Teaching and Learning Second Language Pragmatics for Intercultural Understanding

Troy McConachy, Anthony J. Liddicoat, Troy McConachy, Anthony J. Liddicoat

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN: 9781000482997
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This collection argues for the need to promote intercultural understanding as a clear goal for teaching and learning pragmatics in second and foreign language education.

The volume sees the learning of pragmatics as a challenging yet enriching process whereby the individual expands their capacity for understanding how meaning making processes influence social relationships and how assumptions about social relationships shape the interpretation and use of language in context. This locates pragmatics within a humanistically oriented conception of learning where success is defined relative to the enrichment of human understanding and appreciation of difference. The book argues that intercultural understanding is not an "add on" to language learning but central to the learner's ability to understand and construct meaning with individuals from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Chapters analyse teachers' and learners' ways of making sense of pragmatics, how their assumptions about social relationships impact their perceptions of language use, and how reflection on pragmatic judgments opens up possibilities for developing intercultural understanding.

This book will be of interest to students and scholars in intercultural communication, language education, and applied linguistics.

1

Negotiating Politeness Practices and Interpersonal Connections in L2 Japanese

Insights From Study Abroad Narratives

Troy McConachy and Hanako Fujino

DOI: 10.4324/9781003094128-2

Introduction

Within the field of modern language education, there is increasing recognition of the importance of making intercultural learning an integrated part of the theory and practice of developing language abilities, including within Japanese language education (e.g., Fujino et al., 2018; Liddicoat, 2008; Ohashi & Ohashi, 2020; Toyoda, 2016). The incorporation of an intercultural perspective into teaching and learning takes on particular importance for teachers who hope to develop attentive and reflective learners that can enhance their pragmatic abilities and deepen intercultural understanding before, during, and after study abroad. The study abroad experience is widely seen as a critical context for the development of pragmatic abilities due to the opportunities for observing and participating in interactions in a variety of contexts, where the consequentiality of linguistic choices can be experienced in more intense and context-sensitive ways than in the classroom (e.g., Cook, 2008; Kinginger, 2009; Sánchez-Hernández & Alcón-Soler, 2019; Shively, 2013; Taguchi, 2015). Yet, despite the powerful opportunities afforded by study abroad, the negotiation of behavioral expectations and social relationships in a new cultural context can place cognitive, affective, and behavioral demands on learners that lead to a sense of being overwhelmed (Jackson & Oguro, 2018).

One of the main challenges and opportunities for language learners in a new cultural environment is learning to navigate the routines of L2 social interaction and politeness practices necessary for establishing oneself as a legitimate social actor and forming meaningful interpersonal connections (Beaven & Spencer-Oatey, 2016; Kinginger, 2009). One challenge for learners is that the reality of language used to index social categorizations and to construct the impression of politeness is likely to be much more fluid and dynamic than the rules of thumb to which learners have been exposed during formal learning. In this chapter, we suggest that the experience of gradually opening up to more complex perspectives on politeness practices plays an important role in creating potential for the development of intercultural understanding. This largely hinges on the degree to which learners pay attention to patterns of language use in context, reflect on how such patterns reflect culturally constructed conceptions of the social world, and relate their observations to existing knowledge of languages and cultures.

Linking L2 Politeness and Intercultural Understanding in the Study Abroad Context

The development of L2 pragmatic abilities within the study abroad context has received a considerable amount of attention in the literature, with a dominant focus on how learners develop the ability to comprehend and produce the L2 in line with native speaker norms. Such studies tend to be primarily concerned with the impact of variables within the learning context on patterns of pragmatic development and ultimate attainment, such as length of residence, exposure to input, and context of exposure, as well as individual difference variables (Taguchi, 2018). This means that there has generally been less attention paid to the nature of pragmatic development and the acquisition of intercultural insights as perceived and experienced by learners themselves. Although some work has looked at the relationship between L2 pragmatic learning and intercultural competence (e.g., Taguchi, 2015, 2018; Taguchi et al., 2016), there is a tendency to treat these as separate variables rather than as integrated elements.

With respect to the learning of L2 politeness in a study abroad context, some studies have adopted a theoretical perspective that recognizes the importance of learners’ own situated interpretations of Japanese politeness practices (e.g., Ishihara & Tarone, 2009; Iwasaki, 2011; Siegal, 1996). Iwasaki’s (2011) qualitative study of how four L1 speakers of English perceived their experiences of L2 Japanese politeness highlighted the importance of context and the experience of new role relations in providing opportunities for developing a more nuanced understanding of the meanings of politeness forms, their indexical properties, and their interactional effects. Learners reported particular surprise that speech forms that they had been advised not to use due to their being “impolite” were routinely used by same-aged peers to index closeness. While this was a source of disillusionment, it pushed them to gradually build up a more nuanced picture of the actual interactional possibilities. Meanwhile, studies by Siegal (1996) and Ishihara and Tarone (2009), which have sought to understand learner subjectivity, have highlighted that many learners experience resistance in relation to L2 politeness practices, including different ways of indexing social relations through personal pronouns, imposition-avoidance strategies, gendered speech styles, and honorifics. As a whole, these studies underscore the reality that the process of learning the pragmatics of a second language – particularly politeness – necessarily engages learners’ existing sense of self and emotional commitment to enacting the relationship between self and others in preferred ways.

While the preceding studies do not explicitly adopt an intercultural lens, Liddicoat and McConachy (2019) have recently argued for the need to see the learning of politeness as an interpretative process that is inherently inter-lingual and intercultural in nature. The fundamental assumption that learning is a process of interpretation rather than simply learning to recognize stable associations between linguistic forms and meanings is underpinned by the view that politeness itself is an impression constructed in interaction with others rather than an inherent property of “polite forms” (Fraser & Nolan, 1981). Although ideologies of politeness tend to induce individuals to perceive politeness as an entity of its own that is stable and enduring, the reality of politeness within the context of interactions is that it ultimately needs to be interpreted by interactants as part of the larger process of evaluating situations and people (Eelen, 2001). Thus, for L2 learners, the learning of politeness necessarily engages learners’ existing assumptions about the nature of social roles and expectations regarding the linguistic enactment of politeness across different dimensions of social relationships, which have been developed through experiences of interacting in their L1 (and any other languages). This means that the process of learning is one in which learners actively interpret linguistic forms within the context of social relationships and particular interactional contexts, drawing on their existing cultural understandings of the social world linked to the L1 and their emerging knowledge of the L2 and the cultural meanings associated with its use.

One possible learning trajectory is the one in which learners come to recognize the ways in which L2 forms are put to use in the service of politeness, but nevertheless view these in negative terms due to imposing assumptions about social relationships imported from their home context. For example, one of the male participants from the United States in Ishihara and Tarone’s (2009) study experienced resistance to honorifics in Japanese due to (perceivably) violating egalitarian assumptions. While he was able to offer reasons for his critique, he did not call into question the nature of his own assumptions about egalitarian social structures. From the perspective of intercultural understanding, a more desirable learning trajectory is one in which learners decenter from their existing assumptions about how politeness can be expressed through language in order to accommodate new ways of construing social relationships and underlying systems of rights and obligations in various contexts of language use (Liddicoat, 2017; McConachy, 2018). This requires that learners gradually build up a more complex understanding of the different ways in which linguistic forms are used to enact politeness and a willingness to see new politeness practices as meaningful within a different framework of assumptions about social relationships. It is such a process that is conducive to the development of intercultural understanding, as learners come to perceive the politeness practices of different languages as legitimate in their own right, reflecting different culturally shaped understandings of the social world.

Based on the view of L2 politeness learning articulated previously, we examine the ways in which L2 Japanese learners enrolled at a university in the United Kingdom made sense of their lived experiences of Japanese politeness forms and practices within the context of forming interpersonal connections during study abroad in Japan. We highlight the ways that learners not only attempted to understand the cultural significance of politeness forms and practices according to contextual norms but also actively incorporated their knowledge of other languages and cultures into their evolving understandings. Before introducing more details about the study, we provide an overview of linguistic politeness in Japanese.

Overview of Linguistic Politeness in Japanese

Japanese politeness has attracted a large amount of attention in the pragmatics literature, particularly because Japanese scholars critiqued assumptions about social relations in Brown and Levinson’s (1987) face-based model of politeness (e.g., Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989, 2006; Matsumoto, 1988). Whereas Brown and Levinson had argued that politeness functions primarily as a way to mitigate face threats among individuals, Matsumoto (1988) and Ide (1989) both argued that politeness in Japan needs to be examined from a more group-oriented perspective, wherein politeness is closely associated with the selection of linguistic forms that appropriately index one’s position relative to others within the matrix of social relations. Ide (1989, 2006) refers to this as discernment-based politeness, which can be contrasted with the volition-based politeness evident in Brown and Levinson’s work. A key assumption in the discernment view of politeness is that politeness in Japan takes on a much more obligatory nature due to the weight of social norms and due to the fact that every linguistic choice has the potential to be evaluated as polite or impolite (i.e., politeness is not limited to face-threatening speech acts). However, this perspective has also been critiqued by a number of scholars (e.g., Cook, 2006; Kadar & Mills, 2013; Pizziconi, 2011) for portraying politeness as a matter of making “correct” linguistic selections, which assumes that norms themselves are mostly transparent and widely shared. This obscures the reality that politeness norms are always ideological, in the sense that they contribute to the reproduction of existing power relationships (Matsumoto & Okamoto, 2003). Moreover, the idea that politeness is primarily a matter of correct selection neglects the reality that speakers of all languages make agentive decisions to create their own meanings and position themselves as social actors in a dynamic way on the basis of aspects of context relevant to an interaction (Cook, 2006; Pizziconi, 2011).

