|
|
Cooperation, common ground and mutual knowledgeAs stated above, lingua franca speakers demonstrated a very egocentric approach to language production and comprehension. It is not that they did not want to be cooperative, or relevant, or committed to the conversation. Rather, in the first phase of communication, instead of looking for common ground, they articulated their own intentions with whatever linguistic means they had immediate access to. This does not mean, of course, that lingua franca communication is not a collaborative phenomenon. Rather collaboration happens in a different way than in native-native communication. It is not just lingua franca speaker behavior that has directed attention to the egocentric behavior of speaker-hearers as well as to the problems with the interpretation of cooperation, common ground and mutual knowledge. They depend on familiarity, frequency and conventionality. What the speaker says relies on prior conversational experience reflected in lexical choices in production, and how the listener understands what is said in the actual situational context also depends on his/her prior conversational experience with the use of lexical items applied in the speaker’s utterances. Smooth communication depends primarily on the match between the two. Cooperation, relevance, and reliance on possible mutual knowledge come in to play only after the speaker’s ego is satisfied and the listener’s egocentric, most salient interpretation is processed. In comprehension it is not that we first decode the language and then try to make sense of it but we try to make sense of it right away and make adjustments if language does not make sense. In production the speaker’s primary goal is to formulate the message according to her/his intention. It appears that mutual knowledge is most likely implemented as a mechanism for detecting and correcting errors instead of an intrinsic, routine process of the language processor. The following excerpt from the database support this assumption: Brazilian: – Have you ever heard about au pair before? Columbian: – No, what is au pair? Hong Kong: – It’s a French word. Brazilian: – We come as an exchange to take care of kids. Columbian: – What kids? Brazilian: – Kids in the host family. We live with the host family. Hong Kong: – By the way, how about the kids? How do you know what to do with theme? Brazilian: – We have to go to training. The participants of this interaction are girls from Brazil, Columbia and Hong Kong. The Brazilian girl works as an “au pair”. As the conversation unfolds they say what they think with simple linguistic means. They create mutual knowledge on the spot, making sure that their interlocutors really understand their intention. It is important, therefore to rethink exactly what it means to be cooperative, a concept that is at the heart of most theories of language use. For one, the supposition that speakers strive to be maximally informative in lexical selection does not seem to fit what they actually do. Perhaps a better description of what they do is simply to rely on their past and current discourse experience and select the terms that are most strongly available to them. It is not through the individual sentence by which language users demonstrate they are cooperative, but rather it is how they behave over the course of the conversation. So cooperation and relevance may be discourse level rather than sentence-level phenomena. The pragmatically enriched content is a partially pragmatically determined proposition which may accommodate different degrees of explicitness and implicitness. It appears to be necessary to distinguish this level because in most cases the proposition literally expressed is not something the speaker could possibly mean. For instance at a gas station: – I am the black Mercedes over there. Could you fill me up with diesel, please. – Sure. Mutually salient information (unless it is connected with the ongoing speech situation as we saw it when ELF speakers created their own formulas) is something ELF speakers lack because they speak several different L1s and represent different cultures. For them mutually salient information should be directly connected with the actual speech situation and/or encoded in the linguistic code so that it can be “extracted” by the hearer without any particular inference based on non-existing common prior experience in lingua franca communication. Inferencing for the lingua franca hearer usually coincides with decoding. This is why they avoid formulaic language that usually expresses some kind of collective salience to the members of a particular speech community. Phrasal units, situation-bound utterances, and idioms do not convey the same message to lingua franca communicators because they come from different language backgrounds and different cultures, and their prior experience with those fixed expressions in the lingua franca is quite limited and differs from one individual to the next. We can almost be sure that native speakers will understand as a matter of fact, welcome aboard, piece of cake, have another go in a similar way because they have relatively similar prior experience with those expressions in conversation, which has resulted in the development of a salient meaning for the whole speech community (collective salience). However, this is not the case in lingua franca communication where what is common for each interlocutor is what the linguistic item actually says. Conclusion This study demonstrated that lingua franca speakers do not treat their common language as something different from what they use with native speakers. Rather they are constrained by the specific nature of lingua franca communication, which requires them to use the linguistic code as directly as possible even if their language proficiency would allow them to sound more native-like than they actually do. It should be underlined, however, that this is not a simplistic way of using the common language although a particular simplification is also essential in this language use mode. The complexity of lingua franca can be detected on the discourse rather than the utterance level. Using their linguistic repertoire, lingua franca speakers try to do two things. First, they make an attempt to stick to the original rules of the game inasmuch as it supports their communicative goals, and second, they try to create some ad hoc rules of the game “on-line”, during the lingua franca interaction. English Lingua Franca can hardly be considered a language, or even a variety of language. Rather it is a language use mode, which should be described from a cognitive-pragmatic perspective. The language competence of ELF speakers is put to use under particular circumstances in which the participants usually represent several different languages and cultures. The result is a language use mode which has some common pragmatic, discourse and grammatical features. Therefore, the primary goal of ELF research should be to investigate discourse strategies that keep this language use mode coherent, pragmatic structures that give its uniqueness and lexico-grammatical features that account for its closeness to standard English. Further research should also focus on Lingua Franca Pragmatics that will not only describe the characteristic features of lingua franca communication but also relate the new findings to existing concepts within the pragmatics paradigm such as intention, cooperation, common ground, mutual knowledge, inference and relevance. This paper has been an attempt in that direction.
Instruction:The role of formulaic language has generally received only marginal attention within linguistic and second language acquisition theory. While there has been continuing interest in the phenomenon, no coherent overall model has yet emerged. Istvan Kecskes’ research provides an up-to-date survey of the second language literature on the role of formulaic language. Drawing on a variety of approaches, and including reference to native language learning and use he considers different functions of formulaic language, i.e. as communicative, production, and learning strategy. Istvan Kecskes’ paper argues that the most urgent task is to address the difficulties surrounding the identification of formulaic language and to place the study of formulaic language within a larger, coherent framework. It is suggested that this may only be possible by abandoning strict boundaries between English Lingua Franca knowledge and use. Use samples of formulaic language given below for abstract, summary and critique writing.
to begin by explaining the broad-scale or general context to place your topic in perspective to lend itself to rigorous analysis to reach/to draw a conclusion to develop a research hypothesis, to jot down to come to mind tocenter-justify or left-justify the headings to set out the title of the paper, the name of the course, and the name of the paper's author to be plagued with spelling and syntax errors to be checked against other reputable sources tocome to the very heart of to opt for tobore smb to distraction to submit prepackaged research papers downloaded from the Web to quote verbatim (word for word). presentation framework key elements the broad context for the paper set out at the global, regional, and national levels it is testable in a quantitative fashion plagiarism is the act of passing someone else's work off as your own direct plagiarism indirect plagiarism common knowledge once you have read the author’s premise – assumption, (pre)supposition; (pre)condition, prerequisite crucial to state your research question a framework for the appropriate place to provide a historical background to the "heart" of your research paper thesis statement a key pattern or concept parenthetical reference the issue under investigation. a critique paper your field articles the impact of the results. in the long run Unit 2-23. NON-NATIVE/NON-NATIVE LINGUA FRANCA INTERACTION 
Не нашли, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском по сайту: ©2015 - 2024 stydopedia.ru Все материалы защищены законодательством РФ.
|