Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T10:15:07.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Too Many Words: Length of Utterance and Pragmatic Failure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Shoshana Blum-Kulka  and
Elite Olshtain
Shoshana Blum-Kulka
Affiliation:
Hebrew University
Elite Olshtain
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the theoretical and applied domains of pragmatic failure. With respect to theory, it further clarifies pragmatic failure both in native and non-native speech, and with respect to the applied domain compares request realizations of native and non-native speakers in terms of length of utterance. In discussing the results of this comparison, a number of hypotheses are put forward concerning the ways in which deviation from native norms of utterance length might be a potential cause for pragmatic failure.

The data were collected within the CCSARP (Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Pattern) project involving seven different languages and dialects (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984). The data were collected from both native and non-native speakers of each of the languages. The analysis of responses across several languages revealed a systematic difference in length of utterance used to realize speech acts by non-native speakers as compared to native speakers. The types of pragmatic failure that might be linked to being a non-native speaker are examined, thus continuing a line of research focusing on the pragmatic aspects of interlanguage (Blum-Kulka, 1982; Thomas, 1983; Edmondson et al., 1984).

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 165 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Basso, K.H. 1971. To give up words: Silence in Western Apache culture. In Basso, K.H. & Opler, M. (eds.). Apachean culture, history and ethnology. (Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, 21.)Google Scholar
Basso, K.H. 1979. Portraits of “The Whiteman”: Linguistic play and cultural symbols among the Western Apache. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. 1982. Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of Hebrew second language learners. Applied Linguistics 3; 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E.. 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5; 196–213.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.. 1978. Universal of language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. (ed.). Questions and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H. & Haviland, S.E.. 1977. Comprehension and the given new contract. In Freedle, R.O. (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W., House, J., Kasper, C., & Stemmer, B.. 1984. Learning the pragmatics of discourse: A project report. Applied Linguistics 5; 113–27.Google Scholar
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G.. (Forthcoming). CCSARP-A project description. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. 1983. The domain of pragmatics. In Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. (eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Grice, P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, & Morgan, (eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3: Speech acts). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. (In press). The machine stops: Silence in the metaphor of malfunction. In D. Tannen & M. Saville-Troike (eds.).Google Scholar
Smith, N. (ed.). 1982. Mutual knowledge. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. 1982. Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. In N. Smith (ed.).Google Scholar
Tannen, D. & Saville-Troike, M. (eds.). (In press). Perspectives on silence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4;91–112.Google Scholar