Impossible requests l2 users sociopragma

Anna Ewert Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań Katarzyna Bromberek-Dyzman Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań Impossible requests: L2 users’ sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic choices in L1 acts of refusal To appear in EUROSLA Yearbook (2008) Impossible requests: L2 users’ pragmalinguistic choices in L1 acts of refusal Abstract: The study compares pragmalinguistic knowledge of the L1 in non-routine situations in L2 users and L2 learners, aiming to see to what extent pragmalinguistic behaviours in the L1 are influenced by exposure to the L2 The first part of the paper discusses the nature of bilingual language knowledge and transfer in multicompetence In the experiment, refusals to untypical requests were elicited by means of a DCT The L2 users in this study appear to be “more native than the native speaker” (Cook et al 2003) in their choice of semantic formulas, as compared to monolingual speakers of their L1 Since pragmatic transfer is ruled out by the baseline data from native speakers of English, an alternative explanation is proposed, based on the L2 users’ increased sensitivity to interactional demands (Genesee, Tucker and Lambert 1975), more varied experience at social interaction and changed perception of their L1 Impossible requests: L2 users’ pragmalinguistic choices in L1 acts of refusal Introduction The focus of this paper is on pragmalinguistic aspects of the first language of L2 users living in their home country An L2 user is defined here after Cook (2002) as any person who uses a second language for a real-life purpose, for example receiving education through the medium of the L2 The aim of the study is to see whether the fact of knowing and using another language will influence our subjects’ pragmalinguistic behaviours in their L1, Polish We are going to examine similarities and differences in the frequency of use of semantic formulas in L1 acts of refusal by two groups of subjects differing in L2 proficiency and amount of exposure to the L2, English In Cook’s (1991, 2002, 2003) view, the two languages in the L2 user’s mind are interconnected, forming a unitary multicompetence, rather than two entirely separate systems Multicompetence is defined simply as “the knowledge of more than one language in the same mind” (Cook 2002: 10) Discussing evidence for multicompetence, Cook (1992) quotes a number of differences between L2 users and monolinguals The differences that are relevant for our present discussion concern L2 effect on L1, differences in metalinguistic knowledge and aspects of cognitive processing (discussed in section 2) In the multicompetence model the two languages of an L2 user are integrated at different levels of language use – there are varying degrees of separation/integration between them Another conceptualization of bilingual language knowledge is Herdina and Jessner’s (2002) Dynamic Model of Multilingualism, in which all the languages of a multilingual are separate but interacting subsystems in a dynamic system: “language itself is in a constant flow, and so are the language systems in a multilingual, depending on the various factors involved in the language acquisition process” (Herdina nad Jessner 2002: 75) The dynamic model is consistent with the multicompetence view (Cook 2003, Jessner 2003) and might be seen as a reconceptualization of the multicompetence construct within Dynamic Systems Theory (see also de Bot et al 2007 for a recent overview of DST in SLA) Another reconceptualization of multicompetence belongs to the so-called reconceptualized SLA (Lafford 2007) Hall, Cheng and Carlson (2006) adopt a socialinteractionist and emergentist approach to language, in which all language knowledge is inherently dynamic, variable, “provisional and sensitive to renegotiation and renewal” (Hall et al 2006: 230); “rather than a prerequisite to performance, language knowledge is an emergent property of it, developing from its locally-situated uses in culturally-framed and discursivelypatterned communicative activities” (Hall et al 2006: 228) In this approach, differences between bilingual and monolingual performance result from the bilinguals’ richer and more varied experiences of social interaction in more varied communicative contexts Hence, it is the more varied social activity and learning experience of the multi-competent speaker, who operates in more diversified social and cultural contexts, that gives rise to differences between monolinguals and multilinguals Transfer in multicompetence The concept of transfer, often referred to as transfer of learning, transfer of training, or transfer of knowledge, was first introduced