some examples. Fourth, knowledge of imaginative
functions is ability to use language to make an imaginary world. For
example, we use language to make jokes, to write poetry and make
figures of speech.
b- Sociolinguistic knowledge: Bachman and Palmer call it sociolinguistic
knowledge and this is the other component of pragmatic knowledge. To
be more precise, they discuss four abilities pertaining to sociolinguistic
knowledge: ability to be sensitive to regional and social language
varieties, ability to be sensitive to differences in register, ability to
produce and interpret utterances based on naturalness of language use,
and ability to understand cultural reference and figures of speech
(Bachman and Palmer, 1996, p.70). In their framework, sociolinguistic
competence and functional competence are put together to form a
speaker‘s pragmatic knowledge, which, in turn, composes, along with
grammatical competence, his or her language competence.
27
how to make use of language knowledge and other components involved in
the process of language use to complete the chosen task successfully.
Bachman‘s (1990) and Bachman and Palmer‘s (1996) model has been
rather influential on studies concerned with the development and use of
pragmatic aspects in a second or foreign language, as it identifies pragmatic
competence as one of the main components of communicative competence.
Hence, it points out the idea that communicative competence can not only be
achieved by improving learners‘ grammatical knowledge, but also concerns
the development of other competencies such as the textual and pragmatic
ones.
However, like Canale and Swain‘s (1980) and Canale (1983)
framework, this model of communicative competence does not seem to
specify the existing relationship among its components and subcomponents.
According to Alcon (2000b), only Celce-Murcia et al.‘s (1995) model
accounts for the connection between all constituents of the concept of
communicative competence.
competence framework
6-Strategic Competence
This competence refers to the knowledge and use of learning and
communication strategies. Celce-Murcia cites Oxford‘s (2001) three learning
strategies:
32
cognitive: these are strategies making use of logic and analysis to help
oneself learn a new language through outlining, summarizing, note
taking, organizing and reviewing material, etc.
metacognitive: these strategies involve planning one‘s learning by
making time for homework or for preparation, and engaging in self-
evaluation of one‘s success on a given task or on one‘s overall
progress. This is achieved in part by monitoring and noting one‘s
errors, learning from teacher and peer feedback, etc. Compensating for
missing or partial knowledge by guessing the meanings of words from
context or the grammatical function of words from formal clues are
also an aspect of metacognitive strategies.
memory-related: these are strategies that help learners remember or
retrieve words through the use of acronyms, images, sounds (rhymes),
or other clues.
The other crucial strategies, which are the ones mentioned in Celce-
Murcia et al. (1995, pp. 26–29), are communication strategies; they include
the following:
achievement: strategies of approximation, circumlocution, code
switching, miming, etc.
stalling or time gaining: using phrases like ‗Where was I?’ ‘Could you
repeat that?’
self-monitoring: using phrases that allow for self repair like ‗I mean…’
interacting: these are strategies that include appeals for
help/clarification, that involve meaning negotiation, or that involve
comprehension and confirmation checks, etc.
social: these strategies involve seeking out native speakers to practice
with, actively looking for opportunities to use the target language.
33
3.1.4 Other related views
During the 1970s and 1980s many applied linguists with a primary
interest in the theory of language learning and/or the theory of language
testing gave their valuable contribution to the further development of the
concept of communicative competence. Just a few of them will be mentioned
in the following, namely those whose theoretical reflections and empirical
work seem to have had the most important impact on the theory of
communicative competence.
Savignon (1985, p. 130) views communicative competence as:
The ability to function in a truly communicative setting - that is a dynamic
exchange in which linguistic competence must adapt itself to the total information
input, both linguistic and paralinguistic of one or more interlocutors.
Communicative competence includes grammatical competence ( sentence level
grammar ), socio-linguistic competence ( an understanding of the social context in
which language is used ), discourse competence ( an understanding of how
utterances are strung together to form a meaningful whole ), and strategic
competence ( a language user’s employment of strategies to make the best use of
what s/he knows about how a language works, in order to interpret, express, and
negotiate meaning in a given context ).
34
In Europe, The Council of Europe, van Ek's model of 'communicative
ability' (1986: 35) comprises six 'competences', together with autonomy and
social responsibility (Quoted in Michael Byram 1997, pp. 10-11).
36
The notion of communicative competence resulted in a new approach
to language teaching, called Communicative Language Teaching or
Communicative Approach. It, too, came as reaction against the traditional
approaches and methods of language teaching.
In passing, a difference between learning and acquisition is important
to mention. Here, we refer to the predominant theory of foreign language
learning which was developed by the University of Steven Krashen. There
are five main components of Krashen‘s theory. Each of the components
relates to a different aspect of the language learning process. The five
components are as follows:
38
The work of the Council of Europe; the writings of Wilkins, Widdowson,
and other British applied linguists on the theoretical basis for a communicative
or functional approach to language teaching; implications of these ideas by
textbook writers; and the equally fast embracing of these new principles by
British language teaching specialists, curriculum developers, led to the
development of the new approach: Communicative Language Teaching.
Although communicative language teaching began as an innovation in the
field of syllabus design by British applied linguists, most of the advocates of the
movement now see it as an approach. And as Richards and Rogers (1986, 66)
put it, communicative language teaching aims at ―(a) make communicative
competence the goal of language teaching and (b) develop procedures for the
teaching of the four language skills that acknowledge the interdependence of
language and communication.‖
Setting communicative competence as its goal, communicative language
teaching (CLT) pays more attention to the sociocultural competence,
sociolinguistic competence and all the other components of communicative
competence in the light of Hymes four criteria and models of communicative
competence outlined above. Citing (Berns, 1990, p.104), Savignon (2002, 6),
and Richards (2006, 22) summarize the main principles of communicative
language teaching:
1- Language teaching is based on a view of language as communication.
That is, language is seen as a social tool that speakers use to make
meaning; speakers communicate about something to someone for some
purpose, either orally or in writing.
2- Culture is recognized as instrumental in shaping speakers‘ communicative
competence, in both their first and subsequent languages.
3- Foreign language learning is facilitated when learners are engaged in
interaction and meaningful communication.
4- Language learning is facilitated both by activities that involve inductive
or discovery learning of underlying rules of language use and
39
organization, as well as by those involving language analysis and
reflection.
5- The role of the teacher in the language classroom is that of a facilitator,
who creates a classroom climate conducive to language learning and
provides opportunities for students to use and practice the language and to
reflect on language use and language learning.
6- No single methodology or fixed set of techniques is prescribed.
7- Giving learners greater choice over their own learning, both in terms of
the content of learning as well as processes they might employ. The use of
small groups is one example of this, as well as the use of self-assessment.
Brown (1994a), viewing CLT as an approach (that is, a theoretical
position about the nature of language and of language teaching), rather than a
specific method of teaching, describes four underlying characteristics in defining
CLT in a foreign language classroom, which are summarized below:
Focus in a classroom should be on all of the components of
communicative competence of which grammatical or linguistic
competence is just part.
Classroom activities should be designed to engage students in the
pragmatic, authentic, and functional use of language for meaningful
purposes.
Both fluency and accuracy should be considered equally important in a
foreign language learning classroom. And they are complementary.
Students have to use their target language, productively and receptively,
in unrehearsed contexts under proper guidance, but not under the control
of a teacher (Brown, 1994a, p. 245).
It is clear from these characteristics that CLT is a major departure from
earlier pedagogical approaches, particularly grammar translation methods that
pay special attention to overt presentation of grammatical rules and translation.
And yet there seems to be a little consensus as to what actually to present to the
learners or what lesson ―techniques‖1 (Brown, 1994a) to use to enhance their
40
communicative competence and not just their grammatical commands through
CLT. Moreover, Brown (1994b) lists six key words of CLT to better understand
what it aims at: learner-centered, cooperative (collaborative), interactive,
integrated, content-centered, and task based.
41
Chapter Four
4.0 Introduction
This chapter will focus on the differences between American and Kurdish
cultural values, traditions and communicative styles. Pragmatic competence
with its problematic areas for students will be explained in the context of the test
given to fourth year students in chapter five.
