“I don’t think” versus “I think + not”
-
Peyman G. P. Sabet
Peyman Sabet received his PhD in applied linguistics from Curtin University and is currently teaching ESL at Curtin University, Australia. His research interests include vague language, pragmatics, applied linguistics and teacher education. His most recent book is
Communicating through Vague Language: A Comparative Study of L1 and L2 Speakers (2015, Palgrave Macmillan).Grace Zhang received her PhD in linguistics from University of Edinburgh and is currently full professor at Curtin University, Australia. Her research interests include vague language, pragmatics, applied linguistics and Chinese linguistics. Her most recent book is
Elastic Language: How and Why We Stretch Our Words (2015, Cambridge University Press).
Abstract
This paper explores an overlooked yet intriguing phenomenon: the different preferences of first language (L1) and second language (L2) groups in the use of I don’t think and I think+not. Based on naturally occurring data from linguistically and culturally contrastive groups of American English speakers, Chinese and Persian English speakers, this study finds that I don’t think highlights the speaker’s opinion, and I think+not focuses on the content conveyed. There is a correlation between the negative power and the distance between I think and the negative marker: the closer the two, the stronger the negativity. While I don’t think has more negativity force, I think+not has more mitigating weight and can be employed as a politeness strategy. The L1 speakers differ from the L2 speakers but are closer to the Chinese than the Persians; the striking variations occur between the L1 speakers and the Persians. The Persians are found to be the most indirect; the Chinese are more direct than the Persians but less direct than the L1 speakers. The differences between L1 and L2 groups relate to the first-language transfer and cultural influence. This study implies that different varieties of English use need to be addressed in language teaching.
About the authors
Peyman Sabet received his PhD in applied linguistics from Curtin University and is currently teaching ESL at Curtin University, Australia. His research interests include vague language, pragmatics, applied linguistics and teacher education. His most recent book is Communicating through Vague Language: A Comparative Study of L1 and L2 Speakers (2015, Palgrave Macmillan).
Grace Zhang received her PhD in linguistics from University of Edinburgh and is currently full professor at Curtin University, Australia. Her research interests include vague language, pragmatics, applied linguistics and Chinese linguistics. Her most recent book is Elastic Language: How and Why We Stretch Our Words (2015, Cambridge University Press).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Srikant Sarangi (the editor of this journal) and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback and helpful suggestions, which have been incorporated into this paper. Thanks also go to Aileen Doyle (the editorial assistant) for her support. We acknowledge, with gratitude, the research grant (RATLD) awarded by School of Education, Curtin University, Australia.
Appendix. Transcription conventions
[words] overlapping speech
(xx) indecipherable
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives, 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110889932.1Search in Google Scholar
Behnam, Biook & Masoumeh Niroomand. 2011. An investigation of Iranian EFL learners’ use of politeness strategies and power relations in disagreement across different proficiency levels. English Language Teaching 4(4). 204–220.10.5539/elt.v4n4p204Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, Marianne & Diane Larsen-Freeman. 1983. The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Rowley: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar
Chan, Anna Yukyee. 2013. Discourse analysis of Chinese speakers’ indirect and contrary to face-value reponses to survey interview questions. In Yuling Pan & Dániel Zoltan Kádár (eds.), Chinese discourse and interaction, 175–199. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Ltd.Search in Google Scholar
He, Anping & Manfei Xu. 2003. Zhongguo daxuesheng Yingyu kouyu small words de yanjiu [Small words in spoken English of university students in China]. Waiyu Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu [Foreign Language Teaching and Research] 6. 446–452. (in Chinese).Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1990. Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and Communication 10. 185–205.10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-SSearch in Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1978. Remarks on neg-raising. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, 129–220. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368873_007Search in Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2010. Position and scope of epistemic phrases in planned and unplanned American English. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch & Stefan Schneider (eds.), New approaches to hedging, 203–236. Bingley, UK: Emerald.10.1163/9789004253247_011Search in Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1964. Negation in English. In Jerry A. Fodor & Jerrold J. Katz (eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Binmei. 2013. Effect of first language on the use of English discourse markers by L1 Chinese speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 45(1). 149–172.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.002Search in Google Scholar
Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Yuan Kui Shen, Aviva Presser Aiden, Adrian Veres, Matthew K. Gray, The Google Books Team, Joseph P. Pickett, Dale Hoiberg, Dan Clancy, Peter Norvig, Jon Orwant, Steven Pinker, Martin A. Nowak & Erez Lieberman Aiden. 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331(6014).176–182.10.1126/science.1199644Search in Google Scholar
Nikula, Tarja. 1997. Interlanguage view on hedging. In Raija Markkanen & Hartmut Schröder (eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 188–207. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110807332.188Search in Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita M. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Maxwell J. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008Search in Google Scholar
Sabet, Peyman & Grace Zhang. 2015. Communicating through vague language: A comparative study of L1 and L2 speakers. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137486387Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Gene H. Lerner. 2009. Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2). 91–115.10.1080/08351810902864511Search in Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611841Search in Google Scholar
Shen, Yingying. 2008. Mohu xianzhiyu ‘I think’ de yuyong gongneng yu cidian yingyong [The pragmatic functions and lexicographical application of ‘I think’ as a hedge]. Sheke Zongheng [Horizon of Social Sciences] 4. 305–307. (in Chinese).Search in Google Scholar
Swan, Michael. 1995. Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Thornbury, Scott. 2006. An A-Z of ELT: A dictionary of terms and concepts used in English language teaching. Oxford: Macmillan Education.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Lifei & Weihua Zhu 2005. Zhongguo xuesheng Yingyu kouyu zhong huayu biaojiyu de shiyong yanjiu [The use of discourse markers in Chinese learners of spoken English]. Waiyu Yanjiu [Foreign Languages Research] 3. 42–46. (in Chinese).Search in Google Scholar
Wu, Yong, Jingli Wang & Zhou Cai. 2010. The use of I think by Chinese EFL learners: A study revisited. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 33(1). 3–23.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Grace. 2011. Elasticity of vague language. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(4). 571–599.10.1515/iprg.2011.026Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Grace. 2014. The elasticity of I think: Stretching its pragmatic functions. Intercultural Pragmatics 11. 225–257.10.1515/ip-2014-0010Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Grace. 2015. Elastic language: How and why we stretch our words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139236218Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Grace & Peyman Sabet. 2016. Elastic ‘I think’: Stretching over L1 and L2. Applied Linguistics 37(3). 334–353.10.1093/applin/amu020Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- The discourse connector list: a multi-genre cross-cultural corpus analysis
- Using prosodic cues to identify dialogue acts: methodological challenge
- Embodiment in Moroccan Arabic storytelling: language, stance and discourse analysis
- Father identities constructed through meaning choices: a systemic-functional analysis of fathers’ letters in Dad Where Are We Going
- “I don’t think” versus “I think + not”
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- The discourse connector list: a multi-genre cross-cultural corpus analysis
- Using prosodic cues to identify dialogue acts: methodological challenge
- Embodiment in Moroccan Arabic storytelling: language, stance and discourse analysis
- Father identities constructed through meaning choices: a systemic-functional analysis of fathers’ letters in Dad Where Are We Going
- “I don’t think” versus “I think + not”
