GRAMMAR

AND
PRAGMATICS
Celia Fullana
ILP research [email protected]
2

 Does grammar precede pragmatics?

 Does pragmatics precede grammar?

 Do grammar and pragmatics develop together?

 PRAGMATICS AS INDEPENDENT
3
FROM GRAMMAR

 If we follow Bialystok’s Two dimensional model and

consider that adults take advantage of the L1
pragmatics, so they only need the L2 social and
cultural representations…
 … and if we believe that there are some pragmatic
universals that are implicitly known by all speakers
across languages (Kasper & Rose 2002)…
 PRAGMATICS AS INDEPENDENT
4
FROM GRAMMAR
 Then, we could support the primacy of pragmatics,
meaning that we have the ability to use politeness,
speech acts, conversational implicature, among
other pragmatic features.
 So, the idea is that NNSs can develop pragmatics
with few linguistic means
 PRAGMATICS AS INDEPENDENT
5
FROM GRAMMAR
 Supported by…
 Schmidt (1983)
 Félix-Brasdefer (2007: 280) “grammatical competence
develops gradually and adjusts to the existing
pragmatic competence”

 ‘Since the grammatical competence cannot develop as

quickly as the already present pragmatic concepts require,
the pragmatic concepts are expressed in ways conforming to
the level of grammatical complexity acquired’ (Koike,
1989: 287)
 PRIMACY OF GRAMMAR
6

 Grammar develops before the L2 pragmatics can be

acquired
 Different varieties
 Learners demonstrate knowledge of a particular
grammatical structure while not adopting it to express or
modify illocutionary force
 Learners know a grammatical structure and use it to express
pragmalinguistic functions that are not conventionalized
target (L2) use
 Learners know a grammatical structure and its
pragmalinguistic functions yet use the structure in non-target-
like fashion
 PRIMACY OF GRAMMAR
7

 Supported by…
 Schimdt & Frota (1986)
 Schmidt did better in grammar competence than in
pragmatic ability
 According to them, this was due to the lack of contact with
the L2 community
 Dogançay-Aktuna & Kamish (1997)
 Advanced learners who used complex language but not
appropriately. They claim that L1 influence played a role.
 PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT
8

 As grammatical competence develops, learners

produce and perform more appropriate pragmatic
utterances (gradual change).
 There is some sort of parallel development
 Then, some grammar is needed…?
 PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT
9

 Bardovi-Harlig & Dörney (1998)

 Comparison of EFL and ESL groups at different
proficiency levels
 ESL recognized pragmatic errors as more severe than
the grammatical errors
 High EFL/ESL proficiency learners also considered
pragmatic errors as more severe

ESL = English is taught to students in an English-speaking

country.
EFL = English is taught to students in a non-English
speaking country.
 PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT
10

 Schauer (2006)
 ESL in Stay Abroad period
 Grammatical and pragmatic awareness increased
during their Stay Abroad experience
 A parallel development of the two competences
 PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT
11

 Häkanson & Norrby (2005)

 Swedish FL learners
 As learners’ proficiency increased, their pragmatic
competence became more native-like
 Hoffman-Hicks (1992)
 French FL learners
 Those who did well in the grammar tasks also did well
in the pragmatic tasks
 PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT
12

 Martínez-Flor & Fukuya (2005)

 EFL learners
 Instruction effects

 Learners develop their pragmatic ability as their

grammar ability develop as well
 ISSUES TO CONSIDER…
13

 Most of the studies reviewed have not dealt with

grammar explicitly but with overall proficiency
(Bardovi-Harlig 1999; Martí-Arnándiz 2008)
 Exceptions:
 Sasaki (1998): grammar and structure through four
brands rated by NSs. NO pre-established proficiency
level test used.
 Youn (2014): grammar related to three syntactic
complexity measures. Pragmatic production correlated
with syntactic complexity.
 ISSUES TO CONSIDER…
14

 Need to make strictly acquisitional studies in

Interlanguage Pragmatics (Bardovi-Harlig 1999)
 Need to find ways to analyze the real relationship
between grammar and pragmatics
 Aspect-tense-mood

 Formulaic
language
 Grammatical complexity

 Prosody
PRAGMATIC
FLUENCY

ILP research
 PRAGMATIC FLUENCY
16

“The combination of appropriateness of utterances

and smooth continuity of ongoing talk (…) and the
NNSs’ talk must meet the expectations of the NSs of
the foreign language and it must represent
acceptable language behavior” (House 1996: 228-
229)
 PRAGMATIC FLUENCY
17

 In other words,…
… being a pragmatically fluent speaker would
mean to be pragmatically competent and being a
fluent speaker.
 PRAGMATIC FLUENCY
18

 House (1996, 2003)