Culture is man‘s medium; there is not one aspect of human life that is not touched
and altered by culture. This means personality, how people express themselves
(including shows of emotion), the way they think, how they move, how problems
are solved, how their cities are planned and laid out, how transportation systems
function and are organized, as well as how economic and government systems are
put together and function. However, like the purloined letter, it is frequently the
most obvious and taken-for-granted and therefore the least studied aspects of
culture that influence behavior in the deepest and most subtle ways. (p. 16)
(Quoted in Hollins, 2008, p 18)
42
Carter (2000) defines culture simply as ―learned patterns of thought and
behavior that are passed from one generation to another and are experienced as
distinct to a particular group‖ (p. 865).
These definitions refer to the overwhelming impact of culture on human
experience. It can be seen, therefore, that culture is closely linked to language
and its use and that in order to communicate successfully and proficiently
knowledge of culture is important. Returning to how culture should be
interpreted in language teaching and learning, Kramsch sees culture as such:
Culture in language learning is not an expendable fifth skill, tacked on, so to speak,
to the teaching of speaking, listening, reading, and writing. It is always in the
background, right from day one, ready to unsettle the good language learners when
they expect it least, making evident the limitations of their hard-won
communicative competence, challenging their ability to make sense of the world
around them. (Kramsch, 1993: 1)
43
However, insufficient socicultural competence can lead to cross-cultural
misunderstandings, language transfer, and cross-cultural pragmatic failure.
The exact nature of the relationship between language and culture has
fascinated, and continues to fascinate, people from a wide variety of
backgrounds. According to Kramsch (1996, 3), language expresses, embodies
and symbolizes cultural reality. ‗Language expresses cultural reality’ because
the words people utter refer to common experience; express the shared ideas,
facts, attitudes and beliefs. And since people do not only express experience, but
also create experience through language, whether be it through face-to-face
interaction, writing letters, talking on the phone, facial expressions and gestures
all create meanings understandable to other people. ‗Through its verbal and non-
verbal aspects, language embodies cultural reality‘ (P.3). Finally, since
language is a system of symbols, and these symbols are seen as having cultural
value: people use language (symbols) as a symbol of their social identity, to this
way, language symbolizes cultural reality.
Sapir and his student Whorf claim that the structure of a language
influences how its speakers view the world. The claim is usually referred to as
the Linguistic relativity hypothesis or simply Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. Sapir
acknowledged the close relationship between language and culture, maintaining
that they were inextricably related so that a person could not understand or
appreciate one without the knowledge of the other. The passage which most
clearly summarizes his views (1929b, p. 207) is as follows:
Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of
social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the
particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society.
It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the
use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific
problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the ‗real
world‘ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the
group. . . .We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because
the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.
(Quoted in Wardhaugh, 2006, p.222)
44
Sapir‘s focus was mainly on analyzing the vocabulary of different
languages to discover the physical and social environment in which people
lived. According to him, ―The complete vocabulary of a language may indeed
be looked upon as a complex inventory of all the ideas, interests and
occupations that take up the intention of the community‖ (cited in Bonvillain,
2008, 44). To Sapir, people in different societies live in different worlds
because of the different languages they speak.
While the first version, Sapir‘s version, of linguistic relativity claims that
cultural reality in part results from linguistic factors, Hymes argues that
People who enact different cultures do to some extent experience distinct
communicative systems, not merely the same natural communicative condition
with different customs affixed. Cultural values and benefits are in part constitutive
of linguistic relativity. (1966b, p. 116)
(Cited in Saville-Troike, 2003, p.28)
to be part of a culture means to share the propositional knowledge and the rules of
inference necessary to understand whether certain propositions are true (given
certain premises). To the propositional knowledge, one might add the procedural
knowledge to carry out tasks such as cooking, weaving, farming, fishing, giving a
formal speech, answering the phone, asking for a favor, writing a letter for a job
application (Duranti, 1997, pp. 28-29).
45
Cited in Althen (2003) America‘s population reflects remarkable ethnic
diversity. While the majority of Americans are non-Hispanic white, 12.5 percent
of the population is Hispanic, 12 percent of the population is African American,
about 4 percent is Asian, and about 1 percent is Native American. In the year
2000, there were 28.4 million foreign-born residents in the United States,
representing 10 percent of the total U.S. population. Terms such as Asian
American, Italian American, African Americans and Arab American are
commonly used and reflect the persistence of various ethnic heritages within the
U.S. There are people whose skin is labeled white, black, brown, yellow, and
red.
America‘s population includes Catholics, Protestants of many
denominations, and Jews of several persuasions, Muslims, Buddhists, animists,
and others. Some people believe in no Supreme Being or higher power. There
are people who have many years of formal education and people who have
nearly none. There are the very rich as well as the very poor. There are
Republicans, Democrats, independents, socialists, Communists, libertarians, and
adherents of other political views as well. There are lawyers, farmers, plumbers,
teachers, social workers, immigration officers, computer technicians, and people
in thousands of other occupations. Some live in urban areas, some in rural
locations.
But for the sake of the argument and the thesis, let‘s say that the
predominant ideas, values, and behaviors of ―mainstream‖ Americans are those
of the white middle class. People in that category have long held the large
majority of the country‘s most influential positions. They have been the political
and business leaders, the university presidents, scientists, journalists, and
novelists who have successfully exerted influence on the society. American
culture as talked about in this book, then, has been strongly influenced by white
middle-class males.
46
4.3.1 Cultural Diversity
The United States is characterized by great economic, ethnic, political,
racial, religious, and social diversity. The Constitution protects citizens‘ rights to
be different and to choose their own lifestyles, group memberships, and personal
preferences within the limits of established laws intended to provide the
maximum of personal and group freedom, yet maintain relative peace and order.
Despite carefully planned laws and public policy, aspects of diversity such as
particular cultural practices remain problematic, including language.
Ethnic groups living in the United States emigrated from different parts of
the world during different time periods. The original culture of each ethnic
group had a deep structure that included primary ideologies and interrelated
beliefs and values. Main ethnic groups are Euro-Americans, Hispanic or
Mexicans, Africans, Asians and Native Americans.
People from other countries that have not been to United States, or have
not lived or interacted with Americans, do not know such cultural diversity.
And they may even make offending remarks about them. Students should have
cultural awareness to avoid offending, though unintentionally. For example, a
young American born lady, whose parents are from Korea by origin, was
teaching Conversation to third year students at Salahaddin University. She
wanted to make sure that students understood her, she asked ‗am I talking too
fast?‘ almost all the students said ‗yes‘. One student made this remark ―teacher
you‘re your pronunciation is Chinese‖. She could have felt offended, but being
interested in Kurdish culture and having some Korean in her, she took it by a
grain of salt. The reason for the offense is because this type of ‗language‘ would
not be accepted within American society.
4.3.2 Individualism
An important difference between cultures is view of the self by the
members of any culture. According to Geert Hofstede (1986), cited in Brown
(1990, p. 190), societies are either individualistic or collectivist. Generally
47
Americans are known for their individualism; in fact Althen (2003, p. 5) asserts
that:
The most important thing to understand about Americans is probably their devotion
to individualism. They are trained from very early in their lives to consider
themselves as separate individuals who are responsible for their own situations in
life and their own destinies. They are not trained to see themselves as members of a
close-knit, interdependent family, religious group, tribe, nation, or any other
collectivity.
In an individualistic society, a person identifies primarily with self, with
the needs of the individual being satisfied before those of the group. Looking
after and taking care of oneself, being self-sufficient, guarantees the well being
of the group. Independence and self-reliance are greatly stressed and valued. In
general, people tend to distance themselves psychologically and emotionally
from each other. One may choose to join groups, but group membership is not
essential to one‘s identity or success.
Americans tend to define and evaluate people by the jobs they have.
(―Who is she?‖ ―She‘s the vice president in charge of personal loans at the
bank.‖) Family background, educational attainments, and other characteristics
are considered less important in identifying people than the jobs they have.
Americans, from early age, are taught to be individualists, to depend on
themselves. This statement by Spock (1998) shows how important self-reliance
is to Americans:
In the United States…very few children are raised to believe that their principal
destiny is to serve their family, their country, or their God [as is the practice in
some other countries]. Generally children [in the United States] are given the
feeling that they can set their own aims and occupation in life, according to their
inclinations. We are raising them to be rugged individualists…. (7)
49
How are the kids doing?‖ even if the person asked the question doesn‘t have
kids, and is recently married.
Hosfstede (1986, p. 312), cited in Brown (2000, p. 192), shows
differences between the relationship of teacher-student and student-teacher
interactions and attitudes. The table below shows some of these differences.
50
4.3.3 Privacy
Also closely associated with the value they place on individualism is the
importance Americans assign to privacy. Americans assume that most people
―need some time to them‖ or ―some time alone‖ to think about things or recover
their spent psychological energy. Most Americans have great difficulty
understanding people who always want to be with another person, who dislike
being alone. Americans tend to regard such people as weak or dependent.
Sometimes when in a bad state of mind, Americans may ask you to ―leave me
alone‖. Or when trying to enter a house in the United States, knocking on the
door only means request for permission.
Mark Lê (2005, pp. 275-276) cites an interesting account of violation of their
American privacy by Vietnamese when he and his friend were in Vietnam:
My friend and I were having a cup of coffee in a coffee shop in Hue. My friend was
also from Australia. While we were enjoying the coffee, music and our privacy, a
child came up to us wanting to sell chewing gum. We politely shook our heads and
said ‗no, thank you‘. The child kept trying to sell us his chewing gum. We refused
to buy. The child refused to go away. The magic polite words ―thank-you and
please‖ gradually disappeared from our response to the child. The child got much
closer to us and tried our patience. After half an- hour, we felt very uneasy as our
privacy was violated. My friend and I were no longer able to enjoy our
conversation. We got up and went back to our hotel and sat in the lounge. We were
enjoying our privacy again...but...
A Vietnamese patron at the hotel came to initiate a conversation
with us:
Patron: Hello! How are you? My name is Thu.
Mark: I‘m Mark, and this is Felicity!
Felicity: (smiling) Hello.
Patron: What is your name again?
Felicity: Felicity
Patron: It is a strange name. What are you doing here?
Mark: We‘re visiting Hue.
Patron: Where you came from?
Mark: Australia.
Patron: How old are you?
51
Mark: Twenty one.
Patron: Is she your girl friend?
Mark: We‘re friends.
Patron: You‘re student or you work.
Mark: I work part-time.
Patron: How much do you earn?
4.3.4 Equality
There is a basic belief in the American society that all citizens, male or
female, should have equal rights economically, legally, politically, and socially.
In fact the constitution affirms equality among all U.S. citizens. These ideals
have been difficult to attain, partly because of the inequalities inherent in a
democratic system. In a democratic society, individuals are free to choose
different ways for pursuing ―life, liberty, and happiness.‖ This means choosing
different lifestyles and different ways of providing for one‘s livelihood.
4.3.5 Informality
The American notions of equality lead Americans to be quite informal in
their general behavior and in their relationships with other people. Store clerks
and table servers, for example, may introduce themselves by their first (given)
names and treat customers in a casual, friendly manner. American clerks, like
other Americans, have been trained to believe that they are as valuable as any
other people, even if they happen to be engaged at a given time in an occupation
that others might consider inferior or lowly. This informal behavior can outrage
foreign visitors who hold high status in countries where it is not assumed that
―all men are created equal.‖
Americans are generally quite uncomfortable when someone treats them
with excessive respect. They dislike being the subjects of open displays of
respect—being bowed to, deferred to, or treated as though they could do no
wrong or make no unreasonable requests. Americans see these people as best-
52
behavior friends, i.e. they will have to be on their best behaviors. They have to
change their personality to get along with such people, and that they don‘t like.
This American informality is something many people from other cultures
misunderstand. Some people think Americans are insincere, and some see them
as naïve. For example, Carbaugh in his book Cultures in conversation gives an
interesting account of Finnish girls‘ view of Americans:
A 22-year-old Finnish female, Ulla, had just returned to Finland from the United
States, and had this to say about Americans: ―Well, Americans are friendly. There‘s
this small talk thing that they do. It‘s really nice. The person comes up to you and
says ‗How are you?‘ and you talk for a while and it‘s nice.‖ Immediately she
added, ―But then they‘re superficial. I saw this person [whom she had had small
talk with the day before] the next day and she just waved and acted like she didn‘t
even know me. I don‘t understand that.‖
(Carbaugh, 2005, p.40)
What is intriguing, says Carbaugh, is that the Americans who lived in
Finland had their complaints against the Finnish. For example, an American
studying in a Finish university was upset to hear that. And other Americans
living there claimed that the Finnish were ‗so silent and shy‘.
The superficial friendliness for which Americans are so well-known is
related to their informal, egalitarian approach to other people. ―Hi!‖ they will
say to just about anyone, or ―Howya doin?‖ (That is, ―How are you doing?‖ or
―How are you?‖). This behavior reflects not so much a special interest in the
person addressed as a concern (not conscious) for showing that one is a ―regular
guy.‖
Americans tend to make friends slowly, if they make them at all. More
observant visitors notice that Americans tend to be remote and unreachable even
among themselves. They are very private, keeping their personal thoughts and
feelings to themselves. They are difficult to get to know on a deeper level.
On the other hand this informality of Americans makes people from other
countries believe that they can talk about everything with Americans. There is
this complaint against Kurdish people by Americans. Ihere have been criticisms
about the Kurds‘ ‗forthrightness‘. An American girl, who has come to Kurdistan
to study, complained that Kurds were very forthright. She said ―they, Kurds, ask
53
me about how much I make‖, she was very uncomfortable about it. She asked
for my advice, and I said ―if you were asked that question again say I make
some money enough to live by‖.
Another misinterpretation of American informality by Kurds is the
impression Kurds get when they move to the United States. Robson (1996) who
has worked with Kurdish refugees in the United States explains this
misinterpretation in this statement:
Americans who have worked extensively with Kurds, together with Kurds who
have lived here for a while, have stressed the crucial importance of maintaining a
formal relationship with the newly-arrived Kurds. They comment that our
American informality, most importantly our use of first names, is interpreted by all
but the most sophisticated Kurds as a sign of weakness, of evidence that we should
not be taken seriously.
Service providers are urged to forego the standard American informality and
friendliness, especially in the first days of resettlement when impressions are being
made, and to become more formal in dealings with the Kurds: Use titles and last
names all around, dress more formally, and observe strict protocol during
interviews, meetings, and other encounters with the Kurds.
Have you ever heard a complete stranger say hello to you as you pass him or her on
the street? Don't worry. That's not unusual. Americans often greet people they don't
even know. They may talk to strangers while waiting in line, or comment on the
weather when standing in an elevator, or even strike up a conversation while sitting
next to someone at a public event. It's true that this kind of behavior may seem too
casual—or even just plain strange—toothers, but many Americans consider it
friendly. Of course, these little pieces of "small talk" aren't meant to discuss
54
anything very serious or personal or make new friendships. When they end, the
participants go their separate ways and rarely commit to any kind of social
involvement. This is normal for Americans, who often have a lot of
acquaintances—at work, in their neighborhoods, at stores and restaurants, at the
gym. But Americans also make an important distinction between casual
acquaintances and close friends. (2003, p. 9)
4.3.7 Time
―Time is money,‖ Americans say. ―You only get so much time in this life;
you‘d best use it wisely.‖ As Americans are trained to see things, the future will
not be better than the past or the present unless people use their time for
55
constructive, future-oriented activities. Americans admire a ―well-organized‖
person, one who has a written list of things to do and a schedule for doing them.
In their prominent Metaphors we live, Lakoff and Johnson (2003, pp. 8-9)
describe the importance of time in the American culture:
Time in our culture is a valuable commodity. It is a limited resource that we use
to accomplish our goals. Because of the way that the concept of work has
developed in modern Western culture, where work is typically associated with the
time it takes and time is precisely quantified, it has become customary to pay
people by the hour, week, or year. In our culture TIME IS MONEY in many ways:
tele-phone message units, hourly wages, hotel room rates, yearly budgets, interest
on loans, and paying your debt to society by "serving time."