in psychological research on behaviour (Thorndike and Woodworth 1901a,b,c) In psychology, transfer relates to “[w]hat occurs when the learning of one activity influences the learning of a second ability” (Sprinthall and Sprinthall 1987: 576) This differs considerably from operationalizations of linguistic transfer in SLA research which, in the error analysis tradition, assume the influence of the structures of one language on the structures of another language or, in the words of Sharwood Smith and Kellerman (1986: 1): “incorporation of elements from one language into another” A similar approach has been advocated in pragmatics by Kasper, who defines pragmatic transfer as “the influence exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information” (1992: 207) While such operationalizations are methodologically convenient, they leave out a great deal of relationships and cross-interactions between the two or more languages in multicompetence As Odlin (1989: 28) remarks, the basic problem with defining transfer is that “a fully adequate definition of transfer presupposes a fully adequate definition of language” Since the different views of the nature of bilingual language knowledge (see above) are, as a matter of fact, different views of language, each approach defines transfer somewhat differently To Cook, transfer is simply an effect of the integration of two language systems: “The verb transfer implies that someone moves something from one place to another [ ] language acquisition or use is not transferring something from one part of the mind to another, but two systems accommodating to each other” (Cook 2002: 18) Herdina and Jessner (2002) choose to extend Sharwood Smith and Kellerman’s (1986) construct of crosslinguistic influence (CLI) to fit a dynamic model of language They propose crosslinguistic interaction (CLIN) as “an umbrella term for all the existing transfer phenomena [ ] These phenomena result from the interaction of two or more language systems”, as well as “non-predictable dynamic effects that result from the development of the systems themselves” (Herdina and Jessner 2002: 29) In their view, transfer is intermodular, which means that it takes place not only between the language module and a more general cognitive domain as well While these views of transfer constitute a radical departure from the traditional understanding of it as incorporation of elements from one language to another, they are supported by empirical research: transfer is bidirectional (e.g Pavlenko and Jarvis 2002) and intermodular in the sense that bilingualism affects certain aspects of cognitive processing (cf Bialystok 2005) Transfer from the L2 to the L1 has been documented by a number of studies (e.g Pavlenko and Jarvis 2002, Cook et al 2003, Balcom 2003, Jarvis 2003, Pavlenko 2003, Marian and Kaushanskaya 2007) Quite obviously, the L2 does not affect all areas of the L1 to the same degree and the effect of L2 on L1 can not always be predicted in advance Examining productivity and lexical diversity in acculturated L2 users’ narratives, Dewaele and Pavlenko (2003: 137) conclude that “some areas of pragmatic knowledge are either unaffected or less affected by L2 influence” The differences between L2 users and monolinguals extend well beyond the linguistic domain Bilinguals differ from monolinguals on aspects of cognitive processing related to attentional control (see Bialystok 2005 for a review of relevant research) By virtue of learning and using two different linguistic codes, bilingual children develop a better metalinguistic awareness than monolinguals (see Bialystok 2001 for a review), which implies that they pay more attention to the formal properties of language What is more, L2 users also seem to have a different knowledge about communication Genesee, Tucker and Lambert (1975), in a study of children in bilingual immersion and monolingual education programmes, have found that the bilinguals are more sensitive to interlocutor needs in interpersonal communication, which is shown by their providing more specific information to blindfolded interlocutors while explaining the rules of a game than the monolinguals did The study also shows the effect of the amount of exposure to the L2 on the degree of specificity of information provided in the L1 to blindfolded as opposed to seeing interlocutors Increased attention to the properties of the linguistic code and the requirements of a particular communicative situation shows that discussion of L2 effects on L1 cannot be limited to transfer effects In a study of bilingual sentence processing, Cook et al (2003) show that Japanese-English bilinguals demonstrate higher preference for animate subjects in their L1 than monolingual native speakers of Japanese, which cannot be an effect of transfer from the L2 English In a sense, the Japanese bilinguals in this study have become more Japanese in their L1 than the monolingual native speakers Cook et al (2003: 212) ascribe this effect to a change in cognitive processing and “the overall changed state of the L2 user (i.e their multicompetence) rather than to the specific effects of learning a particular second language” Cenoz (2003a), reviewing research on the effects of bilingualism on third language acquisition, states that the effect of bilingualism is global rather than local She concludes her review by stating that “bilingualism affects cognition, metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills and these in turn affect third language acquisition” (Cenoz 2003a: 82) Since all the languages in multicompetence are interconnected and the relationship between them is reciprocal, this statement may be paraphrased as: bilingualism affects cognitive aspects of attention and perception, language awareness and linguistic sensitivity and these, in turn, affect L1 perception Pragmalinguistic aspects of multicompetence 3.1 Crosslinguistic influences in pragmatics The pragmalinguistic aspect of multicompetence has been studied most of all by interlanguage pragmatics, defined as “L2 learners’ developing (unstable, deficient, permeable) pragmatic knowledge” (Kasper 1992: 207) The primary objective of this research was utilitarian in assumption, aiming at improving the process of teaching and learning a second language While interlanguage pragmatics has developed research instruments that can be used outside of its original domain, its underlying concepts and definitions seem to be unnecessarily limiting One such concept is pragmatic transfer, defined as “the influence exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information” (Kasper 1992: 207) Kasper (1992) deliberately excludes from her definition other kinds of crosslinguistic influence than incorporation of elements from one language into another, such as for example L2 influence on L1 If we agree that transfer is intermodular, than there seems to be no reason why a situation in which bilinguals deviate from the pragmalinguistic norms of both L1 and L2 should not be classified as an instance of transfer or crosslinguistic influence The Hall et al (2006) reconceptualized approach seems far more suitable for the study of the pragmalinguistic aspect of multicompetence, although they not tackle the issue of pragmatic transfer In their view: language knowledge [is] comprised of dynamic constellations of linguistic resources, the shapes and meanings of which emerge from continual interaction between internal, domain-general cognitive constraints on the one hand and one’s pragmatic pursuits in his or her everyday worlds on the other, that is through language use (Hall, Cheng and Carlson 2006: 226) Differences between monolinguals and bilinguals not originate in the linguistic code per se, but in “the amount and quality of exposure to variable linguistic forms, and, more generally, the unique social contexts and pragmatically-based communicative activities that individuals encounter in the process of becoming multilingual” (Hall, Cheng and Carlson 2006: 230) Although transfer is not mentioned explicitly here, this view is the opposite of Kasper’s (1992) understanding of pragmatic tranfer as incorporation of elements from one language into another It is closer to the original understanding of transfer as transfer of knowledge than to traditional conceptualizations of linguistic transfer Unfortunately, when such a view is adopted, we have few ways and means of ascertaining what constitutes this knowledge, i.e what is transferred, unless a difference between bilinguals and monolinguals can be demonstrated Such a view is compatible with the basic assumption of bidirectionality and intermodularity of transfer Although L2 users’ pragmalinguistic behaviours in L1 have fallen beyond the scope of interest of interlanguage pragmatics, several studies have in fact examined this aspect of multicompetence using the methodology of interlanguage pragmatics Blum-Kulka (1991), studying American immigrants in Israel, came to the conclusion that bilinguals develop an intercultural style of speaking that is both related to and distinct from the styles prevalent in their two languages and they tend to rely on this intercultural style regardless of the language being used Cenoz (2003b) confirmed the development of an intercultural style in requests made by Spanish students of English living in Spain Silva (2000) found out that Americans living in Brazil are much closer to Portuguese monolinguals in their metapragmatic judgements than Brazilians living in the US for years or more who, in turn, have become more like the Americans in their L1 Portuguese Marti (2006), in her study of requests made by Turkish-German returnees, found that the bilinguals tend to be more indirect in their L1 than monolingual speakers of Turkish 3.2 Refusals Linguistic behaviours we engage in while interacting with other language users are speech acts (Searle 1969) Speech acts performed in different languages differ in their form, function and usage (e.g Wierzbicka 1985) The same speech act may be realized differently across cultures, following specific sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic patterns of usage While the term pragmalinguistic refers to the particular linguistic resources employed to convey a particular illocution, sociopragmatic refers to differential use of language in different social situations and while addressing interlocutors of different social standing (Leech 1983) Refusals are inherently face-threatening acts The concept of face, developed by Brown and Levinson (1978) relates to the public image of themselves and their interlocutors that the participants want to maintain in the course of their interaction Refusals are particularly taxing speech acts to perform, since the possibility of offending an interlocutor is inherent in the very act of refusing Contrary to some other speech acts, like requests or apologies (e.g Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984), refusals have been relatively understudied Chronologically speaking, the Beebe and Cummings (1985) study has been the first one to address refusal strategies as utilized by native speakers of English Beebe, Takahashi and Ullis-Weltz (1990) have found instances of pragmatic transfer from the L1 in acts of refusal performed by Japanese speakers of English The study was an important one also in providing a methodology that was used in 10 [Put tables 1-4 about here] Table 1: Frequency of semantic formulas used by L2 users and L2 learners in the equal interlocutor status condition L2 users L2 learners t p Mean SD Mean SD Direct refusal 72 45 73 45 0.1398 0.8889 Regret 83 38 51 50 4.9839 0.0001* Excuse/reason/ explanation 85 36 79 41 1.1290 0.2603 Gratitude/ appreciation 01 10 00 00 0.8897 0.3748 Willingness 04 19 00 00 1.8054 0.0726 Alternative 46 50 44 50 0.2981 7659 Off the hook 00 00 01 11 1.1241 0.2624 Self-defence 32 47 18 39 2.2426 0.0261* Hedging 08 28 05 21 1.0084 0.3146 Postponement 01 10 00 00 0.8897 0.3748 Statement of preference 01 10 01 11 0.1649 0.8692 Condition/if 01 10 00 00 0.8897 0.3748 * statistically significant difference Table 2: Frequency of semantic formulas used by L2 users and L2 learners in the higher interlocutor status condition L2 users L2 learners t p Mean SD Mean SD Direct refusal 53 50 55 50 0.2638 7922 Regret 57 50 33 47 3.2668 0013* Excuse/reason/ explanation 75 44 55 50 2.8999 0042* Gratitude/ appreciation 05 21 05 21 0.0144 0.9885 Willingness 02 14 04 19 0.7176 0.4739 Alternative 07 25 08 28 0.4510 0.6525 Off the hook 01 10 00 00 0.8897 0.3748 Self-defence 41 49 15 36 3.8957 0001* Hedging 17 38 19 40 0.3672 0.7138 Postponement 09 29 18 39 1.7100 0889 Statement of preference 11 32 08 29 0.6789 0.4980 Condition/if 10 31 12 33 0.3318 0.7404 Repetition 00 00 01 11 1.1241 0.2624 Criticism 11 32 12 33 0.1243 0.9012 Other/unspecific/ indefinite reply 01 10 07 26 2.2720 0.0242* Agreement 00 00 02 15 1.5994 0.1141 * statistically significant difference Table 3: Frequency of semantic formulas used by L2 users and L2 learners in the lower interlocutor status condition L2 users L2 learners t p Mean SD Mean SD Direct refusal 50 50 50 50 0.0000 1.0000 Regret 25 43 24 43 0.1143 0.9091 Excuse/reason/ explanation 64 48 64 48 0.0191 0.9847 Willingness 01 10 01 11 0.1649 0.8692 19 Alternative Self-defence Hedging Postponement Statement of preference Condition/if Criticism Agreement 28 03 17 00 45 17 38 00 19 00 08 01 40 00 28 11 1.4797 1.5466 1.7563 1.1241 0.1406 0.1237 0.0807 0.2624 07 20 29 09 23 40 46 29 01 30 23 15 11 46 42 36 1.6272 1.5925 1.0276 1.2668 0.1058 0.1130 0.3055 0.2068 Table 4: Frequency of semantic formulas used by native speakers of English in the three interlocutor status conditions Equal status Higher status Lower status n % n % n % Direct refusal 15.38 15.38 38.46 Negative willingness 30.77 69.23 30.77 Regret 53.85 38.46 61.54 Excuse/reason/ 12 92.31 69.23 69.23 explanation Extended reason 15.38 30.77 0.00 Willingness 0.00 0.00 0.00 Statement of negative opinion 38.46 69.23 7.69 Statement of positive opinion 7.69 0.00 0.00 Alternative 10 76.92 30.77 38.46 Condition/if 0.00 0.00 7.69 Self-defence 7.69 0.00 0.00 Agreement 0.00 0.00 0.00 In the equal interlocutor status condition (Table 1), the semantic formulas that were most frequently used by the informants were: direct refusal, regret, excuse/reason/explanation, alternative and self-defence The L2 users, as compared to L2 learners, expressed regret more often and were more self-defensive The difference is particularly striking in the case of expressions of regret, present in the responses of 85 percent of the L2 users as compared to 51 percent of the L2 learners Neither in the case of regrets nor in the case of self-defence is the difference between the two groups of native speakers of Polish substantiated by the English data Although it has to be remembered that the groups differ in size and composition, the L2 users actually regret and self-defence in L1 more often than the native speakers in English This limits the possibility of pragmatic transfer from English to Polish in the case of the L2 users 20 The most frequent semantic formulas in both groups of respondents in the higher interlocutor status conditions (Table 2) were: direct refusal, regret, and excuse/reason/explanation Additionally, 41 percent of the L2 users expressed self-defence, as compared to 15 percent of the L2 learners The L2 users differed from the L2 learners by expressing direct refusal, regret, excuse/reason/explanation and self-defence more often If any transfer from English is to be claimed in the case of these differences, it might have been in expression of explanation, which was provided by a similar percentage of native speakers of English as in the group of L2 users This, however, is dubious, since the pattern of responses given by native speakers of English was radically different, with expressions of negative opinion and negative willingness figuring as the most frequent semantic formulas next to self-explanations Each of these three formulas was used by out of 13 native speakers of English In addition, a difference appeared between the L2 users and the L2 learners in the number of responses classified as other/unspecific/indefinite reply, which appeared more frequently in the L2 learners’ responses These were often offensive in character, e.g zapomnij! (‘forget it!’), wynocha stąd (‘off you go!’), ta propozycja chyba nie jest poważna (‘this offer can’t be serious’), bujaj się! (‘get lost’), co??? (‘what???’), absurd! (‘nonsense!’), Pan raczy żartować! (‘you must be joking’) No statistically significant differences between the L2 users and L2 learners occurred in the lower interlocutor status condition (Table 3), direct refusal and provision of an excuse, reason and/or explanation being the most frequent formulas in both groups Discussion and conclusion 21 The present study tested the assumption that regular use of a second language affects what L2 users say in particularly taxing social interactions in their L1 The differences found in the frequency of semantic formulas used in acts of refusal by L2 users and L2 learners show that intensity of exposure to the L2 has an influence on the frequency of semantic formulas in refusals to equal and higher status interlocutors Intensity of L2 use does not affect interactions with lower status interlocutors in the L1 While refusing interlocutors of equal and the higher status, the L2 users are more regretful and more self-defensive than the L2 learners, so it can be said that the two groups differ in a systematic way At the same time, the L2 users express regret and self-defence more often that the native speakers of English This means that it is highly unlikely that the differences in the frequency of use of semantic formulas by the two groups of native speakers of Polish are caused by pragmatic transfer from the L2 It is worth noting that in the case of out of observed differences between the groups the L2 users use the same semantic formulas in their L1 refusals but they use them more often than the L2 learners The difference between the groups is quantitative rather than qualitative The L2 users choose the same ways of expressing their refusal as the L2 learners, demonstrating that they perceive the same kind of pragmalinguistic behaviour as communicatively effective and socially appropriate in a particular situation More frequent selection of some of these semantic formulas by one group suggests that these subjects perceive some of these behaviours as more effective and more appropriate in a particular situation In this sense, their pragmatic awareness of L1 is changed because they are more sensitive to culturally-influenced patterns and norms of social interaction in a given speech community Better knowledge of these patterns and norms makes one more sensitive to the interlocutor’s