Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T18:05:29.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical-Grammatical Pragmatic Indicators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Shoshana Blum-Kulka  and
Edward A. Levenston
Shoshana Blum-Kulka
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Edward A. Levenston
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our main aim in this paper is to explore the interlanguage pragmatics of learners of Hebrew and English. We focus on the use of pragmatic indicators, both lexical (please/bevaqaŝa; perhaps/ulay) and grammatical (e.g., the difference between could I borrow and could you lend), with particular reference to deviations from native-speaker norms in the speech of non-native speakers. The analysis follows the analytical framework developed for the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP). Data from two sets are analyzed: (a) native and non-native Hebrew, and (b) native and non-native English (with occasional reference to other CCSARP data sets). The results suggest that non-native speakers' misuse of pragmatic indicators can have serious interactional consequences, ranging from inappropriateness to pragmatic failure.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1987 , pp. 155 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Blum, S., & Levenston, E. A. (1979). Universals of lexical simplification. Language Learning, 28, 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (in press). Modifiers as indicating devices: The case of requests. Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.), (in press). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applica Linguistics, 5, 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (1973). On accounting for illocutionary forces. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 287–308). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1981). Pragmatische Aspekte in der Interinsprache. Tubingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
Levenston, E. A., & Blum, S. (1977). Aspects of lexical simplifications in the speech and writing of advanced learners. In Actes du 5eme Colloque de Linguistique Appliquée de Neuchatel-Droz (pp. 51–71). Genève.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. (1974). Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar