Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 compliment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction

Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 compliment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction Thorsten Huth 1,* Department of Languages, Philosophy and Speech Communication, Utah State University, 0720 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84321-0720, United States Received 14 April 2005; received in revised form 21 February 2006; accepted 19 April 2006

Abstract This study investigates the effects of teaching American learners of German culture-specific complimenting behavior with findings in conversation analysis (CA). Using CA as a tool to analyze dyadic L2 learner interaction, this study focuses on how L2 learners realize sequences underlying L2 complimentresponses in talk-in-interaction. Based on two data examples of NNS–NNS interaction, it will be demonstrated that (1) L2 learners display their structural awareness of the sequential organization of a particular L2 compliment-response and use it in talk-in-interaction; (2) L2 learners employ distinct discourse markers to signal to their co-participants the specific use of L2 sequential patterns; (3) L2 learners display their cultural orientation as they apply the L2 sequences and thus make the ‘‘foreign’’ sequences a locus for negotiating their own cultural identity. While the data suggest that teaching L2 conversational sequences may be effective to heighten L2 learners’ cultural awareness, problematic aspects involved in L2 learners’ negotiating cross-cultural differences in their talk, such as fallacious interpretations of the teaching materials and the need for displaying their own cultural orientation, are equally reflected in the structure of their talk. The data thus show the inherently social nature of L2 interaction in the context of foreign language teaching. # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Pragmatic transfer; Sequences; Compliment-responses; Talk-in-interaction; Second language acquisition; Language teaching; German; American English

* Tel.: +1 435 797 7446; fax: +1 435 797 1329. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 Correspondence address from August 2006: Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901-4521, United States. Tel.: +1 618 453 5422; fax: +1 618 453 5499. 0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.010

2026

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

1. Introduction L2 learners tend to transfer their native pragmatic resources when they use the target language (Gumperz, 1977; Thomas, 1982, 1983; Kasper, 1992; Jaworski, 1994). It has been demonstrated that pragmatic transfer is relevant on the sequential level of conversation (Golato, 2002a; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2002; Huth, 2005; Huth and Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006). In other words, when L2 learners and native speakers engage in a verbal activity in talk-in-interaction (such as giving or receiving a compliment) and the underlying sequence organization of the activity in question is different in both languages, interlocutors mutually anticipate and produce different patterns of social action. More specifically, if speakers provide ‘‘next turns’’ (Sacks et al., 1974) that are not anticipated by their co-participant(s) in that particular sequential and situational environment due to sociopragmatic conventions, communication may become difficult or even break down (Golato, 2002a; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2002).1 One key locus for cross-cultural miscommunication in the flow of talk-in-interaction is thus the ‘‘relevant next turn’’ provided within the sequential organization of verbal activities that differ across cultures. The implications of these findings for foreign language instruction are compelling: if L2 learners can learn about specific aspects of L2 pragmatics with authentic exemplars of naturalistic conversational sequences which enables them to anticipate, interpret, and produce sequential patterns that are cross-culturally different, cross-cultural miscommunication may be effectively prevented by means of classroom teaching. Within the methodological framework of conversation analysis (CA), Golato (2002a) presents a contrastive study of American English (AE) and German compliment-responses. Golato’s (2002a:547) findings suggest that ‘‘while rejections and turns containing certain agreement and disagreement features are constructed similarly in German and AE, it is in agreement sequences that the two languages differ.’’ Golato’s (2002a) results may thus constitute effective means for teaching culture-specific information with empirically researched findings illustrating L2 pragmatics in terms of turn-taking and sequences. This paper investigates the effects of teaching American learners of German two selected aspects of the sequential organization of German compliment-acceptances. Both the teaching and the acquisition of pragmatics have been the object of scholarly inquiry in various learning environments, using a variety of teaching materials.2 A number of scholars have suggested that findings in CA about cross-cultural differences in sequences underlying speech acts may be used in language classrooms to teach L2 pragmatics (Crozet and Liddicoat, 1997; Barraja-Rohan, 1997; Golato, 2002a; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2002; Wong, 2002). However, to date no systematic research has focused on the outcome of such instruction in terms of second language acquisition (SLA). Given that conversational sequences are the product of a 1

Golato (2002a) and Taleghani-Nikazm (2002) show how pragmatic transfer on the sequential level may lead to disfluency or disruptions within conversation in cross-cultural encounters. As their conversation analytic examinations demonstrate, disruptions occur precisely at or after juncture points at which the sequential organization of the languages involved differ. Golato (2002a) illustrates how a compliment exchange between German and American speakers leads to disruptions in the conversational flow as both participants orient towards the sequential organization of compliments and compliment-responses of their native languages. Taleghani-Nikazm (2002) demonstrates how Iranian speakers of German experience difficulties in negotiating every-day telephone opening routines, equally due to the mechanism of negative pragmatic transfer on the sequential level, i.e. speakers provide ‘‘next’’ turns that are not part of the interlocutors’ sociopragmatic repertoire. 2 Research on teaching pragmatics (i.e. pedagogy) and the development of pragmatics in L2 learners (Second Language Acquisition) has been conducted in various learning and teaching environments. For an overview the reader is referred to Rose and Kasper (2001), Kasper and Rose (2002), Barron (2003), Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor (2003).

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

2027

collaborative effort of two or more interactants who jointly coconstruct the verbal activity at hand, Golato (2002a:567) asks: ‘‘. . . how are these [pragmatic] phenomena acquired? How are they acquired in immersion situations and in the classroom?’’ The general teachability of L2 conversational sequences in foreign language classrooms has been demonstrated by Huth and Taleghani-Nikazm (2006).3 The present study expands the scope of Golato’s (2002a) call for research by pursuing the question of whether conversational sequences underlying speech acts that are cross-culturally different in fact provide a locus for cultural insight for L2 learners. As will be argued in detail below, observing L2 learners’ handling of L2 compliment-responses which display differences in their preference structure is particularly suited for this task. As a methodological tool consistent with investigating a phenomenon of talk-in-interaction (i.e. sequences), CA is the obvious choice for this undertaking. Analyzing two data examples extracted from audio-recordings of dyadic learner–learner interaction on the telephone in the target language post-instruction, the following questions are at the heart of this paper: (1) Will L2 learners be able to coconstruct specific L2 sequences underlying compliment-responses in talkin-interaction? (2) How do L2 learners negotiate the availability of two sets of sociopragmatic behavior in the sequential organization of their own talk when using the L2? (3) Do interactional data reveal how L2 learners negotiate issues of cultural orientation and cultural identity when faced with the task of utilizing L2 pragmatics in their own talk? The data will be analyzed in order to give a detailed account how L2 learners actually use L2 pragmatic resources after instruction as manifest in the structure of their talk. In the following, I first discuss two selected findings about cross-cultural differences in compliment-responses in AE and German which were selected as the basis for this study due to their particular preference structure in both languages. In order to pursue the questions poised by Golato (2002a) within the same methodological framework, I limit myself to CA studies on compliments and compliment-responses in this discussion. Next, I describe CA’s perspective on research in interlanguage pragmatics and discuss the nature of the findings presented here. I then address the research questions as laid out in this section, presenting two data examples in which L2 learners use German compliment-response sequences as a result of classroom instruction. I conclude discussing didactic implications of these findings in the context of cultural instruction and pragmatics in the foreign language classroom. 2. AE and German compliment sequences Compliments and compliment-responses have been found to serve a variety of social functions.4 Researched from a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives, a great number of studies about cross-cultural differences of this verbal activity have been done for a variety of languages.5 As an illustration, the following studies involving AE (Pomerantz, 1978; Wolfson and Manes, 1980; Wolfson, 1981, 1983; Knapp et al., 1984; Barnlund and Araki, 1985; 3

Huth and Taleghani-Nikazm (2006) present a teaching unit which utilizes CA results about telephone opening sequences that are cross-culturally different in AE and German. Furthermore, they provide interactional data from L2 learner dyads demonstrating that even L2 learners on the elementary level are able to use L2 sequences underlying telephone openings post-instruction. 4 See for example Wolfson (1983) for compliments in the context of apologies, thanks, and greetings, or Holmes (1986), Holmes and Brown (1987) on compliments as mitigators or softeners in the context of face-threatening acts. 5 Readers are referred to Golato (2002a) and Golato (2005) for an extensive bibliography of research on compliments and compliment-responses in various languages.

2028

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

Daikuhara, 1986; Herbert, 1986, 1989, 1990; Holmes, 1986, 1988; Herbert and Straight, 1989; Creese, 1991; Nelson et al., 1996; Rose, 2001) and German (Kotthoff, 1989; Schwarze, 1994; Schneider and Schneider, 2000; Golato, 2002a, 2005) may be noted. For the purpose of this investigation, I limit myself to Pomerantz’s (1978) AE data and Golato’s (2002a) German data. The reason for this limitation is two-fold. For one, both studies adopt CA as their methodology, i.e. both base their analyses on recorded instances of naturally occurring conversations and thus provide a similar kind of empirical data corpus, as they describe compliments and complimentresponses in terms of turn-taking, sequence organization, and preference structure. Second, since Golato (2002a) modeled her study after Pomerantz’s (1978), both studies operate within a similar categorization framework of compliment sequence types. This offers a unique opportunity for cross-cultural comparison of sequence types, and provides a basis that is well-suited for developing teaching materials for the L2 classroom in the service of generating interactional data. For the purpose of this study, I specifically single out two sequence types found in German conversational data involving assessments and response-pursuit (Jefferson, 1980; Harren, 2001) which could not be found in AE. These types were chosen because they reflect differences in the preference structure of compliment-responses in the two languages. I argue that, since structural and cultural features are demonstrably present in one locus, CA-materials featuring such sequences establish a direct connection between language and culture for L2 learners. The use of these structures in L2 interaction should provide insights not only into matters of SLA (as called for by Golato, 2002a), but also into L2 learners’ negotiation of their cultural orientation and identity. Since the findings are based on actual instances of talk, they tell us how L2 learners actually utilize L2 pragmatics, rather than describing what they may know about L2 pragmatics. In this section, I describe cross-cultural differences in compliment-responses in conversation analytical terms, based on Pomerantz (1978) and Golato’s (2002a) studies. Data segments will be numbered consecutively throughout the paper. I employ Jefferson’s (1984) transcription notation (see Appendix A), which captures not only the words exchanged but also the way of their delivery by including information about prosody, overlapping speech, repair efforts, pauses and hesitations. For the German data examples (including the L2 learner interaction in German later on), an English translation is provided in italics underneath the German lines. In CA terminology, a compliment can be described as a positive assessment of affairs, of an object, or of an action. When a speaker produces a compliment, a response to the compliment becomes conditionally relevant6 for the co-participant. If a compliment-response is provided by the recipient of a compliment, a compliment sequence results which can be described as an adjacency pair.7 A compliment sequence may thus be described as a minimal sequence in which the compliment itself constitutes the first pair part (FPP) and the compliment-response constitutes the second pair part (SPP). (1) A: B: 6

Pomerantz (1978:89) That’s beautiful. It really is Thank you

(FPP) Compliment (SPP) Compliment-response

Conditional relevance is a key concept in the analysis of paired action in sequences. It describes participants’ tacit structural knowledge that enables them to meet any given social action in the form of an utterance with a subsequent action that is relevant in that particular sequential and situational environment (Atkinson and Heritage, 1986). 7 Schegloff and Sacks list five characteristics of adjacency pairs (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973:295–296): An adjacency pair is (1) a sequence of two utterances which are (2) adjacent, (3) produced by different speakers, (4) ordered as a first part and a second part, and (5) typed, so that a first part requires a particular second part (or range of second parts).

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

2029

Table 1 AE and German compliment acceptances AE compliment acceptance

German compliment acceptance

Appreciation token A compliments B B accepts compliment

–

–

Agreement/assessment of compliment A compliments B B positively assesses compliment

Agreement/second assessment A compliments B B agrees with compliment assertion

–

–

Agreement/confirmation A compliments B B confirms compliment assertion

–

Assessment + agreement + pursuit A compliments B B uses same strength adj. + tag A compliments again B accepts compliment

CA research in AE has identified different compliment-response types that may indicate an acceptance of the compliment, a rejection, or a combination of both (Pomerantz, 1978). While this finding holds true also for how Germans receive compliments, Golato’s (2002a) data reveal that in contrast to AE speakers, German speakers accept compliments more frequently.8 The differences between AE and German compliment-responses in compliment acceptance are listed in Table 1, which is an abbreviated version of Golato’s (2002a:563; 2005:171) summations. I now review a few findings from Pomerantz (1978) and Golato (2002a) because of their relevance for the following discussion. According to Pomerantz (1978), while the most frequent compliment-responses are not compliment acceptances, AE compliment acceptances are frequently realized with appreciation tokens such as ‘‘thank you’’ (see also example 1 discussed above). These appreciation tokens did not occur in Golato’s (2002a) data. In AE, compliments are often accepted with an agreement of the compliment assertion (Agreement/second assessment, see Table 1). In German, acceptances are most frequently realized in the form of a confirmation of the compliment: (2) A: B:

(Golato, 2002a:557) ihr habt ja so en scho¨nes zwiebelmuster hier you have such a nice onion pattern here joa: yes

This response type illustrates Agreement/confirmation from Table 1. Another way to accept compliments in German involves a positive assessment of the compliment: 8

In contrast to common native speaker intuitions, Golato’s (2002a) data suggest that Germans overwhelmingly accept compliments.

2030

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

(3) A:

(Golato, 2002a:557) aber heute abend hier war’s scho¨n bei euch but it was nice this evening here at your place

B:

scho¨n that’s nice

By stating scho¨n (that’s nice), B evaluates the compliment itself, conveying a message similar to ‘‘it is nice that you liked it here today’’ rather than ‘‘thank you for the compliment’’. Therefore, the response can be regarded as an assessment of the compliment and as such is not manifest in Pomerantz’s (1978) AE data. German speakers frequently accept compliments with another response type not found in AE data. Speakers frequently provide a second assessment in compliment-responses that is of the same strength of the initial compliment. This same-strength assessment is followed by a response-pursuit marker (Jefferson, 1980; Harren, 2001): (4) A:

(Golato, 2002a:558) u¨brigens ( . ) das fleisch exzel[lent by the way ( . ) the meat exce[llent

B: A: B:

[super ne? [super right? exzellent excellent joa yeah

Speaker B, as the recipient, accepts the compliment by uttering a same-strength adjective super, thus giving a second assessment. The assessment is followed by a response-pursuit marker ne? which makes a response from A interactionally relevant. Typically, this results in a second round of compliments.9 The sequence is closed with B’s final compliment acceptance joa (yes) much in the same manner as in example 2 above. This response type illustrates Assessment + agreement + pursuit from Table 1. In sum, the differences between AE and German compliment acceptances as summarized in Table 1 are agreements (example 2 above) and positive assessments of compliments (example 3 above). Furthermore, German speakers frequently assess compliments with a same-strength adjective which is followed by a response-pursuit marker. This behavior generally initiates another round of compliments (example 4 above). This latter German response type Assessment + agreement + pursuit constitutes a combination of two sequence types since the final compliment acceptance may well be issued as an assessment. These two sequence types were thus used as the basis for this study. I now discuss the cultural underpinnings especially of the compliment acceptance type as illustrated in example 4 in the context of preference organization (Sacks et al., 1974; Schegloff et al., 1977; Atkinson and Heritage, 1984).

9 Golato (2002a:559) comments: ‘‘Response-pursuit, specifically an agreement pursuit as a second pair part to a compliment, is by no means an idiosyncratic or dialectal feature of this particular speaker. Other speakers in my corpus who are from other geographical regions in Germany display the same behavior.’’

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

2031

As mentioned above, compliment-responses may display acceptances, rejections, or a combination of both. The most frequent compliment-response types in Pomerantz’s (1978) data were found in between rejections and acceptances. In other words, the SPPs of a compliment sequence most frequently contain characteristics of both acceptance/agreement and rejection/ disagreement turns. Apparently, this is the result of two conflicting aspects of preference structure that coalesce in compliment-responses, providing a dilemma for recipients: on the one hand, the preferred next turn to a positive assessment is agreement with the assessment,10 and a compliment amounts to a positive assessment. Accordingly, agreement with (i.e. acceptance of) a compliment is the preferred next turn for recipients of a compliment. However, in the context of compliments, the preference for agreement is in conflict with the preference to avoid self-praise. Self-praise constitutes a dispreferred social action in AE and is subject to sanctioning by co-participants.11 Solution types for this dilemma are for example using explicit disclaimers such as ‘‘I don’t like to brag’’ (Pomerantz, 1978), scaling down the compliment,12 or agreeing and disagreeing with the positive assessment at the same time, i.e. accepting and rejecting the compliment concurrently. The significance of this conflict for speakers is reflected in the no less than eight different subcategories which were manifest in Pomerantz’s (1978) AE data, and also mirrored by Golato’s (2002a) German data. In other words, the AE conflict between preference for agreement versus preference for self-praise avoidance holds true also in German. In light of the previous discussion, the German response type Assessment + agreement + pursuit (example 4 above) thus constitutes intriguing behavior on part of Germans: since response-pursuit typically initiates another round of compliments, this behavior seems to be at odds with the self-praise avoidance constraint. Nevertheless, it occurs frequently in Golato’s (2002a) data, which do not show evidence suggesting that this particular compliment-response type constitutes a dispreferred action among German speakers. This, I argue, provides an opportunity for L2 learners to inquire about cultural differences. We are presented with a sociopragmatic feature of compliment-responses that is found in German data and documented as appropriate verbal behavior. The same verbal behavior, if used in an AE sociopragmatic context, is likely to be interpreted as a dispreferred and sanctionable action. Hence this structure, if introduced into the foreign language classroom, should provide fertile ground for cultural discussion, since the preference structure of L2 learners is likely to be challenged when confronted with this compliment-response type. In addition, it is able to showcase verbal behavior that is preferred in one culture and dispreferred in another in a similar 10

‘‘Subsequent to initial assessments that invite agreement, recipients’ agreements and disagreements, respectively, are performed in differently organized turns and sequences. In general, agreement turns/sequences are structured so as to maximize occurrences of stated agreements, and disagreement turns/sequences so as to minimize occurrences of stated disagreements.’’ (Pomerantz, 1984:64). 11 Consider the following examples (from Pomerantz, 1978:89): A: Just think of how many people would miss you. You would know who cared. B: Sure. I have a lot of friends, who would come to the funeral and say what an intelligent, bright, witty, interesting person I was. A:( ) They wouldn’t say you were humble B: No. Humble, I’m not. B engages in self-praising behavior which is met with immediate sanctioning (turn marked with arrow) by A in the form of teasing. Thus, in the case of compliments, the recipient faces the dilemma of negotiating the preference for compliment acceptance and avoiding self-praise concurrently when issuing a compliment response. 12 Consider the following example from Pomerantz (1978:89): A: Gee, hon, you look nice in that dress B: Do you really think so? It’s just a rag my sister gave me.

2032

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

situational and sequential context, and thus constitutes an occasion for L2 learners to think outside of their own cultural paradigm and to negotiate different cultural values as they become aware of different reference frames for culture-specific behavior provided by their native language and the target language. This process and its effects are at the heart of this study and will be addressed in the following, as I focus on the students’ verbal behavior as indicative of how they negotiate L2 sequence structures and their sociopragmatic import. 3. Methodology The methodological framework of this study is provided by CA. I first discuss CA as a research methodology in interlanguage pragmatics and the nature of the findings presented here. Then I describe the participants and the particular procedures that generated the data for this study. The design of this study responds to current methodological debates in SLA in general and in interlanguage pragmatics in particular. Kasper’s (2005) recent stance on qualitative methods in speech act research for example emphasizes the chances of using recorded interactional data as brought forth by CA to investigate what interactants actually do in interaction as opposed to what they may know about interaction. This line of inquiry takes into account the growing awareness among scholars of the potential for incongruence of explicit interactional knowledge and actual interactional performance (Kasper and Rose, 2002; Golato, 2003); it is reflected in both the choice of empirical teaching materials (findings in CA about compliment-responses) and the methodology employed in this study (CA’s methodological tools for analyzing talk-in-interaction).13 The results of this study will furthermore contribute to the growing number of CA studies in the context of foreign language learning as presented in the special issue (88) of the Modern Language Journal (2004). It is in this context that the kind of pragmatic learning involved in producing L2 sequences will be addressed in this paper.14 In keeping with the mechanisms of coconstruction and the situatedness of interaction, Mondada and Pekarek-Doehler (2004) for example develop a concept of language learning as ‘‘situated practice’’. This concept rests on a notion of cognition as ‘distributed’ among interactants and situated in the intersubjective space between interactants. In other words, language learning is not seen as an event taking place solely in the cognitive isolation of a particular learner’s brain, but rather from a perspective that regards learning as an inherently collaborative and interactional process, situated in the interactional matrix between interactants. Young and Miller (2004) demonstrate how this process can be observed with CA in real-time interaction. Both studies suggest that interactional learning orients towards sequence structures and turn-taking, characterizing learning as a gradual change in interactants’ participation in specific discursive practices. 13

Kasper and Rose (2002:116) accordingly argue in favor of employing a multiplicity of research methods in interlanguage pragmatics and urge scholars to match their research methods to the task at hand. Golato’s (2003) study underscores furthermore how research methods and their empirical base influence data about pragmatics, as she investigates the same pragmatic phenomenon with CA and with discourse completion tasks (DCTs) respectively. The generated data show considerable differences and lead to different conclusions. 14 See Markee (2000) and Markee and Kasper (2004) for an overview of the debate concerning CA for SLA with particular consideration for how CA may specify a concept of learning in general and one for SLA research in particular. For the beginnings of this methodological debate (which cannot be fully reproduced here), readers are referred to (Aston, 1986; Schegloff, 1993; Long, 1997; Firth and Wagner, 1997, 1998; Seedhouse, 1998, 2004; Gass, 1998; Kasper, 1997b; Kasper and Rose, 2002). It may however be noted that, if we are to understand pragmatics as social interaction between two or more copresent interactants in a given sociocultural context (Gumperz, 1977; Leech, 1983; Crystal, 1997), it seems compelling to investigate L2 learners’ pragmatic behavior by means of a research methodology that represents such a view.

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

2033

Learning and using L2 sequences in the framework of L2 pragmatics, as suggested in this paper, can accordingly be understood as L2 learners’ ability to orient towards the particular taskdesign (i.e. the sequences) underlying particular L2 compliment-responses when the learners use the L2 for their communicative purposes. Moerman (1988:xi) furthermore notes that speakers experience and produce their cultures, their roles, and their personalities when interacting with one another. In other words, culture-specific interactional behavior is ingrained in the back-andforth of conversation as speakers take turns, produce conversational sequences, and thereby coconstruct and negotiate sociocultural meaning. Hence, as suggested in this paper, L2 learners’ production of L2 sequences will provide empirical evidence about L2 learners’ negotiation of L1 and L2 sociopragmatic behavior. Here, I will employ Seedhouse’s (2004) notion of ‘‘applied CA’’ within a social-interactionist perspective on SLA studies (Markee, 2000; Markee and Kasper, 2004) that aims at providing insights into interactional aspects at play when L2 learners actually use the L2 to fill their interactional and social needs in the context of foreign language instruction. 3.1. Participants and data The participants of this study consisted of 20 American learners of German enrolled in a second semester elementary German class at the University of Kansas. The majority of students enrolled in the class to fulfill their language requirement and had little or no opportunity to interact with native German speakers. The class met five times a week for 50 min per session. A two-day teaching unit on the compliment-responses discussed above was developed and taught mid-semester. Data in form of recorded telephone conversations between L2 learners was collected twice: at the beginning (3rd week) and towards the end (12th week) of the semester. It was hoped that such a format would enable a pre-instruction and post-instruction data comparison. The recordings were subsequently transcribed and underwent a conversation analytic examination that focused on whether or not target-like sequences could be identified in L2 learners talk post-instruction.15 3.2. Teaching L2 sequences It has been established that explicit L2 pragmatic instruction is more effective that implicit teaching (Bardovi-Harlig, 1996; Tateyama, 2001).16 According to Kasper (1997a), L2 learners also need to practice the target language structures with a variety of activities enabling them to engage in verbal behavior which is cross-culturally different. Therefore, a teaching unit based on Pomerantz’s (1978) AE data and Golato’s (2002a) data on compliment-responses was developed, which provided L2 learners with both explicit information about, and subsequent practice of, the compliment-response sequences under discussion. Table 2 recapitulates the German sequence types taught: 15

It may be emphasized at this point that it is not my aim to make claims by means of generalization through quantification. I rather pursue the question whether L2 learners may use L2 conversational sequences at all and how L2 learners utilize such sequences as they negotiate their cultural orientation in their talk. CA and quantification, as commonly used in the social sciences, are problematic issues, inasmuch as CA investigates social action in authentic interaction and thus examines action sequences that are inexorably tied to a particular sequential and situational context of its own. For a thorough discussion addressing the problems of triangulating CA results within a quantitative research paradigm, refer to Schegloff (1993). 16 See Rose and Kasper (2001) for a collection of studies, see Rose (2005) for an up-to date review of research in second language pragmatics.

2034

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

Table 2 Sequence types taught in the teaching unit Sequence type I

Sequence type II

A compliments B B assesses compliment

A compliments B B uses same-strength adjective + tag A compliments again B accepts compliment

The teaching unit, held mostly in the target language, was organized in different phases emulating Barraja-Rohan’s (1997) suggestions. The phases are (1) pre-activation: general inclass reflection about conversational practices and their systematic nature; (2) exposure: students contrasted German and AE compliment sequences illustrated with authentic examples from Golato’s (2002a) and Pomerantz’s (1978) studies which were provided on a work sheet; (3) repetition and reinforcement: in-class exercises with the authentic transcripts by reading the transcripts in pairs and listening to audio materials for listening comprehension; (4) application: practice of the L2 sequences in role-plays for which communicative contexts were provided; (5) cultural evaluation: reflection on and evaluation of the cultural import of the pragmatic structures in a class discussion. Only phase five was conducted partly in the native language of L2 learners, as their reactions to the materials were emotionally charged and complex which necessitated the use of English to arrive at the rich discussion about cultural differences and similarities which the materials were supposed to precipitate. 3.3. Generating interactional data: the task In order to record interactions between L2 learners in the target language, participants talked on the telephone, situated in separate university offices. Telephone data have the advantage that understanding between interactants is exclusively achieved by verbal interaction since participants have no sensory access to each other than by audio. In the analysis, the investigator therefore does not have to take into account kinesics that may affect interaction when interactants are co-present. Secondly, the audio quality of telephone conversations is often superior to video recordings. Dyadic interaction was chosen in order to avoid interactional processes such as the presence of other participants, bystanders, or observers that may influence the production of compliment-responses. L2 learners were provided with a role-play task in which giving and receiving a compliment was embedded: the caller was instructed to invite the recipient of the telephone call to a party. The caller was furthermore instructed to issue a compliment at a moment of his/her choice in the course of the conversation. The recipient of the call, on the other hand, was neither informed about the reason for the incoming call nor about the circumstance that complimenting behavior might be a part of the upcoming assignment. The recipient of the call was simply instructed to engage in a conversation with the caller. The callers were thus free in their lexical and grammatical choices, were free with regard to when and about what they would compliment their conversation partners, as where the recipients regarding their reaction to the invitation or the compliment should these be produced. No suggestion was made whether students were supposed to enact a particular sequential pattern when engaging in complimenting behavior. Naturally, such a pattern cannot be assigned in advance since conversational sequences need to be coconstructed by both interactants. The complimenter will thus depend entirely on the recipient’s reaction (i.e. his/her projection, interpretation, and production of relevant next turns) in any given

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

2035

sequential and situational environment. Last, the task was not part of a test-situation. This open format within the context of a role-play provided the best possible natural conditions for a compliment in an institutional assignment. 3.4. Data validation How ‘‘natural’’ are the data generated by means of the task described above? A number of CA studies have analyzed the ways in which a given institutional setting may have an effect on the sequential organization of talk, demonstrating that particular interactional environments such as an interview or a courtroom hearing may predetermine the roles of participants and present them with particular interactional constraints.17 The sum of such constraints constitute particular ‘‘speech exchange systems’’ (Sacks et al., 1974) in which turn-taking is affected by the distribution of power, the roles of the interactants involved, and the function of the interactional setting.18 Speech exchange systems have also been investigated in classroom environments (Markee, 2000; Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain, 2003; Seedhouse, 2004). Teacher-L2 learner interaction may be characterized as an ‘‘unequal power’’speech exchange system, since the teacher is endowed with particular interactional rights to guide, and intervene in, any interaction in the interest of orchestrating class proceedings in accordance with pedagogical goals. This is not the case when L2 learners interact with one another: they are peers and meet on equal power terms as fellow L2 learners. To the extent that the recorded conversations that constitute the data for this study took place in a task-environment as part of a college class assignment, the data may be distinguished from naturally occurring conversation. For example, the time limit of 5–10 min for the conversations, imposed by the investigator to provide equal conditions for all participants, is reflected in the data when L2 learners ask each other how long they still need to talk to be within the limit. Furthermore, and by virtue of the task at hand, the caller is required to initiate both an invitation and a compliment. Both prompts, however, have no bearing on turn-taking in general or the analysis of L2 learners’ compliment-response sequences as they were issued in the conversations: since L2 learners are peers with similar language proficiencies, their interaction takes place in an ‘‘equal power’’ speech exchange system. Therefore, no participant is endowed with pre-determined privileges in this interaction that may render the interaction distorted or artificial and affect the production of compliment-responses in terms of their sequential organization.19 As will be demonstrated below, the one important factor which appears to affect the production of L2 compliment-response sequences on part of L2 learners is the one under investigation in this paper: the German L2 sequences taught challenge L2 learners’ L1 preference organization and offer a model of a conversational routine which is uncommon in AE and likely 17 Readers are referred to studies on different institutional frameworks such as presented by (Atkinson and Drew, 1979; McHoul, 1978; Mehan, 1979; Atkinson, 1982; Drew, 1984; Heritage, 1984). 18 These speech exchange systems, however, have been demonstrated to be grounded in principles of naturally occurring conversation, which therefore enjoys ‘‘bed-rock’’ status in CA (Sacks et al., 1974; Atkinson and Heritage, 1984). 19 Walters (2004) investigates the feasibility of CA-informed second language pragmatic competence testing. In a directed role-play setting, he elicits particular speech acts in talk-in-interaction by giving oral prompts (such as first pair parts, pre-sequences). Even though the interviewees were encouraged to ask questions, this interaction clearly takes place in an unequal power speech exchange system since the investigator guides the discussion (directed role-play). Nevertheless, when triangulated and compared with quantitative testing instruments such as discourse completion tasks (DCTs), the results suggest that even a directed role-play production test may be used as a valid instrument for future testing of second language pragmatic competence.

2036

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

to constitute dispreferred behavior in an AE sociopragmatic environment. As will furthermore become clear, L2 learners’ interactional behavior demonstrably involves active face work, which shows that, in spite of the institutional framework of the task, L2 learners treat their interaction within sociocultural parameters grounded in naturally occurring interaction; this allows for a detailed CA in pursuit of the questions asked in this paper. 4. L2 learners’ realization of L2 sequences Since the data collected pre-instruction featured pragmatic transfer exclusively, I will limit myself to discussing post-instruction data. My corpus comprised 10 conversations among L2 learners lasting approximately 5–10 min each; not all L2 learners engaged in complimenting behavior as part of their assignment. Nevertheless, six data examples in which L2 learners engage in complimenting behavior could be found; four of them display pragmatic transfer. Two display characteristics of German response types as practiced in class will be discussed here in detail. In the analysis of these two data examples, I will focus particularly on whether participants are in mutual alignment which is not guaranteed because both participants need to coconstruct the compliment sequences and mutually rely on each other’s anticipation, interpretation, and production of the L2 compliment-response sequences in question. The first example demonstrates that L2 learners orient towards the German sequential organization of one of the compliment-response types taught in class. While I point out their successful efforts (4.1) to produce the German sequence type, I also discuss difficulties (4.2; 4.3) with which L2 learners struggle as they engage in L2 sequences. This discussion paves the way for the second example in which L2 learners’ behavior is strikingly similar to that in the first example. Additional features of this second example, however, allow for deeper insight into L2 learners’ negotiating their cultural orientation and identity (4.4) as they jointly coconstruct the German compliment sequences. 4.1. L2 learners’ structural awareness This data example shows how L2 learners use the German compliment-response type involving response-pursuit, discussed above in talk-in-interaction. In the analysis, it is crucial to focus on the recipient since the recipients’ reaction to the initial prompt will give evidence about whether participants are able to anticipate, interpret, and produce the sequence structures covered in class. Here, the recipient initially reacts to the compliment with pragmatic transfer, then initiates repair, and finally provides a compliment-response that shows characteristics of German compliment acceptances. Both participants continue and, with some difficulty, manage to conclude the sequence ‘‘German style’’. Jeremy and Lauren talk about the errands they have to run on the weekend. Lauren mentions that she has to do her laundry, which Jeremy takes as an opportunity to compliment Lauren on her beautiful shirt.20

20 Both participants met in the hallway briefly before the telephone conversation. Thus Jeremy knows what Lauren is wearing. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that Lauren is slightly confused about the compliment regarding her shirt since, on the telephone, such a compliment is somewhat out of context. This might account for her initial difficulty (lines 03, 04) to react to the compliment without hesitation and may well constitute a demonstrable effect of the task on L2 learners’ interaction. Other explanations such as gender related influences on this interaction are possible; however, the analyst is at this point limited to speculation since the data, while clearly documenting a pause in the interaction, do not permit access to participants’ psychological states.

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

(5) 01

jer:

02 03 04

lau:

05

jer:

06

lau:

07

jer:

08 09

lau:

10

jer:

11

lau:

12 13

2037

.hhh uhm du habst uh eine uh scho¨nes hemd ( . ) .hhh uhm you have uh a uh beautiful shirt (.) diese ( . ) heute this ( . ) today (1.0) uhuh or uh du du habst uh eine ( . ) scho¨nes hemd heute. or uh you you have uh a ( . ) beautiful shirt today. oh danke or uhm! uh scho¨ne ja? he [he oh thank you or uhm! uh beautiful yes? he [he [ja sehr [yes very scho- ja sehr s- sehr schon beau- yes very b- very beautiful uh= uh= =bitte. =you are welcome. es freut mich ( . ) uhm that’s nice ( . ) uhm (2.0) uh wie? uhm wie machst du an am an die teste? uh how? uhm how do you do on on on the test?

In line 01, Jeremy pays the initial compliment, to which Lauren does not react and a long pause ensues (line 03). When Lauren finally takes the floor (uh- line 04), Jeremy reclaims it by repeating his compliment (line 05). Now Lauren reacts to the repeated compliment with oh danke (line 06). In the same turn, she repairs her talk and, by means of her repair operation, provides a same-strength adjective and a response-pursuit marker (uh scho¨ne ja?, line 06).21 Jeremy provides a second compliment (lines 07/08). Lauren subsequently accepts this second round of compliments (line 11). Given these characteristics, in the above compliment sequence both speakers orient to the following German response type in their talk: Assessment +agreement + response-pursuit. Since compliment acceptance had been discussed and practiced in class, it can be assumed that both participants are aware of these structures and are able to use them in their talk. They are thus able to engage in target language pragmatics on the sequential level as a 21 At this point the investigator needs to point out a mistake in the teaching materials regarding the usage of ‘‘ja’’ as a tag question. In order to illustrate the interactional features at play in the compliment acceptance type involving response pursuit, the teaching materials introduced not only German ‘‘ne?’’, but also a range of other tag questions to students: ja?, ne?, gell?, nicht wahr?, nicht?. Unfortunately, while all of these may be considered as tag questions, they have different interactional properties and are hence not completely interchangeable. The materials should only have offered ‘‘ne?’’ as visible in Golato’s (2002a) example. Hence, while ‘‘ja’’, if produced by German speakers, must be understood in terms of its German interactional function, in this case we have two L2 learners who were erroneously told that ‘‘ja’’ as a tag question is functionally equivalent to a response-pursuit like ‘‘ne?’’. And this is exactly how ‘‘ja’’ is demonstrably used in this compliment sequence: regardless of the German usage of ‘‘ja’ as a tag question, Jeremy treats it as a response-pursuit and, consequently, issues a second compliment in accordance with the compliment-response type he learned in class. This underscores the importance of screening CA results for pedagogical purposes with much care before devising teaching units.