expectations of socially appropriate interaction This interpretation of the L2 users’ pragmalinguistic behaviours is consistent with the findings of Genesee et al (1975) 22 concerning L2 users’ greater perceptiveness of interlocutor needs Our study shows that the L2 users are sensitive not only to informational needs of their interactants but also to their pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic expectations By using the same semantic formulas in their L1 refusals as their peers, the L2 users might be considered more native than the native speaker, to paraphrase the expression originally used by Cook et al (2003: 212) Cook et al (2003) attribute the “more native than the native speaker effect” to the effect of acquiring and using another language, which changes the metalinguistic knowledge of the L2 user, rather than to the effects of learning a specific second language This explanation is consistent with the Hall et al (2006) assumption that the main source of differences between bilinguals and monolinguals is the difference in the totality of experience at using language in different social interaction contexts By acquiring and using different languages L2 users get to know more about language and communication in general and this, in turn, changes their perception of the L1 The L2 users in this study seem to know perfectly well what constitutes a socially appropriate response in an untypical context of social interaction in their L1, what would be acceptable and understandable to their interlocutors, and what would help them maintain their positive face in adverse circumstances As shown by Genesee, Tucker and Lambert (1975), the L2 users are more sensitive to the context of interaction and the requirements it poses, and this is why they make fuller use of their L1 knowledge than the monolinguals Acknowledgment 23 This research was partly financed by grant N104 040 32/3713 from the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education to Anna Ewert We are also grateful to two anonymous reviewers whose remarks helped to present our arguments with more clarity References Balcom, P 2003 “Cross-linguistic influence of L2 English on middle constructions in L1 French” In Effects of the Second Language on the First, V Cook (ed.), 168-192 Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Beebe L.M and Cummings, M.C 1985 “Speech act performance: A function of the data collection procedure?” Paper presented at the TESOL convention New York Beebe, L.M and Cummings, M.C 1996 “Natural speech data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance” In Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language, S M Gass and J N Neu (eds.), 65-86 Berlin New York: Mouton de Gruyter Beebe, L., Takahashi, T and Uliss-Weltz, R 1990 “Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals” In Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, R Scarcella, E.S Andersen and S.D Krashen (eds), 55-73, New York: Newbury House Bialystok, E 2001 Bilingualism in Development: Language Literacy, and Cognition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bialystok, E 2005 “Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development” In Handbook of Bilingualism Psycholinguistic Approaches J.F Kroll and A.M.B de Groot (eds), 417-432 Oxford: Oxford University Press 24 Blum-Kulka, S.1991 “Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests” In Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research, R Philipson, E Kellerman, L Selinker, M Sharwood Smith and M Swain (eds), 255-272 Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Blum-Kulka, S and Olshtain, E 1984 “Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns” Applied Linguistics 5: 196-213 Brown, P and Levinson, S.C 1978 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cenoz, Jasone 2003a “The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: An overview” International Journal of Bilingualism (1): 71-87 Cenoz, Jasone 2003b “The Intercultural Style Hypothesis: L1 and L2 interaction in requesting behavior” In Effects of the Second Language on the First, V Cook (ed.), 6280 Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Chen, H.J 1995 “Metapragmatic judgment on refusals: Its reliability and consistency” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Anaheim, CA, 29 November 1995 (ERIC file: ED391381) Cook, V.J 1991 “The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence” Second Language Research (2): 103-117 Cook, V.J 1992 “Evidence for multicompetence” Language Learning 42 (4): 557-591 Cook, V 2002 “Background to the L2 user” In Portraits of the L2 User V Cook (ed.), 1-27 Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Cook, V 2003 “The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind” In Effects of the Second Language on the First V Cook (ed.), 1-18 Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Cook, V., Iarossi, E., Stellakis, N and Tokumaru, Y 2003 “Effects of the L2 on the syntactic processing of the L1” In Effects of the Second Language on the First, V Cook (ed.), 193-213 Clevedon: Multilingual Matters 25 De Bot, K., Lowie, W and Verspoor, M 2007 “A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1): 7-21 Dewaele, J.