 Being a pragmatically fluent speaker implies using
pragmatic routines, the ability to initiate and change
topics, to carry the weight of the conversation, the
ability to show turn-taking, the ability to use the
appropriate rate of speech as well as the appropriate
use of filled, unfilled pauses and repairs.
 PRAGMATIC FLUENCY
19

 Many studies in ILP mention ‘something’ about the

participants pragmatic fluency but none of them
really define what that is
 In most of the studies, there are pragmatic
measures, on the one hand, and fluency measures,
on the other
 The first study which specifically dealt with
pragmatic fluency was the one by House (1996)
(later on again in 2003)
 PRAGMATIC FLUENCY
20

 House (1996) examines:

 Gambits

 Discourse strategies
 Speech acts

 Turn-taking

 Speech rate

 Pauses

 Repairs
 PRAGMATIC FLUENCY
21

 Barón & Celaya (2010)

 Development of pragmatic fluency in EFL learners
 Measures adapted from House (1996) + response time
(acceptances, refusals – the request sequence)
 As learners became more proficient, they also became
more pragmatically appropriate in the whole request
sequence
E-MAIL STUDIES
IN ILP

ILP research
 PRAGMATICS IN E-MAIL STUDIES
23

 Increase in the number of e-mail studies in the last

decade
 Main analyzed features:
 1) opening sequences,
 2) speech act performance

 3) closing sequences

 A special interest in requests

 PRAGMATICS IN E-MAIL STUDIES
24

 Regarding the type of request, one of the main

findings is that NNSs tend to produce more direct
requests than NSs when the level of imposition is low
and the social distance is close (Hartfort & Bardovi-
Harlig 1996; Chen 2001; Beisenhach-Lucas 2006,
2007; Economidou-kogetsidis 2011; Felix-Brasdefer
2012)
 PRAGMATICS IN E-MAIL STUDIES
25

 Regarding modification, NNSs tend to mitigate less

the request as compared to NSs (Woodfield &
Economidou-Kogetsidis 2010; Econimidou-Kogetsidis
2011; Alcón 2013, 2015)
 PRAGMATICS IN E-MAIL STUDIES
26

 As for opening and closing sequences, studies in

the field have found that such sequences are closely
related to formality

 The degree of formality shown is usually affected

by the social distance and the degree of imposition
(Chen 2001; Brasdefer 2007; Bou-Franch 2013)
 PRAGMATICS AND AGE
27

 In terms of age differences what is being usually

analyzed is:
 The development of pragmatics from children to adults
(Axia & Baroni, 1985; Weiss & Sachs, 1991; Ohbuchi
& Sato, 1994; Ely & Gleason, 2006; Barón 2010;
Barón 2015;…)
 Differencesbetween children and adults have been
commonly explained by Byalistok’s Two dimensional Model
(1993)
 Studies focusing on the pragmatics used in young
learners (Ellis 1992; Achiba 2001; Alcón 2013)
 TRIGGER OF THE STUDY
28

Why do students fail in e-mail

communication with their professors? Why
do they sound impolite?

1 - They might lack e-mail writing instruction (Crystal 2001,

Economidou-Kogetsidis 2015)
2 - They might lack pragmatic knowledge such as how to make
requests, apologies, social distance between speakers, etc.
(Economidou-Kogetsidis 2011; Félix-Brasdefer 2012)
 Codina & Salazar (2019)
29

Objectives:
 To examine EFL learners’ requests, apologies and
openings/closings in e-mail communication

 To analyze how English native speakers perceive

politeness in e-mails written by EFL learners

 To see whether age has an effect on speech act

performance
 THE STUDY (1)
30

 Participants
 40 Catalan/Spanish bilinguals with an intermediate
/upper intermediate level of English
 G1: 20 undergraduates (ages 18-20)
 G2: 20 professionals (ages 30-40)
 Base-line data in Catalan/Spanish also included

 40 English NSs same ages as the EFL group

 G3: 20 undergraduates
 G4: 20 professionals
 THE STUDY (2)
31

 The task
 A written task: an e-mail sent to their professor asking for the
possibility to change the date of an exam they had missed
 A request addressed to an interlocutor with a higher rank was
required
 E-mail: written language with oral features

 They had not recently been taught how to write e-mails in

any EFL course, but they claimed having been given some
instructions at some point of their learning experience. No
reference to pragmatic aspects was made.
 THE STUDY (3)
32

 Analysis
 Examination of how participants requested in L2 English
 The level of directness of the request was analyzed following
Ervin-Tripp (1976) and Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1987)
 Alcón et al. (2005) was followed to study how students
mitigated the request
 Examination of apologies: Do participants apologize?
 Analysis of the openings / closings of the e-mails
 Perceived politeness by NSs of each age group
 Judges gave the e-mails a score through a 5-point scale on
politeness (1=very impolite, 5=very polite) + brief explanation
 RESULTS (1) - Requests
33