Making the best of time by Americans can be seen in some other daily
formulaic expressions. Americans divide each day into four parts, morning,
afternoon, evening and night. You cannot say good morning after twelve o‘clock
a.m.
56
Americans see each day different than the previous day. If they are happy
they say ―I had a good day‖. And when in a bad mood, they don‘t tell you what
has made them unhappy; they just say ―I am having a bad day‖. And the most
popular way of wishing someone good luck is expressions like: ‗Have a nice
day, have a great evening‘ etc.
In Kurdish and few Asian cultures, time is seen as cyclical and ever-
returning. Unlike Americans, Kurds have more time for rest than work.
Americans pick up fast food, Kurds have three meals at home. For Kurds
there is time for everything, when a plan does not go the way it supposed to
go, Kurds may say ―don‘t worry, God is great, if we couldn‘t do it today, we
can have tomorrow‖.
In Iraq and Kurdistan, if you are late for a meeting or an appointment, a
slight apology can solve the situation. On the other hand, most Americans will
feel offended if you are more than ten to fifteen minutes late for a meeting, an
appointment, or a social engagement. If someone must be late, he will try to give
notice.
4.3.9 Age
The American emphasis on concrete achievements and ―doing‖ means
that age is not highly valued for the older you are, the less you can accomplish.
57
Age is also suspect because new is usually better in American culture, and the
elderly are generally out of touch with what‘s new.
In Kurdistan, most of the time, the eldest person speaks first, and the
younger have to listen quietly. The younger have to be on their best behavior
and use honorific titles.
Based on this criterion, one can tell that Kurdish is a high-context culture. In
contrast, American culture can be said to be put in a low-context culture.
58
Since these last two dimensions are closely related, or affect the way people
in different speech communities communicate, to directness and indirectness
there will be a detailed elaboration.
Since these last two criteria are closely related, or affect the way people
in different speech communities communicate, to directness and indirectness,
more will be said about it in the next section.
60
Cross-cultural communication refers to the process of communication
between members of different speech communities and different countries or in
Scollon and Scollon‘s (2001) words ―communication systems of different
groups when considered abstractly or when considered independently of any
form of social interaction” (13). For example Kurds conversing with Americans
have more differences in communicative style than Asian-Americans when
communicating with European-Americans.
In the cross-cultural context, communication, like everything else, is more
complicated. It is almost impossible to send a message that does not have at
least some cultural content, whether it is in the words themselves, in the way
they are said, or in the nonverbal signals that accompany them.
According to Scollon and Scollon (2001), the aspects of culture which are
most significant for the understanding and comparing systems of discourse of
different cultures are the following:
1 Ideology: history and worldview, which includes:
(a) Beliefs, values, and religion
2 Socialization:
(a) Education, enculturation, acculturation
(b) Primary and secondary socialization
(c) Theories of the person and of learning
3 Forms of discourse:
(a) Functions of language:
– Information and relationship
– Negotiation and ratification
– Group harmony and individual welfare
(b) Non-verbal communication:
– Kinesics: the movement of our bodies
– Proxemics: the use of space
– Concept of time
4 Face systems: social organization, which includes:
61
(a) Kinship
(b) The concept of the self
(c) Ingroup–outgroup relationships
(d) Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft
According to Barnlund (1989), cited in Althen (2003) communicative
style includes: (1) the topics people prefer to discuss, (2) their favorite forms of
interaction in conversation, (3) the depth to which they want to get involved
with each other, (4) the communication channels (verbal or nonverbal) on which
they rely, and (5) the level of meaning (factual versus emotional to which they
are most attuned.
Some other aspects are Opening or closing conversations; Taking turns
during conversations, interrupting, and using silence as a communicative device.
Although the whole communication process is affected by culture, but for
the purpose of the thesis, the researcher will deal only with aspects that are
crucial and different according to two different cultures.
64
Direct communicators think Indirect communicators think
indirect communicators: direct communicators:
65
counterpart finishes his or her turn. Americans are sometimes impatient with
people who take long turns. Such people are said to ―talk too much.‖ Many
Americans have difficulty paying attention to someone who speaks more than a
few sentences at a time.
4.4.4 Silence
Americans can find it difficult to resist talking. They are uncomfortable
with silence and move quickly (many times too quickly) to fill in the quiet with
meaningless words. Kurds and Iraqis are just the opposite. They are quite
comfortable with silence; they believe actions have more credibility than words,
and that it is better to talk too little than too much. Or they wait for the eldest
person to break the ice. The young do not usually enter a conversation unless
asked a question or given permission.
66
nonverbal fluency as an integral part of communicative competence. Cultural
fluency can be defined as verbal nonverbal-fluency.‖
The importance of nonverbal communication can be proved by citing
many researches that have been conducted to measure the role of nonverbal
behavior in communication.
Cited in Bratanić (2007) early study conducted by Birdwhistell (1970)
indicated that up to 65% of a message‘s meaning is communicated through non-
verbal clues, while Mehrabian (1972) argued that in face-to-face communication
non-verbal cues convey about 93% of the meaning. His statistics (attributing 7%
of meaning to the words spoken, 38% of meaning to paralinguistic features, and
55% of meaning to facial expression) have become widely popular. These
findings have been quoted excessively, and rather indiscriminately and over
simplistically (mis)interpreted. Similar statistics have ever since been rather
mechanically reproduced.
Nonverbal communication may lead to miscommunication and
misunderstandings, that‘s because speakers of all cultures think that nonverbal
messages are the same everywhere and speakers‘ lack of knowledge about
culture-specific nonverbal behaviors.
According M. Bratani (2007, pp. 86-90) the most important types of
nonverbal behavior can be categorized according to the disciplines that study
them:
4.4.5.1 Kinesics refers to body movement and posture, as well as gesture, facial
expression and eye contact and is thus most closely connected with what is
popularly referred to as body language. Kinesics is an important part of non-
verbal communication behavior. The movements of the body, or separate parts,
convey many specific meanings and the interpretations may be culture bound.
Some examples of kinesics are hand shaking, beckoning, O.K sign, and
sitting. Having lived with Americans, I know exactly what an American thinks
or say when shaking hands with Kurds and Iraqis. Americans shake hands
firmly and keep direct eye contact with the person they meet. Contrary to that
67
Kurds make limp and weak hand shake Americans may assume that the person
is weak-willed, insecure, or indecisive. For this reason, it is important to make
your handshake firm and strong, without being painful or aggressively firm,
because this will also send the wrong message! And since they prefer
informality, Americans often tell Kurds to ―shake like a man‖. Moreover, for
Americans, it doesn‘t matter whether they use their right or left hand.
When sitting Americans sit in a way that makes them comfortable, they
may put one leg on the other; their bottom of their feet facing others. This way
of sitting is considered rude in Kurdish culture.
In America the OK gesture is made with the index finger and thumb
forming a circle with the other fingers extended. It means OK, or that's right, or
perfect. This same gesture means a sexual insult in Kurdish culture.
4.4.5.2 Oculesics or eye behavior, more specifically looks at the influence of
visual contact on the perceived message that is being communicated. It analyzes
eye gaze, eye contact and its avoidance etc. Americans, when speaking, usually
look each other directly in the eyes, looking away briefly from time to time. The
listener keeps direct eye contact. Kurds, on the other hand, depending on age
and rank, keep their looks down attempting to respect the speaker. This behavior
may be interpreted as a lack of self confidence, or — worse — as a sign that you
are guilty of something and are trying to hide it.
4.4.5.3 Haptics sometimes referred to as tacesics, deals with touching behavior.
Americans are not as openly affectionate as those from some other cultures. But
a brief touch on the arm could be interpreted in various ways, ranging from
flirtatious to sympathetic or reassuring depending upon the situation. but
generally it is more acceptable for opposite sexes to touch each other than the
68
same sex doing that. For example Americans, unconsciously, are suspicious of
seeing two young Kurds walk hand in hand. This is, ofcourse, due to the issue of
sexuality. Kurds should be aware of this when interacting with Americans.