2038

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

result of classroom instruction. It should again be emphasized that the teaching unit and the second recording from which this sample was extracted were several weeks apart. The only opportunity for L2 learners to practice L2 compliment-responses outside of the teaching unit itself was provided about 2 weeks after the unit, as part of the review done for a chapter test. Yet L2 sequences surfaced several weeks later in the recordings. Acquisition and use of complimentresponse sequences is thus, in principle, possible for L2 learners. 4.2. Interactional markers: pragmatic transfer, repair, laughter Above I argued that using L2 sequences may pose a challenge for L2 learners because, unlike other aspects commonly investigated in interlanguage studies, sequences depend on the joint coconstruction by two or more speakers. In other words, all participants involved need to be able to anticipate, interpret, and in joint orientation produce relevant next turns underlying a specific sequential arrangement. If two speakers orient to different sequential organizations, speakers are out of synch and interactional trouble may ensue. While in example 5, the participants can be observed to orient towards the German sequence structure, some interactional trouble does occur as participants initiate the German sequence and also as they conclude it. I discuss both in more detail below. Before Lauren provides a relevant turn orienting to German sequence organization, her spontaneous response (oh danke, line 06) constitutes negative pragmatic transfer. It had been discussed in class that no appreciation tokens like ‘‘thank you’’ occurred in Golato’s (2002a) German data when accepting a compliment, which Lauren realizes. This can be observed in her repair which is crucial in this compliment sequence: Lauren produces a stressed uhm!, the significance of which is two-fold. First, the repair marker expresses that she is aware of trouble in her talk that needs repairing. Secondly, it signals to Jeremy that she is about to restructure her turn on account of it. Both circumstances are of importance in the present discussion. For one, Lauren’s behavior shows that, even after instruction in target language pragmatics, pragmatic transfer is relevant in L2 learners’ talk on the sequential level when using the L2. This confirms how deeply native pragmatic structures are ingrained in L2 learners’ verbal behavior (Schieffelin and Ochs, 1986). More importantly, however, this example shows that the recipient of the compliment is now able to recognize her previous pragmatic transfer (which she subsequently repairs). The recipient’s acute structural awareness of the German compliment sequence can thus be regarded as a success of teaching target language pragmatics in the classroom. Awareness of pragmatic transfer is an important first step in realizing target language pragmatics and may be effectively achieved with the teaching of sequence structures. Secondly, Lauren’s repair operation is sufficient to function as a discourse marker pointing her co-participant towards the German sequence organization. Repair is thus utilized by Lauren to signal a shift from AE sequence organization to German sequence organization in her talk as she replaces a compliment-response (which is perfectly acceptable and relevant at this point in AE) with an acceptance that shows characteristics of the German response type known to both participants by means of their previous classroom instruction. Jeremy successfully interprets her paradigm shift as he adjacently provides a turn equally relevant at this point in the organization of the German response type in question. Since L2 learners’ have two sets of sequence organization at their disposal after the teaching unit, self-repair is utilized as a strategy by the recipient to correct her own pragmatic transfer. Secondly, repair is successfully utilized to signal to the co-participant to which sequential organization the current speaker is orienting. The turn-final laughter in line 06 can equally be

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

2039

understood as functioning in both ways. The only discernable reference for Lauren’s laughter is her previous repair operation and may thus be indicative of Lauren’s self-directed and humorous assessment of her ‘‘lapse’’. Concurrently, the laughter provides Jeremy with a clue regarding both the exact target (the previous compliment-response) and meaning (pragmatic behavior is being repaired) of Lauren’s repair. The laughter underscores that her repair is particularly relevant to their interaction and directs increased attention to the apparent corrections in her pragmatic behavior. 4.3. Concluding the sequence with difficulties While this example shows that both participants are able to jointly coconstruct parts of the sequence organization of a particular German compliment-response, it also shows that the sequence is not delivered smoothly. The compliment sequence encompasses multiple turns, as both participants struggle to maintain mutual alignment after they have successfully achieved the paradigm shift from AE to German. This is particularly visible when Jeremy produces bitte (‘‘you are welcome’’, line 10). Jeremy’s turn constitutes a sequence closing third (Schegloff, 1995). This is interactionally problematic at this point since, in the German sequence towards which both participants are presently orienting, a relevant next turn would be Lauren’s final acceptance of the compliment, which would close the sequence. In fact, this is exactly what Lauren produces in spite of Jeremy’s previous closing. As a result, lines 10 and 11 adjacently feature sequence closings, with Jeremy’s bitte orienting to AE sequence organization and Lauren’s es freut mich, orienting to German sequence organization. Lauren’s closing immediately adjacent to Jeremy’s previous closing can thus only be explained by her orienting towards the German sequence structure and his orienting to AE again. Not surprisingly, a long pause ensues as both interactants are out of alignment. While both participants manage to shift from AE to German sequence organization (lines 01– 08), they only do so after some difficulties due to Lauren’s initial pragmatic transfer. Making the reverse shift from German to AE sequence organization equally poses a challenge, as Jeremy’s AE pragmatic behavior resurfaces before the German sequence is concluded (bitte, line 10). The shift from one pragmatic paradigm to the other and back, while successfully achieved in parts, proves to pose difficulties for both participants. In sum, the above example shows that L2 learners may indeed be able to anticipate, interpret, and produce relevant next turns within the sequence organizations underlying the different verbal activities in the L1 and L2. Classroom instruction in sequence structure may thus demonstrably achieve to make L2 learners more aware of their own cultural practices based on language structures. This structural awareness in both the L1 and L2 constitutes a valuable first step on the part of L2 learners towards engaging in a cross-cultural dialogue in the language classroom. In the next section, I discuss how L2 learners’ awareness of these structural features of target language pragmatics may involve a conscious negotiation of L2 learners’ cultural orientation and identity, as such a negotiation shows up in the recorded data. 4.4. Cultural negotiation in the structure of L2 learners’ talk In the following data segment, L2 learners again successfully initiate the same German compliment-response type as discussed in the previous section. While different speakers engage in complimenting behavior, the example displays striking similarities with the previous one: (1) speakers repair pragmatic transfer; (2) speakers successfully initiate and

2040

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

conclude a compliment-response that bears characteristics of the German types taught in class; (3) distinct discourse markers accompany the paradigm shift from AE to German. In contrast to the previous example, however, this data segment gives additional insight into how L2 learners negotiate and reaffirm their own cultural identity through the structure of their own talk as they produce in L2 sequence structures. Libby and Lindsey are talking about the cold weather, on account of which Lindsey is wearing her warm coat. Libby subsequently compliments Lindsey on that coat. (6) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

(1)libby: du hast uh ein ( . ) scho¨nes jacke you have uh a ( . ) nice coat lind: ach danke well thank you libby: [( )[( )lind: [i mean ja ich weiss he [he he i mean yes i know he [he he (2) libby: [he he he .hhh ja:: es [he he he .hhh yes:: it ist ei:n uh gutes:: uh ( . ) color is a: uh goo::d uh ( . ) color lind: ja [ja yes [yes libby: [an an du [on on you lind: wirklich? really? libby: ja yes lind: ah ja ich weiss .hhh es ist sehr warm ah yes I know .hhh it is very warm libby: ja yes lind: mhm mhm libby: .hhh ja uhm uh ich trage mein hut und uh ( . ) .hhh yes uhm uh I wear my hat and uh ( . ) mein : : : e ( . ) warmes sachen am tag= m : : : y ( . ) warm clothes during the day=

In line 01, Libby pays the initial compliment about Lindsey’s coat which is met with Lindsey’s spontaneous pragmatic transfer in line 02. In line 04, Lindsey repairs her transfer and, by means of her repair operation, provides a different compliment-response. This is followed by Libby’s initiating another round of compliments in lines 04/05 as she pays Lindsey a compliment concerning the suitability of the coat’s color to her appearance. Subsequently, Lindsey follows up on this second compliment with two more responses in lines 09 and 11 until the compliment sequence is concluded and the conversation moves on. Similar to the previous example, the

