Center for Open Access in Science (COAS) OPEN JOURNAL FOR ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDIES (OJAS) ISSN (Online) 2560-5348 * ojas@centerprode.com

OJAS Home

2018 - Volume 2 - Number 1

Sociopragmatic Failure: Struggling with Cross-Cultural Differences in Communication

Diana Stukan (MA student) * dianastukan1@gmail.com * ORCID: 0000-0001-6688-5399 * Researcher ID: P-4799-2018
University of Guanajuato, Division of Social Sciences and Humanities

Open Journal for Anthropological Studies, 2018, 2(1), 27-36 * https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojas.0201.03027s
Online Published Date: 15 August 2018

LICENCE: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ARTICLE (Full Text - PDF) Sociopragmatic Failure: Struggling with Cross-Cultural Differences in Communication

KEY WORDS: sociopragmatic failure, cooperative principle, politeness principle, face.

ABSTRACT:
Communicative norms differ from one culture to another. Therefore, if language learners lack knowledge of appropriate linguistic behaviour in different countries, they may often experience some difficulties speaking a foreign language. In this case, sociopragmatic failure occurs. In the relevant literature, there is a tendency to explain sociopragmatic failure comparing various languages to English. However, the present article analyses the examples of this phenomenon in Ukrainian as compared to Mexican Spanish using the cooperative principle, the politeness principle and a concept of face as a guideline. The data used in this paper is retrieved from the author’s personal experiences of intercultural interactions. The article suggests that sociopragmatic failure can often lead to a breakdown in communication. Thus, language teachers should provide pragmatic instruction to their learners.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Diana Stukan, University of Guanajuato, Lascurain de Retana #5, Guanajuato, MEXICO, 36000. E-mail: dianastukan1@gmail.com.

REFERENCES:

Bardovu-Harlig, L. (1992). Pragmatics as part of teacher education. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 28-32.

Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In M. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 199-216). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.

Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dash, P. (2004). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure: A definitional analysis with implications for classroom teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 6(3), 1-17.

Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on the speech act awareness of advanced EFL students. TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1-11.

Fernandez, A. L. (2008). Teaching culture: Is it possible to avoid pragmatic failure? Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 11-24.

Jaworski, A. (1994). Pragmatic failure in a second language: Greeting responses in English by Polish students. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 32(1), 41-56.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York, NY: Longman.

Prykarpatska, I (2008). Why are you late? Cross-cultural pragmatic study of complaints in American English and Ukrainian. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21,87-102.

Spencer-Oatey, H., & Jiang, W. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: Moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1633-1650. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00025-0

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.

Vilkki, L. (2006). Politeness, face and facework: Current issues. Linguistic Association of Finland Journal of Linguistics, 322-332.

© Center for Open Access in Science