\nMacquarie University, Sydney, Australia
\n<jill.murray
![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
mq.edu.au><\/p>\nJill C. Murray
\nMacquarie University, Sydney, Australia
\n<jill.murraymq.edu.au><\/p>\n
\nInstructional pragmatics in teacher education is generally focused on ways that ESOL teachers can develop the pragmatic competence of L2 learners. However, as every interaction in an English medium classroom requires a high level of pragmatic competence on the part of teachers themselves, it can also be conceptualised more broadly to encompass the development of aspects of NNS teachers\u2019 own pragmatic competence which are important for teaching. This article reports on a case study involving a small group of NNS teachers who were taught about implicature with an explicit focus on concepts and metalanguage taken directly from Gricean pragmatics.\u00a0 Part of a published DCT which had been originally designed for research purposes was then adapted as a follow-up activity, assessing learning and providing students with opportunities to reflect on the linguistic and cultural factors underlying their initial responses.\u00a0 While raw test scores suggested that the explicit knowledge of theory was limited in its application to understanding implicature, the post-task reflections and discussion gave a very different picture. The research suggests firstly that despite the limitations of the Gricean model of implicature its intuitive nature makes it valuable for the education of teachers, and secondly that its application is most effective in a context of intercultural learning.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Introduction<\/h3>\n
The teachability of pragmatics has been the subject of considerable recent interest (Kasper, 2007; Rose, 2005), and a number of studies have explored the value of the explicit teaching of pragmatic theory and metalanguage in classroom settings (Blight, 2002; Kubota, 1995; Lee, 2002). This paper reports on a study of explicit teaching of pragmatics to NNS teachers and explores some implications for theory and practice. Undertaken as part of a broader project to prepare overseas trained teachers for the workplace using an explicit focus on linguistic pragmatics, (Murray, J.C., 2009), the study focuses closely on one treatment and a follow-up activity which was implemented to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching.\u00a0 Learner responses and reflections provided a basis for consideration of the applicability of the written DCT in classroom teaching, and insights into the usefulness of the Gricean framework.<\/p>\n
The students participating in the study were advanced learners who were planning to sit for an English entry test, the Professional English Assessment for Teachers (PEAT), success in which would allow them to apply for ongoing positions in primary and secondary public education in NSW, Australia.\u00a0 Some, but not all, were language teachers. The PEAT included an assessment of pragmatic aspects of communicative competence, and the course aimed to prepare them both for this and for the communication needs which they would face on entry to the workplace. One of the areas that had been identified by the focus group of school principals who had given input to the test design specifications was that overseas trained teachers in the workplace could usually understand the literal meaning of what was said but would sometimes misinterpret underlying meanings. This could lead to various forms of pragmatic failure (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1983), such as taking offence where none was intended, taking understated criticism literally as praise, misunderstanding irony, and responding to implied meanings in inappropriate ways. It was felt that increasing the level of facility in recognising and interpreting different types of implicatures might be beneficial to this group of learners, and (although it was not an explicit focus of this study) it was also anticipated that this knowledge could inform and enhance their own classroom teaching.<\/p>\n
Can pragmatic competence be taught?<\/h3>\n
The complexity of defining pragmatic competence and the diversity of approaches to teaching and assessing it have provided the basis for a diverse range of studies on the teachability of pragmatics.\u00a0 Some of these address the central question of the extent to which teaching makes a difference (Alc\u00f3n Soler, 2005; Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Kasper, 2007; LoCastro, 1997), and others look at how teaching can be undertaken in differing pedagogical settings (Salazar, 2003;Yates, 2004), or critically evaluate teaching materials (Crandall and Basturkmen, 2004; Vellenga, 2004). Comparative studies have been undertaken on the effect of inductive and deductive approaches (Rose & Ng, 2001) and the effect of the use of metalanguage (Eslami-Rasekh, Eslami-Rasekh & Fatahi, 2004; Eslami-Rasekh 2005). Some empirical studies have focussed on the effects of teaching different specific aspects of pragmatics.\u00a0 Speech acts have been the most widely explored (Cohen, 2004; Cohen & Ishihara, 2005; Golato, 2003; Koike, 1989; Takahashi, 2001) but also pragmatic fluency (House, 1996), formulaic routines, (Liddicoat & Crozet, 2001; Tateyama, 2001), and discourse features (Yoshimi, 2001; Wishnoff, 2000). Results have been mixed, but comprehensive review articles by Bardovi Harlig (2001), Rose (2005) and a meta-analysis on the effect of L2 instruction (Jeon & Kaya, 2006) broadly sum up the findings of research in favour of the teachability of many aspects of pragmatics.<\/p>\n
Early work on implicature using written scenarios with multiple choice questions established, not surprisingly, that NS were more able to understand implicatures than learners, (Carrell, 1979). Between 1988 and 1999 Bouton undertook a series of cross sectional and longitudinal studies, identifying implicature types that accounted for most difficulties in understanding, and exploring which ones were amenable to teaching input. The latter are important to this study and will be explored in more detail below. However, while there has been some interest in testing the ability to infer implicatures (Roever, 2006), the teaching of Gricean pragmatics has received limited attention. (Bromberek-Dyzman, & Ewert, 2010; Blight, 2002; Murray, N. 2010).<\/p>\n
The co-operative principle and conversational implicature <\/h3>\n
At present, Gricean theory, while rarely if ever absent from introductory pragmatics courses or textbooks, is no longer considered cutting edge as a theoretical underpinning for pragmatics research. Kasper (2007) places it in the first of the three phases of pragmatics research. English teaching textbooks rarely if ever mention it, and where the teaching of pragmatics is tackled at all, it is mostly in the areas of speech act theory, politeness and pragmatic routines\u00a0(Vellenga, 2004; Crandall & Basturkmen, 2004).\u00a0 Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are otherwise advanced level learners who experience difficulty in inferring indirect or non-literal speaker meaning, and there is a need for an accessible framework for exploring and approaching this. <\/p>\n
The co-operative principle was first defined by Grice as: \u201cMake your conversational contribution such as is required at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged\u201d (1975, p. 45).<\/p>\n
That is to say, it is expected by a hearer that a speaker is abiding by this principle and will fashion his\/her contribution under the four guiding maxims: that of providing an appropriate amount of information (quantity<\/em>); which he\/she has adequate evidence to believe is true (quality<\/em>); which is relevant to the topic at hand (relation<\/em>); and in a way that does not set out deliberately to confuse (manner<\/em>). The reasons why a speaker may not observe these maxims may be accidental (infringement<\/em>) or deliberate (opting out<\/em>, or violating or flouting <\/em>one of the maxims). In the case of flouting, the intent is to create an implicature. The hearer is expected to notice that the maxim has been breached, consider why this is the case, and infer the intended meaning together with any additional information retrievable from the way in which it was conveyed.<\/p>\n
Keenan (1976) questioned the cultural universality of the Gricean maxims, finding different patterns of implicature in Malagasy speech. For example, Malagasy speakers would regularly provide less information than was required, even if they did have access to it. The category of suspension<\/em> of a maxim was added later to account for these cases, where features of a specific context may take precedence over those predicted by the Gricean model.<\/p>\n
As Thomas (1995) points out—the usage of these terms in the literature is not always as consistent as it should be. Figure 1 clarifies how the non-observance of the Gricean maxims will be defined in this paper, including divergences from the original, unstandardised terminology of Grice (1975). Reflecting convention, the umbrella terms \u201cbreach\u201d and \u201cnon-observance\u201d are used interchangeably. This diagram, originally devised for a postgraduate linguistics course, was used in the teaching program implemented in this study.<\/p>\n
\nFigure 1. Breaching Gricean maxims: Terminology and taxonomy<\/b>\n<\/p>\nThe intervention<\/strong><\/p>\n
The class consisted of 11 advanced learners:\u00a0 all migrant teachers from India, Bangladesh, China, Korea, Japan and Cuba. As well as language, their teaching subjects included maths, science and geography. The explicit teaching of pragmatics occurred in nine 3-hour session throughout an eighteen week full time test preparation program and covered a range of topics (Murray, J.C. 2009). The aim of the teaching unit discussed in this study was to create a level of awareness through which the teachers would be more cognisant of implicature and more able to notice the relationship between language choices and the effectiveness of communication in their lives outside the classroom, (Schmidt, 1993; Takahashi, 2005). The teaching activities used materials which had been written and implemented by the researcher as part of her regular university teaching.<\/p>\n
The intervention consisted of a lecture\/notetaking activity, a group activity in which the notes were used to complete a summary of the main concepts of Gricean implicature, interpretation in groups of a set of scenarios using the categories of non-observance shown in Figure 1, and an open class discussion of real-life communicative events in which an implicatures would be created and\/or inferred.\u00a0 The metalinguistic input also provided the opportunity to make a link with work in an earlier unit on different cultures and their positions regarding directness and explicitness\u00a0(Hall, 1990; Hofstede, 1980; Wierzbicka, 2003).<\/p>\n
The teaching was conducted in two 3-hour sessions, separated by a week.\u00a0 Out of class reading material was provided in the form of a chapter from an introductory work on pragmatics (Thomas, 1995), and an optional writing activity was also included. Teaching materials used in the intervention are reproduced in Appendix 1, as well as representative student responses. The follow-up inferencing task was conducted one week later.<\/p>\n