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

2041

Table 3 Repairing pragmatic transfer in examples 5 and 6 Pragmatic transfer

Repair initiation

Repair operation

Laughter

oh danke ach danke

or uhm! I mean

scho¨ne ja? ja ich weiss

he he he he he

recipient spontaneously reacts with pragmatic transfer of which she becomes aware. She subsequently repairs her turn, concluding her response with laughter, as illustrated in Table 3. Repair thus proves to be an effective strategy to repair pragmatics in L2 learners’ talk-ininteraction and to signal pragmatic corrections to co-participants. Laughter, as discussed in the previous section, accompanies the repair effort and concurrently signals to co-participants that there is in fact something to repair, namely, pragmatic appropriateness. Libby accordingly orients towards Lindsey’s repaired compliment-response by initiating another round of compliments in the next turn. This apparently constitutes a relevant next turn within the sequence organization of the German compliment acceptance type, as discussed and practiced in class. Based on these characteristics, it can be concluded that at this point in the interaction, both participants have made a successful shift from AE to German sequence organization. It must be emphasized, however, that ich weiss certainly does not constitute a complimentresponse, documented as either typical or acceptable in German; nor was this response taught in class (the utterance ich weiss will be discussed in detail below, as it demonstrably constitutes a reinterpretation of German compliment-response types on the part of participants). However, Libby initiates another round of compliments in her next turn (lines 05–08), orienting towards the German sequence organization underlying the compliment sequence type discussed in class. Therefore, she treats Lindsey’s repair operation, even in the absence of a response-pursuit, as if it had initiated a shift from an AE to a German sequence. This interactional move appears to be successful because both participants are in mutual alignment at this point in the interaction: following Libby’s second compliment, we see an orderly back and forth of question and answer until the compliment sequence finds its equally orderly conclusion in line 11. The conclusion of the sequence, however, stretches out over several lines in which we find a lively back and forth of agreements and assertions regarding the second compliment.22 While participants thus make the paradigm shift from AE to German in a similar way as in example 5 above, they do not conclude the compliment sequence according to the German sequence structure. In the following section, I will discuss this behavior, demonstrating that it is affected by how L2 learners negotiate their cultural orientation. 4.5. Fallacious reasoning and preference structures Above, I demonstrated with two examples that L2 learners may be enabled to anticipate, interpret, and produce L2 sequences underlying particular verbal activities which are different 22

The particulars regarding to which sequence organization participants orient in these lines (09–13) can certainly be the object of detailed analysis. However, the major point I want to make in the explication of this example is that both participants are orienting towards an invented version of compliment response sequences which is the result of a fallacious interpretation of the teaching material, as will be substantiated below. At this point it may be sufficient to say that the sequence is concluded neither in a strictly German, nor in a strictly AE format (and may thus be regarded as an exchange that needs to be analyzed in the context of interlanguage talk).

2042

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

across cultures. This structural awareness, manifest in repair that demonstrably targets pragmatic behavior, may be labeled as an awareness of culture-specific aspects of language on the pragmatic level. The question remains if L2 learners also perceived a sense of cultural difference on a psychological level. As discussed above, the German compliment-response type involving response-pursuit is a dispreferred, hence sanctionable action in AE. Therefore, one could expect L2 learners with AE cultural background to experience difficulties in engaging in this kind of response sequence. In addition to the recordings, L2 learners were asked to provide short, written self-reports about how they perceived the use of the German compliment sequences after the instructional unit about compliments. Consider the following comments (for the full list of self-reports, refer to the Appendix A). ‘‘I feel kind of rude because in America, we usually say ‘thank you’ and sometimes a return compliment. In German, it is pretty much ‘yea, I know’.’’ ‘‘I felt I was being arrogant by giving these German responses. Instead of thanking someone, I was asking for more compliments.’’ ‘‘I felt almost insulted at times. In America, saying ‘thank you’ lets us know that the compliment is appreciated. In German, it sounds like the person is very arrogant to just agree with the compliment. However, I understand that this is a cultural difference, and I’m sure that German speakers feel the same way when learning English.’’ It may be noted that these assessments reflect idealized perceptions of native speakers about their own language use which may not necessarily be correct.23 More important, however, is the circumstance that L2 learners not only perceived the differences in AE and German preference structure, but that they also promptly evaluated them: arrogance, fishing for compliments, rudeness, or impoliteness were concepts volunteered instantly. This happened in spite of the fact that the teaching unit had emphasized that, while self-praise is not appropriate in German either, this compliment-acceptance type does nevertheless occur frequently in everyday conversation. It may be added that L2 learners’ reactions were strong and emotional in the evaluation phase in class following practice of the target language structures. Some learners reported they were feeling uncomfortable using the German response types even though they were engaging in a role-play only. Obviously, the German sequences provided an opportunity for students to consider different cultural values and negotiate their own position. L2 learners thus evaluated the German pragmatic phenomena within the interpretive framework of AE pragmatic rules; in other words, they were quick to interpret the German structure through the eyes of AE speakers. In fact, many students interpreted compliment agreements such as scho¨n (‘‘that’s nice’’) as an action that, if used in an AE cultural environment, would not be a felicitous pragmatic choice. Students pointed out that such an assessment would be tantamount to stating ‘‘yes, I know’’ which, in an AE cultural and linguistic environment, would likely be considered as an inappropriate compliment acceptance. Interestingly, this interpretation found its way into students’ written self-reports 23

See the discussion of Golato’s (2003) findings regarding the potential for divergence between native speakers’ perceptions of their own language use and their actual use.

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

2043

(see above), and then, re-translated into German, was used in interaction also. Consider the marked turn in Libby and Lindsey’s compliment-response exchange analyzed above: (7) 01 02 03 04 05

Excerpt from (6) libby: du hast uh ein ( . ) scho¨nes jacke you have uh a ( . ) nice coat lind: ach danke well thank you libby: [( )[( )lind: [i mean ja ich weiss he [he he i mean yes i know he [he he libby: [he he he

Notwithstanding that the teaching material did emphatically not suggest that ich weiss (I know) constitute an acceptable compliment-response in German, Lindsey has obviously interpreted the German sequences in such a way as to assume that German speakers respond to compliments with self-praise. This line of (however fallacious) reasoning would clearly be a result of her interpreting the target language cultural phenomenon within the frame of reference of AE. In fact, this may be responsible for the unusual sequential arrangement of turns following Libby’s second compliment (example 6, lines 09–13), in which both participants make an exaggerated effort to assert and emphasize the validity of the compliment with recurrent agreements and confirmations. In light of the negative perception of this sequence type among students, another feature of the above example deserves consideration. Note how the voices of both participants change their quality and tone, beginning with Lindsey’s repair operation in line 04 and not ending until line 11, in which the compliment sequence is concluded. Laughter and a particular quality of voice may achieve the expression of an epistemic stance of speakers towards that which is being said (Golato, 2002b). It is therefore likely that both participants use prosody and laughter as markers which effectively turn their compliment exchange into a staged performance. The object of their humor is Lindsey’s overt self-praise ja ich weiss (lines 04 and 11, example 6). It is intriguing to see that L2 learners in fact do not reproduce the actual sequence structure which triggered their negative evaluation, but rather produce their negative perception of the structure, retranslated into German. As a result, L2 learners engage in overt and exaggerated self-praising behavior which coincides with prosodic markers and laughter, successfully employed by both co-participants to signal to each other that their behavior is not to be taken as either authentic or serious. It is compelling to view L2 learners’ behavior in the context of doing mutual face work (Brown and Levinson, 1987) as they display their cultural orientation in the structure of their talk. Thus, participants collaboratively make a meta-pragmatic statement which reaffirms their own cultural identity, as they orient to what they erroneously think constitutes target language pragmatics. 5. Conclusions This study investigates the effects of teaching American learners of German the sequential organization underlying particular compliment-response sequences which display cross-cultural differences in AE and German. The study thus provides an analysis of L2 learners’ pragmatic abilities, based on their actual performance in talk-in-interaction. This is desirable, firstly

2044

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

because pragmatic knowledge and pragmatic performance may not necessarily be congruent, and secondly because the production of talk allows for an analysis of participants’ reproduction of, and their orientation towards, their cultures. Examples 5 and 6 show that teaching target language pragmatics by means of L2 sequences underlying particular verbal activities is effective in that L2 learners may be facilitated to anticipate, interpret, and produce these structures. In both instances, interactants employ specific markers such as code-switching, repair, and laughter. These appear to function as discourse markers indicating participants’ paradigm shift from AE to German in the sequential organization underlying the compliment sequence in progress. Thereby, they ensure mutual alignment and contiguity in their interaction. This strategy responds to the imminent need of participants to signal to their co-participant which sequence organization they intend to realize in their talk. As the examples show, engaging in L2 sequences can indeed be understood in terms of Young and Miller’s (2004) concept of how participants move from peripheral towards fuller participation in the design of a particular ‘‘task’’, that is, a particular L2 pragmatic structure. Would repeated practice have an effect on mechanizing L2 sequences for L2 learners, or might issues of negotiating cultural identity prevent L2 learners from ‘‘fuller participation’’ in the context of foreign language classrooms? In both examples discussed above, participants perform repair on the pragmatic level and make efforts to orient to the German sequential organization (or to what they erroneously think constitutes German sequence organization) in their talk. The very presence of repair and its demonstrable interactional effectiveness not only support the case in point that L2 learners were sensitized to notice ‘‘the gap’’ (Schmidt, 1993:26) between L1 and L2 pragmatic structures by means of classroom instruction, but also that L2 learners were able to take the next step as they consciously attended to the gap by modifying their verbal behavior in their talk. It should be kept in mind that the data corpus on which this study is based is limited. To reiterate: out of 10 conversations post-instruction, six compliment sequences could be extracted. Four of them showed pragmatic transfer, whereas two showed an orientation towards the L2 patterns by L2 learners. Due to the task’s open format (which was necessary to record talk-in-interaction largely uninhibited by experimental constraints), it remains a speculative undertaking trying to attribute four ‘‘missing’’ compliments to the task-design itself, possible processing limits, social factors, or mere forgetfulness regarding the tasks at hand on part of L2 learners. While my data corpus thus allows for the pursuit of the questions underlying this study in terms of a qualitative analysis of the use of L2 pragmatic structures by L2 learners and the reproduction of culture in the structure of L2 learners’ talk, a larger pool of examples is needed to complement the findings presented here. Future studies based on larger data corpora, documenting L2 learner interaction at different proficiency levels, would be able to widen the scope of, the findings discussed here. Given that pragmatic development in L2 learners is only sparsely documented with recorded interactional data, such a line of inquiry may have the potential to create corpora of L2 learner talk-in-interaction, and thus provide further insights into pragmatic development based on performance under the demanding conditions of real-time processing. The results of this study describe a specific stage in the pragmatic development of L2 learners, characterized by initial pragmatic transfer which then may be noticed and repaired. Longitudinal studies tracing the same speakers over the course of several semesters could provide valuable insights into aspects of pragmatic development in this regard. Furthermore, it would be interesting to pursue the question how L2 learners who have received instruction in L2 sequence organization behave verbally in NS–NNS interaction. Future research in CA,

