Volume 8, Issue 3

This paper explores the idea that some Discourse Particles are so culturally embedded that they defy translation. Natural Semantic Metalanguage and Conversation Analysis are used to examine the meanings and functions of (a) the polysemous Arabic Discourse Particle ya c ni (derived from ya c ni ‘it means’), translateable with ‘well,’ ‘I mean,’ ‘that it,’ ‘you see,’ ‘like,’ and ‘so,’ and (b) “sorta’ and “I mean,” the main English translation candidates for ya c ni . The findings show that ya c ni 's focus on marking relevance is useful in elaborating, correcting, creating narrative suspense, holding a turn, or, as sole constituent of a turn, hedging a response. Similar English functions are achieved using Discourse Particles that focus approximation. The analysis also shows that semantic or pragmatic similarity in Discourse Particles from different languages can predict translation potential. In the same way, similarity in the meaning of a Discourse Particle and of a speech act predicts translateability. However, despite semantic and pragmatic equivalence (of a sort), culture-specific indices may mean that a word is not a suitable translation candidate. The results augment our understanding of cultural semantics and ethnopragmatics, and have applications to the study of translation and intercultural communication.

This study investigates the contribution of proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction to the recognition and use of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics by host-environment learners of English. An aural recognition task and an oral production task targeting conventional expressions were completed by 122 learners and 49 native speakers of American English via two computer-delivered tasks: The aural recognition task consisted of 60 conventional and modified expressions, and the oral production task consisted of 32 scenarios pretested to yield conventional expressions (Bardovi-Harlig, Language Learning 59: 755–795, 2009). Proficiency was determined by scores on a 3.5-hour, four-part placement exam, yielding four low-intermediate to low-advanced levels. Length of stay in the host environment was measured in months. Intensity of interaction was measured by self-report of weekly English language use outside class with native speakers, daily use with other learners, and television viewing. A repeated measures logistic regression model showed significant influence of intensity of interaction on recognition of conventional expressions. A separate repeated measures logistic regression model showed that both proficiency and intensity of interaction have a significant influence in the production of conventional expressions. Length of stay did not have a significant effect on either recognition or production.

Pragmatic clarity and politeness have been the two major factors in pragmatic competence rules since Grice (Syntax and Semantics 3, 41–58: 1975). Clarity and politeness have been claimed as complementary elements (Lakoff, The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's, University of Chicago, 1973) and politeness as the motivation for indirectness in requests (Searle, Syntax and Semantics 3: 59–82, 1975, Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts, Cambridge University Press, 1979; Gordon and Lakoff, Syntax and Semantics 3: 83–106, 1975; Lakoff, The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's, University of Chicago, 1973, Language and woman's place, Harper and Row, 1975, What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics, and performatives: 79–105, Center of Applied Linguistics, 1977, Annals of the New York Academy of Science 327: 53–78, 1979, Multilingua 8: 101–129, 1989, Talking power: The politics of language in our lives, Basic Books, 1990; Leech, Principles of pragmatics, Longman, 1983; Brown and Levinson, Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena, Cambridge University Press, 1978, Politeness: Some universals in language usage, Cambridge University Press, 1987). However, highly indirect strategies, e.g., hints, may also be perceived as lacking in politeness because of a lack of concern for pragmatic clarity (Blum-Kulka, Journal of Pragmatics 11: 131–146, 1987). In order to compare indirectness and politeness scales in Korean, Hebrew, and English and to re-examine the link between indirectness and politeness cross-culturally, this study uses the theoretical and methodological framework of Blum-Kulka (Journal of Pragmatics 11: 131–146, 1987) and Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, Ablex, 1989). The study results show that neither non-conventional indirectness nor some strategies of conventional indirectness imply politeness in Korean and imply, in agreement with Yu (Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 18: 41–60, 2002), that politeness is differently perceived cross-culturally. In particular, the results of the study show that the conventional indirect strategies such as Strong Hints, Mild Hints, and Suggestory Formulae in the nine request categories are not significantly correlated with politeness in Korean and that Performatives (Austin, How to do things with words, Harvard University Press, 1962) and Want Statements are perceived as direct but polite strategies in Korean. These results support that the degree and the concepts of politeness in Korean, Hebrew, and English are significantly different.

This study examines variation in evaluations of im/politeness of a recording of a naturally occurring intercultural apology, focusing in particular on potential cultural differences in these evaluations across speakers of (Australian) English and (Mandarin) Chinese. We first closely analyze the apology itself as a form of social action, and suggest in the course of this analysis that evaluations of im/politeness are closely tied to converging and diverging interpretations of actions and meanings that are interactionally achieved in situated discourse. The results of a survey of evaluations of the apology and follow-up interviews with Australian and Taiwanese informants are then discussed. A comparison of ratings of im/politeness of the intercultural apology between Taiwanese and Australians suggests that there are indeed significant differences in evaluations of im/politeness between members of these two cultural backgrounds. We trace this through our analysis of metadiscursive commentary to differences in the ways in which “sincerity” is conceptualized in (Australian) English and Taiwanese Mandarin. In doing so, we propose a firmer empirical basis for the analyst to make inferences about whether the interactional achievement of diverging interpretations of meanings and actions in intercultural discourse is culturally motivated or simply idiosyncratic to the situation or individual participants. We conclude, however, that while evaluations of im/ politeness are indeed influenced by the cultural background of respondents, developing a more fine-grained understanding of cultural influences on evaluations of im/politeness is necessary.