The inferencing task: Origins and research applications<\/h3>\n
In order to assess and extend learning, a multiple choice inferencing task was compiled by applying and\/or adapting some of the items devised by Bouton (1988, 1994, 1999) and used, sometimes in adapted form, by Roever (2004, 2005, 2006). These examples were deliberately chosen because there already existed a literature on their use, and this had the potential to provide opportunities for comparison of the learners\u2019 responses and published ones from different contexts. They were also felt to have authenticity as a sample because the preferred multiple choice responses had originally been developed on the basis of actual NS interpretations of speakers\u2019 meaning in a set of scenarios, while the distractors were adapted from the most common NNS \u2018incorrect\u2019 answers. Examples for which NS did not select consistent responses had already been removed from the test battery.<\/p>\n
In 1988, Bouton had used the first version of this test in a major cross sectional study, and established that cultural background was a strong predictor of NNS difficulties in interpreting implicatures. The set of open-ended questions developed in Bouton\u2019s study were administered to 60 American NS and 79 NNS, who were invited to provide one-line responses.\u00a0 Questions with insufficiently consistent NS responses were discarded or modified, and multiple choice questions were generated from the remainder, with the most common NS answer then identified as the \u201cexpected\u201d response. It was acknowledged that different interpretations were possible and as such there was no \u201ccorrect\u201d response in the sense of a 100% consensus, even among native speakers. A control group of 20 Americans and a group of 436 learners from seven different cultural groups then completed the multiple choice test, and significant differences were found among the overall scores of three groups: the American native speakers, a group including the Germans, Spanish, Portuguese and Taiwan Chinese, and a third group comprised of\u00a0 Koreans, Japanese and PRC Chinese. This was independent of the group\u2019s average overall language proficiency scores as measured by a placement test. Implicatures related to the maxim of relation were found to be the easiest for both NS and NNS groups. Understated negative evaluation (flouting of the maxim of quantity) led to less consistent responses, with fewer than 80% of NS respondents giving the expected answer.<\/p>\n
Subsequently Bouton (1994, 1999) posed the question of whether the ability to interpret implicature could develop by exposure and without explicit teaching. In a follow-up study after 4.5 years, 30 of the original 436 learners studying in the US were retested using the same multiple choice questions. They showed considerable improvement, but there remained a statistically significant difference between the NS and NNS responses. Not all types of implicature manifested the same degree of improvement. Specifically, there were 8 items in Bouton\u2019s post test in which the frequency of the NNS responses matching expected ones was unexpectedly low. In terms of Grice\u2019s implicature categories these did not belong to any specific type, but contained cultural references which may have been inaccessible to the learners: for example, recognising that an expression like \u201cjust like mama use to make\u201d was a compliment in American culture.\u00a0 In 1993, Bouton conducted a follow-up study of teaching, and found that some implicature types, particularly those that were formulaic, were more amenable to change as a result of instruction than others\u00a0 (Bouton, 1994, 1999). However Bouton\u2019s use of the test was summative and his research did not invite participants to reflect on the reasons for their responses, or explore the obstacles that stood in the way of their learning.<\/p>\n
Terminology for the discussion of implicature has evolved since the time Bouton\u2019s papers were written. Like Levinson (1983) Bouton uses violating<\/em> as an umbrella term for all non-observance, and does not distinguish between a covert breach and overt flouting<\/em>. He uses relation <\/em>and relevance<\/em> interchangeably and neither infringing<\/em> nor opting out<\/em> of the co-operative principle was included in his data set. His examples involve receptive use only, and his studies used quantitative methodology. Other than the time of residence in the L2 culture and placement in broad groups according to linguistic\/cultural backgrounds, there was no consideration of individual learner factors or responses.<\/p>\n
The inferencing task: Adaptation and classroom application<\/h3>\n
The task was used to evaluate the impact of the prior awareness-raising sessions on ability to infer implicature, to provoke discussion and to allow learners to become more aware of individual areas of potential communicative difficulty. It consisted of 15 items covering breaches of the four Gricean maxims as well as implied sequencing and scalar implicature.\u00a0 In this paper, length constraints preclude the discussion of all the test items.\u00a0 Ten of the items will be considered, involving the maxims of quality, quantity and relation.\u00a0 These three areas have been selected because the cultural issues that arose in the learners\u2019 interpretations were the most interesting. Intentional breaches of the maxim of manner seem comparatively rare and as the other forms of implicature were considered to be of limited cross cultural interest they had not been a major focus of the teaching program.<\/p>\n