-M and Pavlenko, A 2003 “Productivity and lexical diversity in native and nonnative speech: A study of cross-cultural effects” In Effects of the Second Language on the First V Cook (ed.), 120-141, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ewert, A and Bromberek-Dyzman, K 2007 “Declining offers: L2 users' pragmalinguistic choices in L1” In Current Trends in Pragmatics, P Cap and J Nijakowska (eds.), 387409 Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Félix-Brasdefer, J.C 2003 “Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish” Multilingua 22: 225-255 Fraser, B 1981 “On apologizing” In Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, F Coulmas (ed.), 259-271 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Genesee, F., Tucker, G.R and Lambert, W.E 1975 “Communication skills of bilingual children” Child Development 46 (4): 1010-1014 Hall, J.K., Cheng, A and Carlson, M.T 2006 “Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge” Applied Linguistics 27 (2): 220-240 Herdina, P and Jessner, U 2002 A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A and Ogino, T 1986 “Universals of linguistic politeness” Journal of Pragmatics 10: 343-371 Janney, R.W 1999 “The whole truth and nothing but the truth Linguistic avoidance in the O.J Simpson transcripts” In Words, Lexemes, Concepts – Approaches to the Lexicon Studies in Honour of Leonhard Lipka, W Faulkner and H.-J Schmid (eds), 259-272 Tübingen: Gunter Narr 26 Jarvis, S 2003 “Probing the effects of the L2 on L1: A case study” In Effects of the Second Language on the First, V Cook (ed.), 81-102 Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Jessner, U 2003 “A dynamic approach to attrition in multilingual systems” In Effects of the Second Language on the First, V Cook (ed.), 234-246 Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Kasper, G 1992 “Pragmatic transfer” Second Language Research (3): 203-231 Kasper, G and Dahl, M 1991 “Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13: 215-247 King, K.A and Silver, R.E 1993 “Sticking points: Effects of instruction on NNS refusal strategies” Working Papers in Educational Linguistics (1): 47-82 (ERIC file: ED 359774) Kwon, J 2004 “Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English” Multilingua 23: 339-364 Lafford, B.A 2007 “Second Language Acquisition Reconceptualized? The impact of Firth and Wagner (1997)” Modern Language Journal 91 (5): 735–756 Leech G.N 1983 Principles of Pragmatics London: Longman Liao C and Bresnahan, M.L 1996 “A contrastive pragmatic study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies” Language Sciences 18: 703-27 Manes, J and Wolfson, N 1981 “The compliment formula” In Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, F Coulmas (ed.), 115-132 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Marian, V and Kaushanskaya, M 2007 “Cross-linguistic transfer and borrowing in bilinguals” Applied Psycholinguistics 28: 369-390 Marti, L 2006 “Indirectness and politeness in Turkish–German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1836–1869 27 Nelson, G., Carson, J., Al Batal, M and El Bakary, W 2002 “Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals” Applied Linguistics 23 (2): 163-189 Odlin, T 1989 Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Olshtain, E and Cohen, A 1989 “Speech act behavior across languages” In: Transfer in Language Production, H W Dechert and M Raupach (eds.), 53-68 Norwood NJ: Ablex Pavlenko, A 2003 “‘I feel clumsy speaking Russian’: L2 influence on L1 in narratives of Russian L2 users of English” In Effects of the Second Language on the First, V Cook (ed.), 32-61 Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Pavlenko, A and Jarvis, S 2002 “Bidirectional transfer” Applied Linguistics 23 (2): 190214 Searle, J R 1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Sharwood Smith, M and Kellerman, E 1986 “Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition: An introduction” In Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition, E Kellerman and M Sharwood Smith (eds), 1-9 New York: Pergamon Institute of English Silva, R.S 2000 “Pragmatics, bilingualism and the native speaker” Language and Communication 20: 