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

2045

focusing on further findings about cross-cultural differences and similarities in the sequence organization of other verbal activities would be valuable not only with pragmatic and ethnographic interests in mind, but also with regard to materials development in foreign language teaching. In terms of teaching pragmatics in L2 classrooms, instructional materials based on CAfindings such as due to Pomerantz (1978) and Golato (2002a) provide both promise and challenges. It is noteworthy that L2 learners were able to engage in L2 sequences in talk-ininteraction after only two class sessions of exposure and practice. This development could be attributed to the variety of contextual information contained in the CA-informed stimulus materials: students were provided with explicit information, authentic exemplars of sequences in a situational context, and the opportunity to engage in cross-culturally variable behavior in class. On the other hand, participants also displayed difficulties in producing the German sequences. This may be attributed to the apparent choices which L2 learners have to make since they have two models of sequence organization at their disposal. Furthermore, my data suggest that, even after explicit instruction and repeated in-class practice of target language pragmatics, pragmatic transfer may occur. However, while in both data examples discussed here, transfer was manifest as well, the data show that L2 learners may effectively be made aware of their transfer by means of teaching L2 sequence structures. Being aware of pragmatic transfer in a specific situational and sequential environment represents an important first step towards increasing one’s cross-cultural competence in interaction and may be regarded as a success of teaching L2 pragmatics by means of CAbased materials. Once L2 learners are aware of the mechanism underlying pragmatic transfer in one particular situational and sequential environment, they may be enabled to expect crosscultural pragmatic differences and pragmatic transfer due to sociopragmatic conventions in other situations. Example 6 makes a case in point: CA findings on cross-cultural differences in sequences structures are effective in directing L2 learners’ attention to culture-specific verbal behavior. Confirming Barraja-Rohan’s (1997) suggestions, the example shows that L2 learning was specifically facilitated by the learners’ negotiating their own cultural values and identity due to differences in the preference structure of the compliment-response types under discussion. While some participants modified their pragmatic behavior according to L2 structures when interacting in the target language, they did not always produce correct target language behavior, but rather produced their evaluation of target language pragmatics in their sequence structure. This demonstrates that learners, as a result of negotiating their own cultural identity, remembered their perception and cultural evaluation of L2 pragmatics more vividly than the original pragmatic structures themselves. Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain (2003) show how interactional roles are reflected in teachers’ and students’ repair behavior. Example 6 above illustrates that L2 learners’ sociocultural orientation, that is, their role as participants in an AE sociocultural setting, is equally reflected in the structure of L2 learners’ interaction. This shows that interaction in the context of foreign language learning, even if it is task-oriented, does not only reflect L2 learners’ interactional roles as learners in the classroom, but also reflects the sociocultural framework in which they are situated. As already argued above, among the advantages of L2 sequences as teaching materials are (1) that they provide students with empirically researched information rather than with idealized abstractions which are often at the heart of native speaker intuitions; (2) that they have the potential to make L2 learners aware of pragmatic transfer; (3) that they may enable L2 learners to anticipate, interpret, and produce relevant next turns in keeping with target

2046

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

language pragmatics. L2 learners may therefore benefit from instruction with CA-based materials with an increased cultural awareness that may prevent cross-cultural miscommunication in the future. However, in data example 6 the structure of interaction does not only reflect participants’ negotiation of their cultural knowledge, it rather becomes a joint statement of participants’ cultural orientation in and of itself. Thus, the examples vividly illustrate that the advantages enumerated above are balanced with the looming danger of oversimplification and erroneous reasoning in the process of cultural reflection and evaluation. This is most relevant in class, where issues of culture-specific behavior and L2 learners’ evaluation thereof can be discussed. Evaluating target language cultural phenomena with the yardstick of one’s native cultural paradigm leads to problematic conclusions, as can be seen in the written selfreports discussed above and, particularly, in data example 6. Therefore, while CA-based materials have the potential to illustrate L2 pragmatics in the service of cultural learning, they need to be presented in such a way as to emphasize the differing reference frames provided by both L1 and L2 sociopragmatic conventions. This would appear to be necessary in order to enable L2 learners to fully consider the implications, and reap the benefits, of cross-cultural awareness. Appendix A A.1. Transcription notation . , ? ?,

A period indicates a fall in tone. A comma indicates continuing intonation. A question mark indicates rising intonation. A question mark and a comma indicate rising intonation weaker than that indicated by a question mark. : A colon indicates an extension of the sound or syllable it follows (co:lon). ::: More colons prolong the stretch (co:::lon). A single dash indicates an abrupt ending or cutoff. mine Emphasis is indicated by underlining. CAP Capital letters are used to indicate an utterance, or part thereof, that is spoken much louder than the surrounding talk. 8 A degree sign is used to indicate a passage of talk which is quieter than the surrounding talk. (hhh) Audible aspirations. .hhh Audible inhalations. (( )) Vocalizations that are not recognizable, i.e. the transcription is not clear. >mine< Part of an utterance is delivered at a pace quicker than the surrounding talk. () Items in doubt are enclosed with single parenthesis. [I used Utterances starting simultaneously are linked together with left-hand [I saw brackets. I us[ed to When overlapping utterances do not start simultaneously, left-hand [he is brackets are used to mark the point at which an ongoing utterance is joined. = Utterances are linked together with equal signs when they are latched immediately, i.e. without an interval in between them. (0.7) Intervals in the stream of talk are timed in tenths of a second and inserted within parentheses, either within an utterance or between utterances.

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

2047

A.2. Self reports of L2 learners participating in this study Your own experience. How did you feel when you practiced these different ‘‘German models’’ of a compliment response sequence in class? Why? Give a brief comment. 1. ‘‘When I respond to a compliment without an ‘appreciation token’ I feel like I’m being very immodest and am not showing the person who gave the compliment that I really did appreciate the compliment.’’ 2. ‘‘In English, it is considered arrogant to accept a compliment as a truth. In my experience, it is uncomfortable to agree with a person’s comment, or worse, it feels downright silly to ‘dive’ for more compliments.’’ 3. ‘‘I felt that this was a bit rude or showed that Germans were a bit arrogant (like they were over self-confident). I felt this way because I have always been told to say ‘thank you’ and that not doing so was impolite.’’ 4. ‘‘It is a different culture, so people will obviously do things differently. I felt that if someone answered like this in America, they would be thought of as conceded or arrogant.’’ 5. ‘‘I thought it was interesting. It is always fun to learn about new cultures. To Americans it always seems a little arrogant but to Germans, Americans probably seem a little weird.’’ 6. ‘‘At first, I did not know where you were going with it, but it helped me to learn a difference between American English speakers and German speakers.’’ 7. ‘‘The difference seemed very big. I am not used to having to keep saying how or why I liked it. In English we just say ‘thanks’ and we go on. But in German we keep talking about it. It was just weird, but I am not used to it.’’ 8. ‘‘I thought using the German compliments was strange, like fishing for compliments. It sounded like arrogance sometimes.’’ 9. ‘‘I had never noticed the difference. I don’t think it will change my perspective much but I’m glad I learned it.’’ 10. ‘‘I felt almost insulted at times. In America, saying ‘thank you’ lets us know that the compliment is appreciated. In German, it sounds like the person is very arrogant to just agree with the compliment. However, I understand that this is a cultural difference, and I’m sure that German speakers feel the same way when learning English.’’ 11. ‘‘They were different from American responses. It was different and interesting.’’ 12. ‘‘I feel kind of rude because in America, we usually say ‘thank you’ and sometimes a return compliment. In German, it is pretty much ‘ya, I know’.’’ 13. ‘‘It was different. It’s strange for me to say ‘I know’ to a compliment. I feel pretentious.’’ 14. ‘‘The way Germans respond it seems rude if it were done in American culture.’’ 15. ‘‘At first it felt a little odd but I soon came to understand the slightly different social interactions at play and then it felt pretty natured.’’ 16. ‘‘I thought it was interesting to learn the way a different culture would normally take a compliment. Practicing the different ways was fine.’’ 17. ‘‘When I was using German compliment responses it made me feel sorta like a jerk. If someone was to say that to me I would have been offended.’’ 18. ‘‘I felt I was being arrogant by giving these German responses. Instead of thanking someone, I was asking for more compliments.’’ 19. ‘‘It felt a bit awkward just because it isn’t the way we are used to give compliments. It was a little unnatural. It’s not a bad thing but it felt a bit weird at first.’’