The multiple choice task was completed individually, with no restriction on the time allowed. The follow-up activity involved a class discussion of the reasons why some questions had proven to be difficult. A qualitative descriptive approach was taken, and as the follow-up discussion was not a rigidly structured task and no written responses were produced, the results are considered in terms of group responses rather than individual performance. All comments quoted below are drawn from the researchers\u2019 field notes.<\/p>\n
Results<\/h3>\n
Despite the extensive preparation the learners had had for this activity, their responses did not consistently conform to the \u2018suggested\u2019 answers. In the 10 questions that will be discussed in this paper, the overall \u2018success rate\u2019 (as a percentage of correct responses) for the group was only 56%.<\/p>\n
The following section will deal in turn with four areas in which interesting issues arose:<\/p>\n
\n
- the maxim of quality: irony<\/li>\n
- the maxim of quantity: understated negative evaluation<\/li>\n
- the maxim of relation<\/li>\n
- responses to obvious questions: \u201cpope questions\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
As the following discussion will demonstrate, all of these present potential hazards for pragmatic failure. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
[a] Flouting the maxim of quality: irony<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
Grice (1975) identifies four instances in which the maxim of quality can be flouted: irony, metaphor, meiosis (deliberate understatement), and hyperbole (deliberate exaggeration).\u00a0 He acknowledges that more than one of these can be combined in the one utterance, such as the speaker who says, for example, \u201cyou\u2019re the cream in my coffee\u201d while meaning the opposite.<\/p>\n
The first item was used by Bouton in the original 1988 study and the follow-up, where it is referred to by him as a \u201cviolation of the maxim of relevance\u201d (1994, p. 163). The 1988 study had identified it, in closer agreement with Grice\u2019s well known example (1975, p. 53) of the \u201cfine friend\u201d, as ironic flouting of the maxim of quality.<\/p>\n
(Example 1)<\/strong><\/p>\n
Bill and Peter have been friends since they were children. They shared a house when they were students and travelled together after graduation. Now friends have told Bill that they saw Peter dancing with Bill\u2019s wife while Bill was away on business.<\/p>\n
Bill: Peter knows how to be a really good friend, doesn\u2019t he?<\/p>\n
Which of the following best says what Bill meant?<\/em> <\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Responses from the cohort are shown below. <\/em>Of most interest in this study are the dispreferred answers and why they were chosen.<\/p>\n
Table 1. Responses from the Cohort, Example 1<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n \n Possible response<\/b>\n <\/td>\n \n Learner preferred response<\/b>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (a) Peter is not acting the way a good friend should.\n <\/td>\n \n 5\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (b) Peter and Bill’s wife are becoming really good friends while Bill is away. <\/i>\n <\/td>\n \n 1\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (c) Peter is a good friend and so Bill can trust him. <\/i>\n <\/td>\n \n 2\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (d) Nothing should be allowed to interfere with their friendship.\n <\/td>\n \n 1\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n [Example topic originally proposed by Grice (1975, p. 53), scenario and multiple choice questions, Bouton, (1988, pp. 185, 193-194; 1994, p. 163)]<\/p>\n
If the relationship of friendship and fidelity can be assumed, then the expected answer to this question is (a), a clear example of irony by flouting of the Gricean maxim of quality. Bill finds himself in a situation where he could be expected to be suspicious of Peter, and yet says he knows how to behave like a good friend, therefore this statement incorporates a deliberate reversal of evaluation (Partington, 2007)\u00a0 intended to be noticed by the hearer.<\/p>\n
When Bouton used this item in a follow-up study of uninstructed learning, over 85% of Americans, but only half of the NNS, chose (a). This was an increase from the 33% of the NNS who had selected the expected option in the 1988 sampling, but was nevertheless a significant difference. As Bouton noted:\u00a0 \u201cOn both occasions, those NNS who did not choose (a) . . . chose (c), which seems to be based on an entirely different attitude towards marriage and friendship\u201d (1994, p. 163).<\/p>\n
As outlined above, before completing this task the learners had been shown examples of irony, had taken part in a class discussion and been invited to write a homework activity on cultural attitudes to implicature.\u00a0 (Details of these activities are provided in appendices A and B.) However, comments from the four learners who selected other answers suggested they had been confused by a general unfamiliarity with the situation. One male Indian student remarked said that a person would simply never take advantage of the wife of a friend—it was unthinkable that this could occur. Another was unsure of what the \u2018dancing\u2019 actually implied, and again different cultural behaviours in dance do not necessarily entail the same degree of intimacy between couples.<\/p>\n