Within Japanese language education, instruction on politeness tends to take a largely discernment-based view in which the use of forms is dictated by relatively static notions about participant relations. This tends to take the form of instruction on the three main speech styles in Japanese: the plain form speech style, addressee honorifics (also referred to as desu/masu forms), and referent honorifics. The term “keigo” (honorific language) is used variably by educators and researchers to refer to either referent honorifics or both addressee and referent honorifics. Linguistically, speech styles are marked through sets of endings that appear in the sentence-final position, as illustrated here.

1. 1. Sensei wa Tōkyō ni sunde-iru.
   2. Sensei wa Tōkyō ni sunde-imasu.
   3. Sensei wa Tōkyō ni sunde-irasshai-masu.
      Teacher TOP Tokyo LOC liveTE-AUX
      “The teacher lives in Tokyo.”
      [footnote: TOP, topic marker; LOC, locative; TE, te-form (conjunctive particle);, AUX, auxiliary verb]

All three examples have the same referential meaning and differ only in the speech style. In 1a, the auxiliary verb is in the plain form, iru. In 1b, it appears in addressee honorifics, imasu. Addressee honorifics are also called desu/masu forms for the endings. Desu is the copula used with nouns, adjectives, and adjectival nouns, whereas masu attaches to verbs. 1c is an example of referent honorifics. The auxiliary verb appears in the respectful form, irassharu, combined with the masu ending.

An important point to note is that explanations of when to use each speech style in textbooks typically rely on oversimplified rules of thumb that present static relationships between linguistic forms and contextual variables (Cook, 2008; Matsumoto & Okamoto, 2003). The plain form speech style tends to be associated with informal speech when speaking with close friends and family members. Addressee honorifics are presented as the default for interactions with nonintimates, and referent honorifics are typically associated with formal situations and situations with a notable hierarchical distance between speakers, such as age and social distance. Thus, there is a strong tendency to present politeness as an innate property of forms themselves, and speech styles are presented in a way that suggests that they are mutually exclusive (Cook, 2008). It is also worth noting that there has been a preference for devoting more instructional energy to honorifics than plain forms in beginner-level classrooms due to the perception that they are much “safer” in terms of ensuring that learners can achieve a basic sense of politeness in their interactions. In fact, addressee honorifics are the predominant style in most textbooks, even in contexts where their use would be unnatural (Cook, 2008).

This pedagogical emphasis on pragmatic rules of thumb stands in contrast with research on Japanese speech styles, which shows their usage is not determined solely by degree of intimacy and situational formality. Speakers of Japanese shift between speech styles even within a single interaction with the same interlocutor in order to create particular rhetorical effects or to index features of identity. For example, even when using addressee honorifics as the norm, speakers may switch to plain forms to state summaries, facts, and convictions (Makino, 2002), to express empathy (Ikuta, 1983), for a soliloquy, or to signal closeness (Okamoto, 1999), and speakers are actively involved in the creation of pragmatic and social meanings through them. In short, Japanese speakers mix honorific and nonhonorific forms “to create a desired context, in particular, preferred interpersonal relations and identities” (Okamoto, 1999, p. 70). For language learners who have been socialized into a view of politeness based on rules of thumb, coming to gradually observe the reality of speech style usage provides opportunities for developing more complex understandings of the relationships between politeness practices and the construction ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents Page
• List of Tables Page
• List of Figures Page
• List of Appendices Page
• List of Contributors Page
• Introduction: Second Language Pragmatics for Intercultural Understanding
• 1 Negotiating Politeness Practices and Interpersonal Connections in L2 Japanese: Insights From Study Abroad Narratives
• 2 “But in England They’re Certainly Very Polite, So You Mustn’t Forget That”: Young EFL Learners Making Sense of Pragmatic Practices
• 3 Exploring Framing Categories in Language Learners’ Intercultural Positioning: ‘Asia’ and ‘the West’
• 4 Literary Pragmatics and Intercultural Dialogue in the Beginning Language Class: A Study in Social Reading
• 5 Mixed-Culture Discussion Activities as a Tool for Developing Pragmatic and Intercultural Awareness
• 6 Concept-Based Instruction for Teaching and Learning L2 (Im)politeness
• 7 Co-constructing Nonessentialist Pedagogy: Supporting Teachers to Support Learners’ Translingual Agency Through L2 Pragmatics Instruction
• 8 Intercultural Competence and Pragmatics in the L2 Classroom: Views of In-Service EFL Teachers in Primary, Secondary, and Adult Education
• 9 Toward a New Measurement of Intercultural Competence: Assessing the Pragmatic Competence of Intercultural Speakers
• Index