G1 English Request Types G2 English Request Types

Reference to preparatoy
conditions Reference to preparatoy
5% 5% conditions
25% Reference to preparatoy 25%
25% conditions interrogative Reference to preparatoy
conditions interrogative
Hedge performative 40%
Hedge performative
20% Explicit performative
25% 30%
Explicit performative
Hints

Both G1 and G2 (NNSs) tend to produce both direct and

indirect requests, although direct requests tend to be
more common in the younger group
 RESULTS (2) - Requests
34

G3 Request Types G4 Request Types

Reference to
Reference to preparatoy
conditions
preparatoy conditions
15% 5%
25% 10%
Reference to preparatoy 30% Reference to
conditions interrogative preparatoy conditions
10%
interrogative
Hedge performative Hedge performative

60% Explicit performative

45%

The same type of requests are used by the NSs

groups, but indirect requests tend to be more frequent
in these groups
 RESULTS (3) - Requests
35

•The most direct group is G1, followed by the rest of groups.

Direct requests, such as Hedge performatives and Explicit performatives are more
frequently used by G1, which are at the same time the least preferred types by the
NSs’ group.
G3 and G4 seem to prefer Reference to preparatory conditions interrogative and
Refererence to preparatory conditions affirmative
•G3 and G4 are similar, but G3 seems to prefer Reference to preparatory conditions
interrogative
Types of Requests
60

50 G1
40
G2
30

20 G3

10
G4
0
Reference to Reference to Hedge Explicit Hints
preparatoy preparatoy performative performative
conditions conditions
interrogative
 RESULTS (4) - Modification
36

Modification - G1 English Modification - G2 English

Requests Requests
Expander Grounder &
Grounder & 10% Expander
Expander
Expander 15%
Grounder & 0%
30% Disarmer &
Expander
5%

Grounder
Grounder & Grounder Grounder & 55%
Disarmer & 55% Disarmer
Expander 25%
0%
Grounder &
Disarmer
5%

G1 and G2 tend use mainly the same type of modification to mitigate

the requests (Grounder), however, there is a difference in use of the
other strategies.
 RESULTS (5) - Modification
37

Modification - G3 Requests Modification - G4 Requests

Expander
0%
Expander
11% Grounder &
Grounder &
Expander
Expander Grounder 35% Grounder
42% 26% 45%

Grounder & Grounder &

Grounder &
Disarmer & Disarmer
Disarmer &
Expander 5% Grounder &
Expander
16% Disarmer
15%
5%

•The types of modification are the same in both NSs and NNSs
•NSs groups prefer mitigating the request by using more than one strategy (Grounders
+ expanders/disarmers), which leads to more mitigated requests than the NNSs.
 RESULTS (6) - Apology
38

APOLOGIES
100

90
•NNSs do not produce
80
apologies as much as
% Participant that apologize

70
NSs do
60

50

40
•G3 seems to
30 apologize more than
20 G4
10

0
G1 G2 G3 G4
 RESULTS (7) – Openings & Closings
39

G1 G2
Hi / Hello XX,
Good morning XX, Dear XX,
XX, Dear Professor,
Dear XX, Dear Ms. XX,
Dear Ms XX, Good morning,
Ms. XX,

Thanks! /Thank you (very much) Thank you (very much in advance)
(for your attention) / Thanks in advance Yours sincerely
I’ll be waiting for your answer Looking forward to hearing from you
See you (in class next week) Best regards
Have a nice weekend
(Yours) sincerely / Yours faithfully
Kind regards
Your student, Best

Difference in formality between groups. G2 more formal than G1 in both openings

and closings
 RESULTS (8) – Openings & Closings
40

G3 G4

Dear X,
Dear X, Dear Mrs X,
Dear Prof. X, Dear Dr. X,
Good morning Professor X, Dear Professor,
Prof. X,

Sincerely, Thank you for your attention,

Best wishes and kind regards, Sincerely,
Thank you (very much), Regards,
Hope to see you tomorrow, Best wishes,
Yours, Best,
Many thanks

Despite the age difference, G3 and G4 open and close their e-mails in a similar way
 RESULTS (9) – Perceived Politeness
41

WHAT DID THE JUDGES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHEN

EVALUATING THE LEARNERS’ E-MAILS?