The choice of lexis and structure are important in how subtle or obvious irony is intended to be. Learners were asked what would have made Bill\u2019s utterance less ambiguous, and in the resulting discussion the class had the chance to consider what their responses might have been to alternative language forms and contextual and phonological cues. Thus: Peter really<\/span> knows how to be a good friend, doesn\u2019t he?<\/span><\/em> would perhaps be more likely to convey irony than simply Peter knows how to be a good friend<\/em>. A greater use of hyperbole would provide even more intensity.<\/p>\n
Well, Peter is just someone you could trust with your life, isn\u2019t he?<\/em><\/p>\n
Huh, that Peter!\u00a0 The epitome of trustworthiness, the best mate a man ever had . . .<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The choice of an ironic rather than a direct statement has an interpersonal meaning that is not acknowledged in Boutons\u2019 work; it tells us something about the speaker, Bill, and his relationship with the unknown hearer. Developing learners\u2019 understanding of when, why, and with whom a person chooses to speak ironically is an area worthy of further exploration in the teaching of pragmatics, and teachers would benefit from the availability of more sophisticated and culturally informed teaching resources in order to achieve this aim.<\/p>\n
The next item was also classified by Bouton as irony, but realised in a different way.<\/p>\n
(Example 2)<\/strong><\/p>\n
At a recent party, there was a lot of singing and piano playing. At one point, Sue played the piano while Mary sang. When Tom asked a friend what Mary had sung, the friend said:<\/p>\n
Friend: I\u2019m not sure, but Sue was playing \u2018My Wild Irish Rose.\u2019<\/p>\n
Which of the following is the closest to what Tom\u2019s friend meant by this remark?<\/em>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Table 2. Responses from the Cohort, Example 2<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n \n (a) He was only interested in Sue and did not listen to Mary.\n <\/td>\n \n 4\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (b) Mary sang very badly.\n <\/td>\n \n 6\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (c) Mary and Sue were not doing the same song.\n <\/td>\n \n 1\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (d) The song that Mary sang was ‘My Wild Irish Rose.’\n <\/td>\n \n 0\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n [Scenario and multiple choice questions, Bouton (1988, p. 191)]<\/p>\n
The cultural context of singing and piano playing at a party is probably even less familiar to many learners now than it was when this item was designed, and as such the inferred meaning may be less readily comprehensible, particularly in the absence of phonological and paralinguistic cues.\u00a0 It is also more complex in the amount of information that must be processed to understand it: firstly that \u2018My Wild Irish Rose\u2019 is a song; secondly that it is theoretically possible for a person to sing so badly that it is indistinguishable which song they are singing (although this is unlikely to be literally true.)<\/p>\n
In Bouton\u2019s (1988) study, the NS preferred answer was (b), Mary sang very badly<\/em>. In this study around half the learners came to that conclusion. In the follow-up discussion several of the learners argued strongly that the hyperbole was too farfetched; that it was a more credible scenario that a hearer (male) would focus on the woman who had caught his interest and would indicate his disinterest in the other (presumably less attractive one) by ignoring what she said or did. As one learner commented: \u2018He only had eyes for Sue\u2019.<\/p>\n
[b] Flouting the maxim of quantity: Understated negative evaluation <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
This type of implicature is created when a person is asked directly for an opinion about a person, object or action that they do not like, and not wishing to criticise directly, they reply with a favourable comment about a non-central attribute.\u00a0 A breach of this kind may be flouting<\/em>, the intention being to create an implicature, or violating<\/em>, in which the speaker intends to conceal the fact that he or she can find nothing more complimentary to say. The models already given to the learners were the well-known scenario of Jones\u2019s essay, which was described by one academic to another as \u2018well typed\u2019, and the letter of recommendation describing an employee as \u2018punctual\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 These were readily understood and reported to be commonly used in all the cultures represented in the group. However the items designed by Bouton proved to be more challenging for the learners.<\/p>\n
(Example 3) <\/strong><\/p>\n
Two friends are looking over the various kinds of food at an international supper and trying to decide which kinds to try.<\/p>\n
Nida: There are so many different kinds of food here that I can\u2019t decide which to take first. Which do you recommend?<\/p>\n
Trixie: So far I\u2019ve only had some of that one – the yellow one with the reddish sauce. Certainly is colorful, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n
Is Trixie recommending the dish to Nida? How do you know?<\/em>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Table 3. Responses from the Cohort, Example 3<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n \n (a) No, because Trixie talked only about how the dish looked, not about how it tasted.\n <\/td>\n \n 3\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (b) Yes, because dishes that are colorful and attractive usually taste good.\n <\/td>\n \n 3\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (c) No, because Trixie hasn’t tried any other dishes to compare the colorful one with.\n <\/td>\n \n 4\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (d) Yes, since Trixie mentioned the dish, we know she thinks it’s good.\n <\/td>\n \n 1\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n [Scenario and multiple choice questions, Bouton (1988, p. 185)]<\/p>\n