4.4.5.4 Proxemics is concerned with personal space usage. According to Hall
(1959.), the use of proxemic zones considered ―normal‖ and acceptable in
American culture (more precisely middle-class Americans of Northern European
heritage) would approximately correspond to the following.
intimate distance (embracing, touching or whispering, 15-45 cm or 6-18
inches)
personal distance (interactions among good friends, 45-120 cm or 1.5-4
feet)
social distance (interactions among acquaintances, e.g. business
transactions (1.2- 3.5 m or 4-12 ft)
public distance used for public speaking (over 3.5 m or 12 ft)
When talking with strangers, Americans keep stepping back if they see the other
person is standing too close. Kurds stand closer to the interlocutor.
4.4.5.5 Paralinguistics deals with vocal communication parallel to language
itself, such as non-word utterances and other non-verbal vocal clues (tone of
voice, loudness, pitch etc.) rather closely related to language use. American
vocal patterns tend to be in a mid-range of pitch and on the low end of vocal
variation. It is characterized by non-emotional, while Kurd‘s pitch sounds more
emotional.
69
Chapter Five
5.0 Introduction
In this chapter the focus is going to be a continuation of exploring the
various aspects of communicative competence. This time the focal point will be
on the pragmatic competence and speech acts. In addition to this, the results and
analysis of the students‘ answers to the questionnaire administered to them.
70
Pragmalinguistics refers to the resources for conveying communicative acts and
relational or interpersonal meanings. Such resources include pragmatic
strategies like directness and indirectness, routines, and a large range of
linguistic forms which can intensify or soften communicative acts. For one
example, compare these two versions of apology - the terse 'I'm sorry' and 'I'm
absolutely devastated. Can you possibly forgive me?' In both versions, the
speaker apologizes, but she indexes a very different attitude and social
relationship in each of the apologies (e.g., Fraser, 1980; House & Kasper, 1981;
Brown & Levinson, 1987; Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989).
71
5.1.2 Interlanguage pragmatics
Interlanguage pragmatics is a new subfield within the foreign language
learning research area. It is concerned with the pragmatic competence and
performance of second and foreign language learners; thus, studies in this field
focus on the non-native speaker‘s use and acquisition of pragmatic knowledge
in/of the target language. Kasper and Dahl (1991, 216) define interlanguage
pragmatics as referring to nonnative speakers‘ comprehension and production of
pragmatics and how that foreign language-related knowledge is acquired.
The first studies appeared almost 30 years ago in North America (Borkin
and Reinhart, 1978) and Europe (Hackman, 1977). From that moment, scholars
have focused on speech-act performance by learners of a foreig language. One
of the most influential works in this field is that of Blum-Kulka et al. (1989),
who attempted to discern variations in speech-acts production by individual
from different linguistic backgrounds.
72
approach a new problem or situation with an existing mental set: a frame of
mind involving an existing disposition to think of a problem or a situation in a
particular way. Mental sets are largely determined by culture-specific
knowledge. Therefore, communication between individuals from different
cultural backgrounds may be influenced by their different mental sets. For
example, in some cultures an offer of coffee after a meal is generally recognized
as a polite way to indicate to the guests that they ought to leave soon if they do
not wish to outstay their welcome. In other cultures, an offer of coffee on a
similar occasion is just an act of the host's kindness (or even an invitation to the
guests to stay a little bit longer than they had intended).
Kasper defines pragmatic transfer as "the influence exerted by learners'
pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than foreign language on
their comprehension and production and learning of foreign language pragmatic
information" (Kasper, 1992, p. 207).
Kasper (1992) identifies two types of pragmatic transfer: Pragmalinguistic
transfer and Sociopragmatic transfer. A pragmalinguistic transfer is the
influence of the learner‘s knowledge about the illocutionary force or politeness
value assigned to particular linguistic form-functions in native language, which,
when mapped by learners into the perception and production of a similar
situation in target language, sounds different to native speakers. In Kasper‘s
words, it is ―the process whereby the illocutionary force or politeness value
assigned to a particular linguistic material in NL influences learners‘ perception
and production of form-function mappings in target lanugage‖ (Kasper, 1992, p.
209).
It was for too long the assumption of philosophers that the business of a
‗statement‘ can only be to ‗describe‘ some state of affairs, or to ‗state some
fact‘, which it must do either truly or falsely. (…) But now in recent years,
many things, which would once have been accepted without question as
‗statements‘ by both philosophers and grammarians have been scrutinized with
new care. (…) It has come to be commonly held that many utterances which
look like statements are either not intended at all, or only intended in part, to
record or impart straight forward information about the facts (…). (Austin,
1962, p. 1)
75
Austin proposed a three-way taxonomy of speech acts: 1) a locutionary
act refers to the act of saying something meaningful, that is, the act of uttering a
fragment or a sentence in the literal sense (referring and predicating); 2) an
illocutionary act is an act performed in saying something that has a conventional
force such as informing, ordering, warning, complaining, requesting, or
refusing; and, 3) a perlocutionary act refers to what we achieve ―by saying
something such as convincing, persuading, deterring, and even, say, surprising
or misleading‖ (1962, p. 109). For Austin, the realization of a particular speech
act depended on the appropriate circumstances of the speech event such as
having a conventional procedure and the presence of the appropriate persons and
circumstances.
Austin‘s speech act theory was solidified and further developed by the
American philosopher John Searle. In his seminal book Speech Acts, Searle
(1969) noted that speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such as
making statements, giving commands, asking questions, making promises,
offering apologies, and so on. Languages have different linguistic resources for
communicating speech acts. Speech acts can be realized explicitly using
performative verbs or speech act verbs (e.g., I apologize, I refuse, I promise,
etc.). However, it should be noted that not all speech acts may be realized using
speech act verbs, as one cannot use the verb ‗to insult‘ to explicitly insult
someone (e.g., ‗I insult you!‘); but rather, speakers may employ other linguistic
resources to express the illocutionary force of a speech act.
Searle (1976) classifies illocutionary speech-acts in five groups, namely
those of representatives, directives, commissives, expressives and declarations.
Representatives are an attempt to describe the world and the ‗world to match the
words‘ (Searle, 1976: 3). When the speaker tries to get the hearer to commit to
some future course of action we are dealing with directives. According to Searle,
directives are attempts to make the world match the words. In the case of
commissives, the speaker commits himself to some future course of action, while
the purpose of using expressives is to show the speaker‘s psychological state of
76
mind regarding his/her attitude to some prior action or state of affairs. Finally,
declarations require extralinguistic institutions for their performance (e.g.
appointing a new director).
Olshtain (1989) found that speakers did not apologize the same cross-
culturally. She investigated apology strategies in: Hebrew, Australian English,
Canadian French, and German. One of the most startling differences between
the Hebrew and American speakers was that Hebrew speakers did not give a
promise of forbearance (for example, ―I won‘t let it happen again). In English, a
promise of forbearance is both common and expected in some apology
situations. It is difficult for a foreign language learner to conceptualize the
notion that not only do they have to learn the lexical items and syntactic
77
structure of a speech act, but the whole conceptualization of what that speech act
is may differ between the two languages.
5.2.1 Apology
3. To make a repair for the offense and maintain a good relationship with the
addressee
79
"How can I make it up to you- why don‘t I buy you lunch on
Friday?
5.2.2 Complaints
to hold the hearer accountable for the offensive action and possibly
suggest/request a repair (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1985, 1993)
2. "Same here. She doesn't give away A's very easily, that's for sure."
80
to open and sustain conversations (Boxer, 1993a, 1996)
1-Direct Complaints
Strategies
Listen, John, there’s something I want to talk to you about. You remember
our agreement, don’t you?
Complaint
Request for non-recurrence (The speaker requests that the complainee never
perform the offence again or improve the behavior.)
81
Well, I’d really like to find out about this because I’m hoping it won’t
happen again.
2-Indirect Complaints
Indirect complaints usually begin with an introductory expression like one of the
following:
3. Situation (I feel, in a way, boxed in, you know?/Why did they have to
raise tuition?)