 Openings and closings

 Apology
 Vocabulary used
 Type of request
 Justification
 Degree of formality
 Spelling / Syntax / Collocations
 Email structure
 Stating clearly the aim of the e-mail
 RESULTS (10) – Perceived Politeness
42

Hello XX! G1 TOO DIRECT

I am writing in order to tell you that next Tuesday I won’t be able
to come to your class, because I’ve got to go to the doctor. Could TYPE OF REQUEST
it be possible to do the exam any other day? Oups, I almost
forgot to tell you that I’m XX, from G4 group. Thank you!
XX NO APOLOGY

TYPE OF
Hi XX,
1 OPENING /
I’m XX, from your English class (Group5). CLOSING
Well. I’m writing you because I’ve a problem with the exam that
we will do the next day… My boss told me that I have to work ORAL LANGUAGE
all the week, and for this reason I wouldn’t come to the class. So,
INFORMAL
can I do the exam any other day?
Thank you!
XX G1
 RESULTS (11) – Perceived Politeness
43

Dear XX, G2
This is to inform you that I missed the writing exam on last 15th of November due to
an important meeting that took place in my office and I was forced to attend.
I do not want to take this as a excuse, unfortunately I had no option but to go.
I am really worry about that because I do not want to miss the opportunity to pass MORE INDIRECT
the exam.
For this reason, I would like to ask you this special favor to give me the opportunity
to do it another day. NO APOLOGY
On the other hand, I don’t want to cause you a problem in the university, but I must
try to do it, if it is cause a problem, please feel free to tell me.
Having said that please kindly check the possibility and let me know. MORE FORMAL
Thank you very much for your understanding and help.
Regards, 4 TYPE OF
Dear Dr. XX, OPENING /
I am XX, one of you students from English I. Unfortunately, I could not attend the
exam which took place on the last 28th of October because of medical reasons. CLOSING
I would be extremely glad if I could do the exam another day.
Of course, you will be given the medical informe as soon as it is possible.
Thank you for considering my e-mail,
Yours faithfully, G1
 RESULTS (12) – Perceived Politeness
44

G3 FORMAL
Dear XX,
First I would like to apologise for not attending the exam yesterday due to
unforeseen circumstances it was impossible for me to take the exam yesterday.
APOLOGY
However I would like to ask you if it would be possible to take the exam again on
another day. I know this may not usually be the case but due to my circumstances I
TYPE OF
was hoping that you would be able to review my case individually. OPENING /
Thanks for your time. CLOSING
Kinds Regards,
XX VOCABULARY
Dear XX, 5 USED
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I’m afraid I was unable to attend class the day of the last exam. I would like to
request an opportunity to take the exam another day as would be most appropriate for you. Although I understand the
inconveniences imposed both by missing the exam and by taking the test at a later date for which I would like to offer
my sincere apologies, I would also like to point out my regular class attendance and that my record of previous test
results reflect the seriousness with which I attend to my work. Likewise, I had prepared long and hard for this exam and
have been very unfortunate to have missed it, but I am hopeful that the matter can be resolved.
I am looking forward to your news and remain at your disposal for a time and place to meet so that we can make
proper arrangements.
Sincerely,
XX G4
 RESULTS (13) – Perceived Politeness
45

Perceived Politeness
4.5
4 SAMPLE : 40 Participants
3.5
3
2.5
2 •Judges perceived G3 and G4
1.5 as the most polite groups
1 •Differences between G1 and G2
0.5
0
G1 G2 G3 G4
 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION(1)
46

 The present study goes in line with previous studies

in e-mail communication within the field of ILP
 Requests tend to be more direct and less mitigated in
EFL learners (Hartfort & Bardovi-Harlig 1996; Chen
2001; Beisenhach-Lucas 2006, 2007; Economidou-
kogetsidis 2011; Felix-Brasdefer 2012; Woodfield &
Economidou-Kogetsidis 2010; Alcón 2013, 2015)
 Opening and closing sequence are related to different
levels of formality – related to social distance or
degree of imposition (Chen 2001; Brasdefer 2007;
Bou-Franch 2013)
 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION (2)
47

 Regarding apologies, NNSs tend to apologize less

than NSs…
 This finding could be explained by L1 influence
 In fact, base-line data with their L1 production seemed
to show a low frequency of use of such speech act

Do G1 apologize in Do G2 apologize in
Catalan/Spanish? Catalan/Spanish?
Yes
Yes
20%
10%
No
No 80%
90%
 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION (3)
48

 In general, the NSs’ e-mails seem to be perceived as more

polite than the NNSs’ groups
 The young NNSs’ e-mails are considered as less polite than the
old NNSs’ group
 Byalistok’s Two dimensional model cannot be followed here?

 Instruction?

 Older learners take advantadge of their L1 e-mail

pragmatic experience from their professional life? So, their
e-mails become more polite
 Generation gap?
 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION (4)
49

 How can we make young NNSs’ production more

polite?
 Instruction
has shown having positive effects on learners’
pragmatic performance (Economidou-Kogetsidis 2015)

 Raising pragmatic awareness both in their L1 and in

their L2
Remember to send us an
email with your peers’
names for the group project

Week 8: Teaching pragmatics

Celia Fullana
ILP research [email protected]