The responses to this question varied widely, with only three respondents selecting Bouton\u2019s preferred answer [a]. One confounding factor here may be the length and amount of information in Trixie\u2019s response. In this example there are two separate items of information that must be processed: \u2018So <\/strong>far I\u2019ve only had some of the yellow one with the reddish sauce\u2019<\/em> which qualifies the status of the information she may be able to provide, and \u2018certainly is colorful, isn\u2019t it?\u2019<\/em> the comment from which her opinion may be inferred. Again, the lack of discourse phonology deprives the reader of information which would help to distinguish which of the two is central to the interpretation.<\/p>\n
Certainly, to the Western ear, referring to food as \u2018the yellow one with the reddish sauce\u2019 rather than by its content (chicken, beef, vegetables) could be interpreted as mildly derisive; it can hardly be complimentary to imply that the content of the food was not identifiable.\u00a0 The three students who selected option (c) were all from Indian backgrounds and, as one of them remarked, the significance of colour in judgement of the quality of food may not be the same in all contexts. The choice of such a culturally ambiguous attribute as a vehicle for the delivery of faint praise introduces an additional layer of complexity to the question.<\/p>\n
Faint praise of a third party (whether Jones\u2019s essay or the international food) is inclusive of the hearer and the implied meaning is usually meant to be understood. The situation is different when the hearer or some aspect of their behavior, property or performance is the subject of evaluation. If offence or confrontation is to be avoided, then a margin is left for the hearer to misinterpret what is said, (or a face-saving option to feign non-comprehension) and non-observance of the maxim of quantity usually takes the form of a violation. It is also well documented that that there may be very different cultural responses to the sanctity of frankness (Wierzbicka, 2003).\u00a0 There are indeed occasions where a polite untruth may be the most appropriate response, but many English speakers would feel compromised if they breached the maxim of quality with a direct lie. This is shown in example 4 below.<\/p>\n
(Example 4) <\/strong><\/p>\n
Brenda and Sally have lunch every Tuesday. As they meet on this particular day, Brenda stops, twirls like a fashion model, and the following dialogue occurs:<\/p>\n
Brenda: I just got a new dress. How do you like it?<\/p>\n
Sally: Well, there certainly are a lot of women wearing it this year. When did you get it?<\/p>\n
How does Sally like Brenda\u2019s new dress?<\/em>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Table 4. Responses from the Cohort, Example 4<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n \n (a) We can’t tell from what she says.\n <\/td>\n \n 1\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (b) She thinks Brenda has good taste in clothes because she’s right in fashion.\n <\/td>\n \n 0\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (c) She likes the dress, but too many women are wearing it.\n <\/td>\n \n 5\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (d) She doesn’t like it.\n <\/td>\n \n 4\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n [Scenario and multiple choice questions, Bouton (1988, p. 194)]<\/p>\n
The fact that this type of interaction is fundamentally different to the one of lecturers discussing the work of an absent student is not acknowledged by Bouton, although the differences in frequency of expected responses obtained by NS and NNS respondents in his data, (64: 43% respectively), attest to its greater difficulty.<\/p>\n
Once its relevance has been established, there are two possible interpretations of Sally\u2019s response. \u2018Well, there certainly are a lot of women wearing it this year\u2019 <\/em>could mean firstly that the dress is fashionable (good) or too common (bad). Less than half of the group chose the expected answer, with its implied interpretation (common = bad). This may be attributable to the phrasing of the question, which asks respondents to identify Brenda\u2019s real opinion, rather than what she is trying to convey to her friend. The layers of complexity in this example which limited its usefulness as a research tool provided ample opportunity for cross cultural awareness-raising in the classroom context, particularly varying expectations regarding truthfulness and tact.<\/p>\n
[c] Flouting of the maxim of relation<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
Several questions were included in which a seemingly irrelevant remark was made in order to generate an implicature. The first was used in unmodified form from Bouton\u2019s test battery, and was relatively unproblematic.<\/p>\n
(Example 5)<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nTwo roommates are talking. One has just been talking on the telephone to a woman that he was going to take to see a play.<\/p>\n
David: Darn it! Mandy just broke our <\/strong>date for the play. Now I\u2019ve got two tickets for Saturday night and no one to go with.<\/p>\n
Mark: Hey, David. Have you ever met my sister? She\u2019s coming down to see me this weekend.<\/p>\n
David: No, I don\u2019t think so. <\/strong>Why?<\/p>\n