2048

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

References Aston, Guy, 1986. Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: the more the merrier? Applied Linguistics 7 (7), 128– 143. Atkinson, J., Drew, Paul, 1979. Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. MacMillan, London. Atkinson, J., 1982. Understanding formality: notes on the categorization and production of ‘formal’ interaction. British Journal of Sociology 33, 86–117. Atkinson, John, and Heritage, John, 1984. Structures of social action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mahan-Taylor, R. 2003. Teaching pragmatics. Washington, DC: US Department of State, Office of English Language Programs. Retrievable on the WWW at http://exchanges.state.gov/education/engteaching/ pragmatics.htm. Barron, Anne, 2003. Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics. In: Learning How To Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, 1996. Pragmatics and language teaching: bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. Pragmatics and Language Learning 7, 21–39. Barnlund, Dean C., Araki, Shoko, 1985. Intercultural encounters: the management of compliments by Japanese and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 16, 9–26. Barraja-Rohan, Anne-Marie, 1997. Teaching conversation and sociocultural norms with conversation analysis. In: A.J. Liddicoat, C. Crozet (Eds.). Teaching language, teaching culture, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, 14, 71–88. Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Creese, Angela, 1991. Speech act variation in British and American English. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 7, 2, 37–58. Crozet, Chantal, Liddicoat, Anthony J., 1997. Teaching culture as an integrated part of language teaching: an introduction. In: C. Crozet, A.J. Liddicoat (Eds.). Teaching Language, Teaching Culture 14, pp. 71–88. Crystal, David (Ed.), 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. second ed. Cambridge University Press, New York. Daikuhara, M., 1986. A study of compliments from a cross-cultural perspective: Japanese vs. American English. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 2(2), 103–134. Drew, Paul, 1984. Analyzing the use of language in courtroom interaction. In: v. Dijk, T. (Ed.), A Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 3. Academic Press, New York. Firth, Alan, Wagner, Johannes, 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal 81, 285–300. Firth, A., Wagner, Johannes, 1998. SLA property: no trespassing! The Modern Language Journal 82, 91–94. Gass, Susann M., 1998. Apples and oranges: or, why apples are not oranges and don’t need to be. A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal 82, 83–90. Golato, Andrea, 2002a. German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 547–571. Golato, Andrea, 2002b. Grammar and interaction: reported discourse and subjunctive in German. Zeitschrift fu¨r Sprachwissenschaft 22 (1), 24–55. Golato, Andrea, 2003. Studying compliment responses: a comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24 (1), 90–121. Golato, Andrea, 2005. Compliments and Compliment Responses: Grammatical Structure and Sequential Organization. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Gumperz, John J., 1977. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Harren, Inga, 2001. ‘‘ne?’’ in Alltagsgespra¨chen. - Interaktive Funktionen und Positionierungen in Turn und Sequenz. Unpublished Masters thesis, Carl von Ossietzky Universita¨t, Oldenburg. Herbert, Robert K., 1986. Say ‘‘Thank you’’ – or something. American Speech 61, 76–88. Herbert, Robert K., 1990. Sex-based differences in compliment behavior. Language in Society 19, 201–224. Herbert, Robert K., Straight, H. Stephen, 1989. Compliment-rejection versus compliment avoidance: listener-based versus speaker-based pragmatic strategies. Language and Communication 9, 35–47. Heritage, John, 1984. Analyzing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In: v. Dijk, T. (Ed.), A Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3. Academic Press, New York. Holmes, Janet, 1986. Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics 28 (4), 485–508.

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

2049

Holmes, Janet, 1988. Paying compliments: a sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 445–465. Holmes, Janet, Brown, Dorothy F., 1987. Teachers and students learning about compliments. TESOL Quarterly 21 (3), 523–546. Huth, Thorsten, 2005. Talking perspective: conversation analysis and culture in the German foreign language classroom. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Kansas. Huth, Thorsten, Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen, 2006. How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching Research 10(1), 1–27. Jaworski, Adam, 1994. Pragmatic failure in a second language: greeting responses in English by Polish students. International Review of Applied Linguistics 32 (1), 41–55. Jefferson, Gail, 1980. The abominable Ne? An exploration of the post-response pursuit of response. In: Schroeder, P., Steger, H. (Eds.), Dialogforschung. Jahrbuch 1980 des Instituts fu¨r deutsche Sprache. Pa¨dagogischer Verlag Schwann, Du¨sseldorf, pp. 53–88. Jefferson, Gail, 1984. Transcription notation. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. ix–xvi. Kasper, Gabriele, 1992. Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8, 201–231. Kasper, Gabriele, 1997a. The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. In: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, K.B. (Eds.), Beyond Methods: Components of Second Language Teacher Education. MacGraw Hill, New York, pp. 113– 136. Kasper, Gabriele, 1997b. ‘‘A’’ stands for acquisition: a response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal 81, 307–312. Kasper, Gabriele, 2005. Speech acts in interaction: towards discursive pragmatics. Paper Presented at the 16th International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning, Bloomington, IN. Kasper, Gabriele, Rose, Kenneth R., 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Malden, MA, Blackwell. Knapp, Mark L., Hopper, Robert, Bell, Robert, 1984. Compliments: a descriptive taxonomy. Journal of Communication 34, 12–32. Kotthoff, Helga, 1989. So nah und doch so fern. Deutsch-amerikanische pragmatische Unterschiede im universita¨ren Milieu. Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache 16, 448–459. Leech, Geoffrey N., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London. Liebscher, Grit, Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer, 2003. Repair as a role-defining mechanism in classroom interaction. Modern Language Journal 87 (3), 375–390. Long, Michael H., 1997. Construct validity in SLA research: a response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal 81, 318–323. Markee, Numa, 2000. Conversation Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ/London. Markee, Numa, Kasper, Gabriele, 2004. Classroom talks: an introduction. Modern Language Journal 88 (4), 491–500. McHoul, Alec, 1978. The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society 7, 183–213. Mehan, Hugh, 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Moerman, Michael, 1988. Talking culture. In: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Mondada, Lorenza, Pekarek-Doehler, Simona, 2004. Second language acquisition as situated practice: task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. Modern Language Journal 88, 501–518. Nelson, G.L., Bakary, W.E., Batal, M.A., 1996. Egyptian and American compliments: focus on second language learners. In: Gass, S.M., Neu, J. (Eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 109–128. Pomerantz, Anita, 1978. Compliment responses. Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In: Schenkein, J. (Ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Academic Press, New York/San Francisco/ London, pp. 79–112. Pomerantz, Anita, 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rose, Kenneth R., 2001. Compliments and compliment responses in film: implications for pragmatics research and language teaching. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 39, 309–326. Rose, Kenneth R., 2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragamatics. System 33, 385–399. Rose, Kenneth R., Kasper, Gabriele, 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail, 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696–735. Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1993. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26 (1), 99–128.

2050

T. Huth / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 2025–2050

Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1995. Sequence organization. Unpublished manuscript. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Sacks, Harvey, 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8, 289–327. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail, Sacks, Harvey, 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53 (2), 361–382. Schieffelin, Bambi, Ochs, Elinor, 1986. Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Schmidt, Richard, 1993. Consciousness, learning, and interlangauge pragmatics. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 21–41. Schneider, Klaus P., Schneider, Iris, 2000. Bescheidenheit in vier Kulturen: Komplimenterwiderungen in den USA, Irland, Deutschland und China. In: M. Skog-So¨dersved (Ed.) (2000). Ethische Konzepte und mentale Kulturen 2: Sprachwissenschaftliche Studien zu Ho¨flichkeit als Respektverhalten. Vaasan Yliopisto, Vaasa, pp. 65–80. Schwarze, Achim, 1994. Die Magie der scho¨nen Worte. Alles u¨ber Komplimente. Eichborn, Frankfurt a.M. Seedhouse, Paul, 1998. CA and the analysis of foreign language interaction: a reply to Wagner. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 85–102. Seedhouse, Paul, 2004. The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell, Malden, MA. Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen, 2002. A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and nonnative speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1807–1832. Tateyama, Yumiko, 2001. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese Sumimasen. In: Rose, K.R., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 200–222. Thomas, Jenny, 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4, 91–112. Walters, Francis S., 2004. An application of conversation analysis to the development of a test of second-language pragmatic competence. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Wolfson, Nessa, 1981. Invitations, compliments and the competence of the native speaker. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 8, 7–22. Wolfson, Nessa, 1983. An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English. In: Wolfson, N., Judd, E. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Newbury House Publishers, Rowley, MA/London/Tokyo, pp. 82– 95. Wolfson, Nessa, Manes, Joan, 1980. The compliment as a social strategy. Papers in Linguistics 13, 391–410. Wong, Jean, 2002. ‘‘Applying’’ conversation analysis in applied linguistics: evaluating ESL textbook telephone dialogue. International Review of Applied Linguistics 40 (1), 37–60. Young, Richard F., Miller, Elizabeth M., 2004. Learning as changing participation: discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. Modern Language Journal 88, 519–535. Thorsten Huth received his Ph.D. in Germanic Languages and Literatures at the University of Kansas in 2005. His teaching and research interests include second language acquisition and foreign language pedagogy and focus on the links of language, culture, and pragmatics in the context of foreign language teaching.