161-178 Sprinthall, N.A and Sprinthall, R.C 1987 Educational Psychology: A Developmental Approach (4th edition) New York: Random House Thorndike, E.L and Woodworth, R.S 1901a “The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions (I)” Psychological Review 8: 247-261 28 Thorndike, E.L and Woodworth, R.S 1901b “The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions (II) The estimation of magnitudes” Psychological Review 8: 384-395 Thorndike, E.L and Woodworth, R.S 1901c “The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions (III) Functions involving attention, observation, and discrimianation” Psychological Review 8: 553-564 Watts, R 2003 Politeness Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Wierzbicka, A 1985 “Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts” Journal of Pragmatics 145-178 Wierzbicka, A 2003 Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction (2nd edition) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Appendix The experimental DCT situations: 29 Situation 1: (Refusing a request made by an equal status interlocutor) You've been living at your new apartment for a month You share the apartment with your friend One day a person who claims to be your friend's cousin appears at the door Your friend is not at home, and will come back late in the evening You must leave for classes The visitor insists on coming in and waiting for your friend at your apartment You don't know the person, and you are not convinced by what they're saying Visitor: Let me in My cousin will be glad to see me We haven't seen each other for so long I'm on a business trip on my way to Cracow I'm staying in Poznań just today, and I wanted to spend this day with my cousin Please, let me in You: Situation 2: (Refusing a request made by a higher status interlocutor) You’re completing your M.A thesis In two weeks' time you will defend it Your supervisor approaches you with the following request You know that this request is illegal, and you don't feel like agreeing However, the defense is still ahead of you Supervisor: Some part of your thesis nicely corroborates my own research I would like to use this part in my own publication My own name will be on the publication Do you agree? You: 30 Situation 3: (Refusing a request made by a lower status interlocutor) You babysit for your sister She had to leave for several days on business and couldn't have taken the child with her John (5 years old) invited his neighbor playmate The kids have been playing together and having good time Unfortunately, they have also made a terrible mess Cleaning up will take more than an hour When John's playmate leaves for lunch, he has a request Kid: May I come in the afternoon? You: Appendix Classification of semantic formulas used in acts of refusal (modified version of the Classification of Refusals in Beebe et al 1990): I Direct A Performative: Odmawiam (‘I refuse’) B Non-performative Nie (‘No’) Negative willingness/ability: Nie mogę (‘I can’t’), nie wydaje mi się (‘I don’t think so’) II Indirect A Statement of regret: Przykro mi (‘I’m sorry’), niestety (‘unfortunately’) B Excuse, reason, explanation: mam już inne plany (‘I already have my own plans’) 31 C Extended reason: Nie mogę Pana wpuścić, ponieważ Pana nie znam, a zawarłam umowę z gospodarzami, że nikogo obcego nie wpuszczę pod ich nieobecność (‘I can’t let you in because I don’t know you, and I promised my hosts that I won’t let in any strangers while they are out.’) D Statement of preference: wolałabym…(‘I’d rather…’), raczej (‘I’d prefer…’), a może byś… (‘Why don’t you…’) E Condition/if: gdyby mnie Pan zapytał wcześniej… (‘If you had asked me earlier…’) F Alternative: A może zaczekasz na zewnątrz? (‘How about waiting outside?’) G Attempt to dissuade interlocutor Statement of negative feeling or opinion: to bardzo kiepski pomysł (‘that’s a terrible idea’) Let interlocutor off the hook: w porządku (‘that’s okay’), nie trzeba (‘you don’t have to’) Self-defence: robię co w mojej mocy (‘I’m trying my best’) Criticism: za kogo Pan się uważa? (‘Who you think you are?’) H Acceptance that functions as a refusal Unspecific or indefinite reply: mowy nie ma (‘forget it!’) Pan raczy żartować (‘you must be joking’) I Avoidance Postponement: zastanowię się (‘I’ll think about it’) Hedging: no nie wiem (‘I’m not sure’) Repetition of part of request: przyjść po południu? (‘come in the afternoon?’) J Agreement: zgadzam się (‘okay’, ‘I agree’) 32 Adjuncts to refusals Statement of positive opinion/feeling: byłoby mi bardzo miło (‘I’d love to…’) Gratitude/appreciation: jestem wdzięczna za pańską propozycję (‘thank you for your proposal’) Willingness: bardzo bym chciała pomóc, ale (‘Id like to help you, but…’) 33