What was Mark\u2019s reason for mentioning that his sister was coming? <\/em>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Table 5. Responses from the Cohort, Example 5<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n \n (a) Mark is just thinking ahead to the weekend and can’t remember whether David has met his sister or not.\n <\/td>\n \n 0\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (b) There is nothing Mark can do to help his friend, so he is mentioning a problem of his own. <\/i>\n <\/td>\n \n 1\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (c) Mark is suggesting that David take Mark’s sister to the play.<\/i>\n <\/td>\n \n 9\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (d) Mark wants to be sure that David knows that the woman he is with this weekend is his sister and not a new girlfriend.\n <\/td>\n \n 1\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n [Scenario and multiple choice questions, Bouton (1988, p. 191)]<\/p>\n
Nine of 11 learners successfully interpreted this implicature, one offering the explanation that making a direct suggestion, like \u201cWhy don\u2019t you take my sister instead?\u201d would be a potential face threat. This provided an opportunity for a cross cultural examination of how much a person could impose in a friendship—a revisiting of the concept of positive and negative politeness, (Brown & Levinson, 1987) and the ways in which cultures could favour solidarity or deference politeness. (Wierzbicka, 2003).\u00a0\u00a0 The learner who selected answer (d) volunteered the explanation that in his culture it was uncomfortable for a man being seen in the company of a woman who was not known to be a member of his family—that it could cause gossip and diminish his social standing. As such, it was his response to the specific topic and context which made it difficult for him to interpret the intended implicature.<\/p>\n
One feature which could have rendered this question more difficult than some of the others is the response made in the third move by the interlocutor, which could indicate that either he has genuinely not understood the implicature or wishes to create the impression of not having understood it. Bouton\u2019s reason for choosing this, or for a general lack of consistency in response slots across the sample, is not clear. Although the multiple choice responses in Boutons\u2019 studies were generated empirically this was not the case with the scenarios and opening utterances. As noted above, it is a challenge for quantitative researchers to create scenarios that do not have hidden complexities and are of genuinely comparable difficulty.<\/p>\n
The inconsistency of the items in terms of the absence or presence of a response slot could also have influenced the results in examples 6 and 7.\u00a0 Again, these were taken in unaltered form from Bouton\u2019s test battery.<\/p>\n
(Example 6) <\/strong><\/p>\n
When Abe got home, he found that his wife had to use a walking stick in order to walk.<\/p>\n
Abe: What happened to your leg?<\/p>\n
Wife: I went jogging.<\/p>\n
Another way Abe\u2019s wife could have said the same thing is . . .<\/em>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Table 6. Responses from the Cohort, Example 6<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n \n (a) Today I finally got some exercise jogging.\n <\/td>\n \n 0\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (b) I hurt it jogging.\n <\/td>\n \n 8\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (c) It’s nothing serious. Don’t worry about it.\n <\/td>\n \n 0\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (d) I hurt it doing something silly.\n <\/td>\n \n 3\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n [Scenario and multiple choice questions, Bouton (1988, p. 185; 1994, p. 165)]<\/p>\n
In this example, the subject matter seemed superficially to offer less opportunity for confusion, but clearly personal perceptions and values as well as language limitations can influence the interpretation of implicatures. One of the learners who selected response (d) was of the opinion that jogging was silly, while another made a guess because she was unsure of the meaning of the word.<\/p>\n
The next relation-breach question had to be slightly adapted in order to match the southern hemisphere climate. Seven of 11 learners interpreted the implicature in line with expectations.<\/p>\n
(Example 7)<\/strong> <\/p>\n
\nSusan and Mei-ling are students sharing a flat in Sydney and are getting ready to go to class together.<\/p>\n
Mei-ling: Is <\/strong>it very cold out this morning?<\/p>\n
Susan: It\u2019s December.<\/p>\n
What is Susan saying?<\/em> <\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Table 7. Responses from the Cohort, Example 7<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n \n (a) It’ll be nice and warm today. Don’t worry.\n <\/td>\n \n 7\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (b) Yes, even though it’s December, it’s very cold out.\n <\/td>\n \n 2\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (c) It’s so warm for this time of year that it seems like December.\n <\/td>\n \n 2\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (d) Yes, we’re sure having crazy weather, aren’t we?\n <\/td>\n \n 0\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n [Scenario and multiple choice questions, Bouton (1988, p. 194), Roever (2007, p. 187)]<\/p>\n
Roever (2007) used a very similar item in his study of study of differential item functioning; the investigation of instances when a test item confers an advantage on one group of test takers over another. This item appeared to advantage the German reference group in comparison to the East and South East Asian focal group. Roever was unable to identify a definite reason, but speculates: \u201cIt is possible that the item content (referring to August weather in southern California) may have confused local group test takers in some way\u201d (2007, p. 183).<\/p>\n