82
To replace greetings/gratitude/apologies/congratulations (Wolfson, 1983,
1989).
1. appearance/possessions
2. performance/skills/abilities
"You did a good job!" and "You are such a wonderful writer" are
examples of compliments on performance/skills/abilities. Concise compliments
such as "Nice shot!" are typically given by male speakers (Herbert, 1990).
3. personality traits
83
4. Positive Values of Mainstream Americans
2. It is useful for nonnative speakers to know, for example, that the quality of
newness is so highly valued in this society that a compliment is appropriate
whenever and acquaintance is seen with something new, whether it is a car, a
new article of clothing, or a haircut. The fact that the new appearance may be
due to an alteration (such as a new hairstyle or the loss of weight) as well as to a
purchase leads us to conclude that the true importance of the comment lies in
the speaker's having noticed a change, thereby proving that he or she considers
the addressee worthy of attention. (p. 114)
5.2.4 Refusals
1. Direct
o "No"
84
2. Indirect
3. Excuse, reason, explanation (My children will be home that night./I have
a headache)
4. Statement of alternative
5. Set condition for future or past acceptance (If you had asked me earlier, I
would have...)
85
Let interlocutor off the hook (Don't worry about it./That's
okay./You don't have to.)
o Lack of enthusiasm
11.Avoidance
o Nonverbal
Silence
Hesitation
Doing nothing
Physical departure
o Verbal
Topic switch
Joke
86
about the requests or requester (or pause fillers uhh/well/oh/uhm when talking to
a higher-status person), then express regret (I'm sorry), and finally give an
excuse, especially when talking to someone of higher or lower status than
themselves (status unequals). With status equals, Americans generally give an
expression of regret or apology, and then give an excuse.
Americans tend to begin with expressions like "Well," "Thank you," "I'd
love to go," then use an expression of regret/apology followed by an excuse to
speakers of either higher, lower, or equal status. Expressions of regret and
gratitude are used frequently in declining invitations.
When a cleaning woman offers to pay for a broken base, Americans might
say, "Don't worry" or "Never mind" and reinforce it with expressions like "I
know it was an accident," letting the interlocutor off the hook.
87
5.2.5 Requests
88
5.2.5.3 Non-conventionally indirect strategies (hints) (partially referring to the
object depending on contextual clues):
5.2.6 Thanking
89
Thanks and apologies can be responded in similar terms (That’s all right /
Not at all). What thanks and apologies have in common is the concept of
indebtedness. Thanks implying the indebtedness of the speaker to the listener
closely resembles apologies where the speaker actually recognizes his
indebtedness to his listener. For example:
A. Thank you for all your help. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate it.
90
5.3.2 Participants
The questionnaire was administered to a classroom of forty fourth year
students at Salahaddin University, college of languages and ten Americans .
Fourth year students were chosen for several reasons: they are expected to have
reached an advanced level of linguistic knowledge; they are thought to have no
difficulty understanding the questionnaire‘ requirements; and to find out their
performance of speech acts.
First, native and nonnative speakers may use different speech acts. An
example of this was reported by (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 1993) who
found that native speakers used more suggestions and nonnative speakers
more rejections.
Second, native and nonnative speakers may use different formulas for the
same speech act. For example nonnative speakers may give more
additional explanations when they ‗waffle‘ by mitigating supportives as
reported in Cenoz and Valencia (1996).
91
Third, they may use similar formulas but the content may be different. For
example an explanation is provided but the content is quite different in the
case of native and nonnative speakers.
Fourth, the utterances produced by native and nonnative speakers may
differ in the linguistic forms used.
(Quoted by Cenoz 132 2007)
Olshtain ( 1983) proposed a number of possible deviations that might
occur in foreign language learners' performance of an apology as a result of
inappropriate application of socioculturd rules:
1. The learner might deviate from the accepted norm when choosing a semantic
formula for a specific situation.
2. The learner might choose a combination of semantic formulas which is
inappropriate for a specific situation.
3. The learner might perform the speech act at a level of intensity inappropriate
in relation to a particular offense. (Olshtain, 1983, p, 237)
5.3.4 Methodology
There are different and various ways to assess the pragmatic competence
of students. Two of these assessment tools have been adopted here, they are:
92
Miriam:
Teacher: OK, but please remember it next week.
(Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984, p. 198)
1-Apologies
A close look at the students‘ answers to the questionnaire reveals
interesting results. In case of apologies, out of forty students, only ten students
used the five strategies that make a well-formed apology. The five strategies are:
93
an expression of an apology, responsibility, an explanation, repair, and a
promise of non-recurrence.
The other thirty students all didn‘t include one or more than one of these
strategies. For example saying ‗I am sorry, I will never do it again‘ lacks excuse
and responsibility. The student jumps from an apology to a promise of non-
recurrence. Other examples of this type are: ‘I apologize you that will be the last
time’; ‘I was slept last night’; ‘I am sorry I forget the meeting for a second
time’; ‘I am sorry, I didn’t do it on purpose’; ‘I am so sorry’.
The Kurdish subjects on the other hand answered their sons‘ reminding in
various ways. Two-third of the students started by bringing up excuses. One can
tell the difference between American apologies and Kurdish apologies in the
second situation. Americans didn‘t want to lose their son‘s trust by promising to
repair the situation. Kurds on the other hand tried to convince their sons why
94
they could not fulfill their promise. Some examples from the answers are: ‘ah, I
was so busy with my job’; ‘I have my work’; ‘I am sorry for forgetting, you
don’t know that I have a lot of work to do’; ‘Because I have something more
important’; and I am sorry for that and I don’t repeated again’.
95
the clinic to get it checked out’; and ‘let me help you with your package, I really
am sorry’.
2- Complaining
Situation five was particularly sensitive to the differences in strategy
selection on the severity scale: "It is not the first time that loud rock music is
heard from your neighbor's apartment quite late at night. You pick up the phone
and you say . . ." In this situation the American native speakers tended to choose
the most severe strategies, many using threats and ultimatums such as: "If you
don't turn off your stereo soon I'll break your door down,’ ‘ If you don't stop this
loud music immediately I'll call the police,’ ‘Hey, turn that shit off’, ‘If you don’t
that music off, I will be forced to call the police.’
The Kurdish learners were much more hesitant in their selection of
strategies, opting for complaints rather than threats, such as: ‘I'm trying very
hard to sleep but it is impossible with all this noise’; ‘Some people would like a
little peace and quiet but you are completely inconsiderate’; What is going on,
you know its midnight and too tired to hear it’; ‘please, let us get rest’; ‗why do
people not care of the feelings of other people.’
Some Kurdish complaints against their friend‘s stance are: ‘It isn’t
friendship this way, shame on you’; ‘I will help you, I will not be like you’;
‘Good! I help you whatever you want as before’
The difference lies in the way Kurds react to friends. It seems that
friendship is more binding in Kurdish society and therefore, when a friend
performs a breach of confidence, the disappointment is great. A sense of
96
solidarity is well founded among friends and there is no need to negotiate via
lengthy exchanges. The complaints produced by the Kurdish respondents in this
case were rather brief, expressing deep personal disappointment.
4- Refusals
There were three speech acts of refusals in the questionnaire. Situation ten
was like this: If someone offers you some food that you really don't like, you
might say:
a. "I hate that." b. "Sure, I'd love some more." c. "I'll have just a little bit,
please." d. "Thanks, but I'm really full.
All the ten Americans chose the fourth answer, that is they said ―Thanks,
but I‘m really full‖. It consists of an expression of gratitude and an excuse. The
Kurdish subjects had different choices. Fifteen subjects chose C, two A, and one
student chose B. The Americans refused to force themselves to eat more so they
refused very politely. Kurds on the other hand thought in Kurdish and deemed it
impolite to refuse the offer to eat more than one needs to eat.
Situation eleven was refusing to lend one‘s car to a friend. Americans
somehow more direct than Kurds in their refusals.
98
All the American subjects chose A: that is an expression of gratitude
followed by an explanation or excuse. Ten of the Kurdish students chose D, five
chose C, one subject chose B, and twenty four chose A. This means that almost
half of the subjects skipped expression of gratitude, which is very important so
that the invitation doesn‘t go disrespected and unappreciated.