In the classroom, the extra processing load resulting from a lack of familiarity with the context may have explained the increased prevalence of non-standard responses. The adaptation was actually counterproductive, as several learners from the northern hemisphere commented that they were more confused by the amended seasonal reference. The lack of a response slot in Bouton\u2019s original test item could also have increased the difficulty of this question. Also, the absence of phonological cues indicating impatience or exasperation could also have been a more significant factor in this example than it was in the others, as there was little other contextual evidence to suggest the speaker was intending to convey annoyance.<\/p>\n
It could also be argued that the item was confusing because of a mismatch in the low level of implied benevolence in Susan\u2019s answer, and the multiple choice paraphrase, which incorporated a supportive \u2018Don\u2019t worry\u2019.\u00a0 When asked to comment on what was happening in this exchange, most saw genuine reassurance. Only one student volunteered \u2018ask a silly question, get a silly answer\u2019.<\/p>\n
For primary and secondary teachers, who are regularly asked \u201csilly questions\u201d by learners with a range of motivations, this particular type of implicature was highly salient.\u00a0 The inability to distinguish between an utterance that is gently cajoling or bitingly sarcastic can have a long term negative impact on teacher-student and other workplace relationships. This was exactly the kind of pragmatic competence issue that had been mentioned by the school principals when the PEAT was designed.<\/p>\n
Generating a set of obvious or \u2018silly\u2019 questions that a teacher might be asked, recording spontaneous verbal responses and then exploring the match between speaker intent and both the lexicogrammatical and phonological features of their rejoinders could provide the opportunity for these student to notice and possibly pre-empt serious pragmatic failure.<\/p>\n
A different reason for flouting the maxim of relation occurs in the next example, adapted by Roever (2006) from Bouton (1999), and concerning the degree of certainty with which a piece of information is known to be true.<\/p>\n
(Example 8) <\/strong><\/p>\n
Jack is talking to his housemate Sarah about another housemate, Frank.<\/p>\n
Jack: \u2018Do you know where Frank is, Sarah?\u2019<\/p>\n
Sarah: \u2018Well, I heard music from his room earlier.\u2019<\/p>\n
What does Sarah probably mean?<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Table 8. Responses from the Cohort, Example 8<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n \n (a) Frank forgot to turn the music off.\n <\/td>\n \n 2\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (b) Frank’s loud music bothers Sarah.\n <\/td>\n \n 0\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (c) Frank is probably in his room.\n <\/td>\n \n 8\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n (d) Sarah doesn’t know where Frank is.\n <\/td>\n \n 2\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n [Scenario and questions, Roever (2006, p. 238; 2007, p. 167)]<\/p>\n
The same maxim is flouted as in examples 5-7 but the interpersonal meaning is quite different. When Sarah commences her utterance with a hedging \u2018well\u2019 it could be taken as an indication of the possibility of ignorance, which points to a clash of maxims. If Sarah has genuine doubts about the status of her knowledge, she may be choosing to deliberately flout the maxim of relation rather than risk breaching the maxim of quality.\u00a0 Without any phonological evidence of the manner in which \u2018well\u2019 is said, it becomes difficult to distinguish between these two possibilities.<\/p>\n
There are cultural variations in the amount of certainty required before a piece of information can be directly stated (Keenan, 1976) and the loss of face that may be incurred when a speaker oversteps the boundary of certain knowledge.\u00a0 These may well have influenced the decision of two of these learners, one Japanese and one Korean, who stated that they had chosen option (d) because Sarah had not indicated that she knew for sure where Frank was. A confirming response from Jack might have reduced the range of possible interpretations. However, the flaw in the clarity of the example actually presented a useful opportunity for an exploration of the differential cultural attitudes to certainty.\u00a0 From a learning perspective the importance of this is not the actual generalisations made by learners about their own cultures (which may or may not have been accurate) but the fact that they became aware that this was a point where different perspectives could potentially exist.<\/p>\n
The next question also involved the maxim of relation but differed in that a confirmation move was included.\u00a0 Eight of 10 responses corresponded to the expected answer.<\/p>\n
(Example 9) <\/strong><\/p>\n
Frank wanted to know what time it was, but he didn\u2019t have a watch.<\/p>\n
Frank: What time is it, Helen?<\/p>\n
Helen: The postman has been here.<\/p>\n
Frank: Okay. Thanks.<\/p>\n
What message does Frank probably get from what Helen says?<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Table 9. Responses from the Cohort, Example 9<\/strong><\/p>\n
![](\"http:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej58\/a4fig1.jpg\")