5- Requests
When requesting both students and American subjects used different
strategies. Americans start with ‗excuse me‘ followed by the request. For
example an American used conventionally indirect strategies by saying: ‘Do you
have this shirt in another color.’ He then explains why he wants to change the
shirt; he said ‘it’s a gift for my father.’ Another one uses conventionally direct
strategy, but very formal: ‘May I change this shirt for a different color?’ other
Americans reminded the shopkeeper that they had bought the shirt there as a gift
for their fathers.
The students used similar strategies but used different semantic formulas.
‗…..because my father don’t desire to this color’; ‘can you please allow me to
change the color of this shirt’; ‘Please bro change that for me, my dad doesn’t
like this, he considers this is for ladies’
Situations fourteen and fifteen bear similarity in content. In both
situations a person requests that the other person stop disturbing other students
and stop blocking another person‘s view. In situation fourteen, Americans used
direct strategies, for example they said ‘keep the noise to the minimum’; ‘please
keep it down’; ‘can you please quiet down or I am going to excuse you from the
library.’ The students‘ answers shared using mitigations like ‗please‘ and other
strategies. But what is distinctive in their answers is the indication that makes
one realize they have been produced by non-native speakers. Some answers are:
‘please be quiet, it’s a public place’; ‘Please help us to keep quiet’; ‘Can you
speak slowly’; ‘quiet down! This is not a café.’; ‘please remain silent’ and
‘Please here is library not stadium’ etc.
99
In situation fifteen, a man blocking the view of a basketball match,
Americans tended to use non-conventionally indirect requests, somehow
impolite though. For example one subject says ‘you are not a window, so could
you move a little bit, thanks’; ‘you are not made of glass.’ And conventionally
indirect strategies like ‗Excuse me you are in my way.’
Looking at the speech acts produced by students, we can tell that both
prgmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfer occur frequently. Some examples
will illustrate this point: ‘this game is enjoyable for me, please make a move’; ‘it
would be better if you sit with me and watching game’; ‘can you move your
head a little bit’; ‘please I can’t see. If you let me to see it’; ‘please I can’t see
the game’; ‘don’t stand her. I have eyes too’.
100
or followed by requests. Some of the students‘ answers for this situation are: ‘I
beg your pardon’; ‘Pardon’; ‘Please speak slowly’; ‘pardon me, I didn’t
understand’; ‘please I couldn’t get you’; ‘sorry speak more slow’; ‘Please speak
slowly’ and ‘Sorry speak more slow.’
6- Thanking
Situations seventeen and eighteen were about expressing gratitude. The
situation at a restaurant, when a friend notices something on his friend‘s face, he
tells him, his friend rubs it and it gets off. Both Americans and Kurdish student
were successful in thanking their friend for noticing. Some of the students‘
responses are ‘Thanks for your helping’ ‘thank you for your saying.’ Americans
were satisfied with saying only ‘thank you’ or adding extra information like
‘that would have been embarrassing.’
Situation eighteen was about a guest leaving a friend‘s house after having
had dinner with the friend‘s family. There was a pattern in the Americans‘
responses; it can be put in this way: thanking and then expressing pleasure.
Some American responses illustrate this pattern, ‘This was great, I had an
awesome time. Thanks for the great evening, we should do it again’ and ‘thank
you for dinner, it was great.’
101
7- Correction
Situation nineteen reads as follows: You are a student in a sociology class.
During the lecture, the professor quotes a famous statement attributing it to the
wrong scholar. In this situation, the status of the participants was unequal; it was
the professor who made the mistake. Therefore, any correction attempted would
have to be from the lower-status interlocutor (the student) to the higher-status
interlocutor (the professor).
The most striking difference between the two status situations was that no
native speaking Americans or students used a positive remark to a higher-status
person before a correction ("It was a very interesting lecture").
The dominant pattern used by Americans in this situation (from the
student to the professor) was to use a softener (or softeners) such as "I think/I
believe that was . . ." before a correction. These softeners were usually preceded
by the phrase ‗excuse me‘.
What was common in the students‘ answers was the use of ‗sorry‘ then
followed by softeners at times. And the way students answered sounded slightly
forthright and impolite, for example these expressions were common in
students‘ responses: sorry, teacher we have a mistake in here.‘
8- Introduction
There were three situations under the introduction category. Two
questions were about non-verbal behaviors when one person is introduced to
another one.
102
Situation twenty was about the way Americans‘ shake hands when first
introduced to a person regardless of whether there is a third party or introducing
yourself. The choices for this question were: a. Shake hands lightly. b. Shake
hands firmly for a few seconds. c. Shake hands until the introduction is
completely finished. d. Shake hands and then bow. All the American subjects
chose (b) as the correct behavior. While the Kurdish students had various
answers: twelve chose (c), ten chose (a), one chose (d).
Again, all the American subjects chose and emphasized choice (a), make
direct eye contact. The students, on the other hand, had differences in choosing
their answers: three chose (b), 12 chose (c), four chose (d).
Situation twenty two was rather controversial, and unlike other multiple
questions, more than one choice was possible. The question was: Which topics
are inappropriate to discuss immediately after an introduction? a. Marital status.
b. Religion. c. Age. d. Academic major/occupation.
According to Levine (1982, p. 5), immediately after introductions are
made, there is usually a period of time in which impersonal or trivial subjects
are discussed. This type of conversation, called "small talk," is important
because it often helps to maintain conversations and it can lead to interesting
discussions. Usually speakers initiate small talk with such questions as: "Do
you live in this area?", "How do you like living here?" or "What are you
studying?" It is also common for people to ask, "What do you do?" which means
"What is your job?" but it is uncommon and considered impolite to ask, "How
much money do you make?" or "How much does your house cost?" Other
103
questions such as: "Are you married?" or "How old are you?" (to an adult) are
generally considered too personal for initial meetings.
American subjects thought that depending on the situation and the word
choices any of these topics could be inappropriate, especially asking about
marital status, politics and religion. Asking about an interlocutor‘s job was the
exception to them, it was considered appropriate.
104
Chapter Six
Conclusion
6.1 Conclusions
1- After four years of college study, fourth year students still have difficulty
in expressing themselves verbally or non-verbally in English.
2- The speech acts produced by fourth year students deviate to a large extent
from those produced by native speakers.
3- Students‘ speech acts are characterized by being short, incomplete speech
acts, wrong semantic formulas, and inappropriacy.
4- As it is clear from their answers, students produce a language different
from both native and non-native language, in other words, it has features
of interlanguage.
5- `several students, who have learned English in an ESL setting or watched
audio-visuals, did better in the test than the rest of the students whose
only source of input has been classroom instruction.
6- Although the college curriculum is rather grammar oriented than
communicative oriented, yet students still have insufficient linguistic
knowledge, which is only one single component of communicative
competence.
7- Students use too much inner or mental translation when speaking English,
that is, they transfer the rules of Kurdish language to English language.
8- Some students still have difficulty in distinguishing formal and informal
English, polite or impolite language, and language routines.
9- Students do not have enough knowledge about the culture of the target
language speakers, they depend on their instincts and native culture when
speaking English
10- Failure of the conversation courses is behind these mistakes.
105
6.2 pedagogical Recommendations
The researcher proposes the following activities and steps for developing
students‘ communicative competence in a foreign classroom setting.
1- Teachers and learners need to have access to videotapes or film clips that
realistically demonstrate interlocutors‘ total behavior (not just speech)
during oral communication.
Such videotapes or film clips can be used in many ways to make learners
aware of the target language use:
watch the segment without sound to observe, describe, and imitate non-
verbal behaviors;
listen to the segment (sound only) to focus on the language: rhythm,
intonation, pitch, timing, and volume—as well as grammar and
vocabulary;
watch and listen to the intact segment several times in order to role-play
the segment or to perform a similar interaction.
2- Role-play is an effective way to develop students‘ communicative
competence, especially the sociolinguistic and strategic competence
discussed in Canale and Swain‘s (1980) framework. It also helps the
students acquire what Saville-Troike (1996) describes as interactional
knowledge.
3- The speech act, or performative use of language, is an area that many
Kurdish students have trouble dealing with. It is because speech acts are
generally difficult for foreign language learners to realize in terms of
grammar and vocabulary, formulas and conventionalized expressions, and
sociocultural difference between their native language and foreign, and
because in many cases Kurdish students are not taught explicitly in the
classroom how to signal their intent in performing an illocutionary act,
beyond the semantic meanings of syntactic structures.
So it is important that speech acts be taught explicitly in the early years of
college study. Speech acts can be taught in conversation courses.
106
4- Interactive language instruction involves the teacher and learners
engaging in activities that create conditions that foster language use,
which lead to further language development. First and foremost, the
teacher is the initiator of interaction. This means that teachers should
encourage and motivate students to come forward and participate in the
classroom activities.
107
such as verbal and non-verbal behaviors between Kurdish and the target
must be studied deeply and systematically.
108
Appendix
1-Apologies:
1- You completely forget a crucial meeting at the office with your boss. An hour
later you call him to apologize. The problem is that this is the second time you
have forgotten such a meeting. Your boss gets on the line and asks:
Boss: "What happened to you?"
You:
2-You call from work to find out how things are at home and your son reminds
you that you forgot to take him shopping, as you had promised, and this is the
second time that this has happened. Your son says over the phone:
Son: "Oh, you forgot again and you promised!"
You:
3- Backing out of a parking place, you bump into the side of another car. It was
clearly your fault. You dent the side door slightly. The driver gets out and comes
over to you angrily.
Driver:‘ Can‘t you look where you're going? See what you've done!"
You:
4-You accidentally bump into a well-dressed elderly lady at an elegant
department store causing her to spill her packages all over the floor. You hurt
her leg, too. It's clearly your fault and you want to apologize profusely.
She: "ow! My Goodness‖
You:
2- Complaints:
5-It is not the first time that loud rock music is heard from your neighbor's
apartment quite late at night. You pick up the phone and say:
6-A friend who takes the same course as you at the university refuses to share
some important material for the next test, which s/he managed to get hold of. In
the past, you helped him/her many times. You see him/her on campus and say:
109
3- Compliments / Responses:
7- When someone compliments the watch you are wearing and says ―I like your
watch‖, you would:
a. Say, "Oh this cheap thing? It's not worth much."
b. b. Give it to him.
c. c. Say, "Thanks" and smile.
d. d. Say, "Would you like to have it?"
8-It is not considered appropriate to give compliments to:
a. A woman about her husband.
b. A man about his wife.
c. A couple about their child.
d. A doctor about his or her salary.
9- How would you compliment a baby?
4-Refusals:
10- If someone offers you some food that you really don't like, you might say:
a. "I hate that."
b. "Sure, I'd love some more."
c. "I'll have just a little bit, please."
d. "Thanks, but I'm really full.
11-Your friend Thomas asks you to lend him your car. You need the car too.
How would you refuse to lend him your car?
12-You have just been asked out to dinner but you really don't want to go with
the person who invited you. You might say:
110
5- Requests:
13-You have bought a shirt from a big store for your father, but he doesn‘t like
its color. You decide to go to the clothes store and ask the manager of the store
to allow you to exchange the shirt. What would you say?
14-You are a librarian. Today a student is making a noise and disturbing other
students. You don‘t know that student. However, you decide to ask the student
to quiet down. What would you say?
15-You are watching a basketball game. A student you don‘t know comes and
stands just in front of you, blocking your view. You want to ask the student not
to block your view.
16-You are discussing your assignment with your teacher. Your teacher speaks
very fast. You do not follow what he is saying. So you want to ask your teacher
to say it again.
6- Thanking
17- At the table in a restaurant a friend says, 'You have something on your face.'
You ask where. Your friend tells you. You rub your face and ask, 'Is it off?"
Your friend says that it is.
18-You have been invited to the home of a rather new friend. You have dinner
with him and his wife and a few other friends of theirs. The food was great, and
you really enjoyed the evening. As you leave, your hosts accompany you to the
door.
7-Correction
19-You are a student in a sociology class. During the lecture, the professor
quotes a famous statement, attributing it to the wrong scholar.
8- Introduction
20- When you are being introduced, what do you do in addition to speaking
(e.g., what do you do with your hands)?"
21- When you are being introduced, what kind of eye contact would you use?
a. Make direct eye contact.
b. Avoid eye contact.
c. Make eye contact and then quickly look away.
d. Make eye contact and then look at the floor.
112
Bibliography
Alcón Soler , E., & Safont Jordà , P. (2007). Intercultural language use and
language learning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Althen, G. (1988). American ways: A guide for foreigners in the United States.
Yarmouth, Me: Intercultural Press.
Antos, G., Knapp, K., Rickheit, G., & Strohner, H. (2008). Handbook of
communication competence. Handbooks of applied linguistics : HAL;
communication competence, language and communication problems,
practical solutions / ed. Karlfried Knapp and Gerd Antos, 1. Berlin [u.a.]:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Austin, J.L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Harvard University, William
James Lectures 1955. Oxford: Oxford University Press
113
Bachman, L. F., and A. S. Palmer. (1996). Language testing in practice: :
Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford etc.: OUP.
Bachman, L.F. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing.
Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bloomer, A., Griffiths, P., & Merrison, A. (2005). Introducing language in use:
A coursebook. London: Routledge.
114
Blum-Kulka, S. (1991) Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R.
Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith and M. Swain
(eds)Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters
Blum-Kulka, S. and Olshtain, E. (1984) Requests and apologies. A cross-
cultural study of speech act realisation patterns (CCSARP). Applied
Linguistics 5, 196–212.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (1989) Cross-cultural Pragmatics:
Request and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Bonvillain, N. (2008). Language, culture, and communication: The meaning of
messages. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall.
115
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative
competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
116
Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E. (1989). Speech act behavior across languages. In H.
W. Dechert et al. (Eds.), Transfer in production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
5367.
Cohen, A.D. (1996b). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S.M.
Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to
communication in a second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1996,
21-43.
117
Cruse, D. A. (2006). A glossary of semantics and pragmatics. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Dijk, T. A. v. (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text
and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gabor, D. (1983). How to start a conversation and make friends. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
118
Georgetown University Round Table On Languages and Linguistics, & Tyler,
A. (2005). Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on
language and language learning. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press.
Gill, S., & Čaňková, M. (2002). Intercultural activities. Oxford basics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Grundy, P., & Byram, M. (2003). Context and culture in language teaching and
learning. Languages for intercultural communication and education, 6.
Ebook Library. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
119
Holmes, J. (1988). Paying Compliments: A Sex-Preferential Politeness Strategy.
Journal of Pragmatics 12, 445-465.
120
Ibrahim, Z. M. (2000). Diversity in language: Contrastive studies in Arabic and
English theoretical and applied linguistics. Cairo [u.a.]: American Univ. in
Cairo Press.
Kachru, Y., & Smith, L. E. (2008). Cultures, contexts and world Englishes. New
York: Routledge.
121
Kecskés, I., & Horn, L. R. (2007). Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic,
cognitive, and intercultural aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, R. T., & Ide, S. (2005). Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub.
Lindholm, C. (2001). Culture and identity: The history, theory, and practice of
psychological anthropology. Boston, Mass: McGraw Hill.
Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Figurative thinking and foreign language
learning. Basingstoke [England]: Palgrave Macmillan.
122
Locher, M. A., & Strässler, J. (2008). Standards and norms in the English
language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
123
Olshtain, E. & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage Features of the Speech Act
of Complaining. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage
Pragmatics (pp. 108-122). New York, Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second
language: A handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge.
Regan, V., Howard, M., & Lemée, I. (2009). The acquisition of sociolinguistic
competence in a study abroad context. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
124
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and
second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
http://www.UAZ.eblib.com/EBLWeb/patron/?target=patron&extendedid=
P_327304_0&.
125
Searle, J.R. (1979) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech
Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
126
Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Teaching language as communication. Oxford [u.a.]:
Oxford Univ. Press.
127