Overview

This paper will identify two categories of learner divergence (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010, p. 77) that could impact the effectiveness of English language/pragmatics training that I have proposed for the Bosnian immigrants working at The Principia.

Learners

This paper supposes teaching adult Bosnian immigrants who have a basic knowledge of English. Their knowledge of English has come through immersion and “street learning” vs. formal instruction. Prior to immigration, they completed at least 12 years of education in their native language, and many hold college degrees. Most held professional positions, or positions of responsibility in social/volunteer organizations (for example: church).

Cultural Analysis

Because I have not yet conducted a class with these learners, and because my knowledge of Bosnian culture is limited, I referred to “The Hofstede Centre” web site (http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html). The Hofstede web site allows examination of cultural tendencies. These tendencies could contribute to or correlate with specific learner divergences.

I recognize that this is a speculative approach, however, I have little other data to reference in determining a starting point for instruction.

Although the Hofstede web site does not include Bosnia, it does include Serbia and Croatia – countries that bound Bosnia to the west and east, respectively. This chart shows how the two countries compare in terms of the “6-D” model proposed by Hofstede:

Based on the close correspondence between Serbia and Croatia, I propose that Bosnia’s results would fall within a similar range.

Comparing Serbia to the United States, the marked differences between cultural tendencies are immediately clear, and, by inference would apply to Bosnia as well:

Cultural Analysis

Using the Hofstede cultural analysis as a guide, I suggest two important learner divergences for this group:

1) Negative transfer of pragmatic norms

Ishihara and Cohen describe pragmatic transfer (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010, p. 77) as the application of one’s “native” pragmatic norms in learning a new language. When native norms correspond to the cultural context associated with the target language, the transfer is said to be “positive.” When one applies pragmatic norms from their upbringing to a new language, but those norms are in conflict with the new cultural context, the transfer is negative.

The difference in “power distance” between the Bosnian region of the world and the United States may correlate with my observations of our Bosnian workers’ behavior in the workplace. They express a very strong desire to please and they consistently exhibit a highly respectful demeanor appropriate for interactions with people far above their “station.” Getting to know them as individuals and achieving collegial relationships with them has been a slow process – years in many cases. Presumably they will tend make pragmatic decisions from this high-power-distance context and perhaps mistakenly communicate a desire to remain distant vs. collegial.

2) Overgeneralization of pragmatic norms
In some cases, language learners mistakenly apply a pragmatic norm or “rule” beyond the context in which it is most effective. Ishihara and Cohen call this “overgeneralization of pragmatic norms,” (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010, p. 81) which can lead to misleading communications.

The very high “uncertainty avoidance” score for their native region leads me to think that, once they understand a “rule” for speaking English, our Bosnian workers may be more likely to apply that rule universally, instead of adjusting for context.

Proposed Awareness-Raising Tasks

To address these learner divergences, language lessons for our Bosnian workers should incorporate “awareness-raising tasks” (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010, p. 113). To help learners grasp and internalize the pragmatics of the target language, both attention and awareness must be drawn to global and specific attributes of that language (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010, p. 101). These three exercises are intended to prompt learners to “notice” specific pragmatic aspects that will address the learner divergences noted above.

Awareness-Raising Task 1

Learner divergence targeted: Overgeneralization of Pragmatic Norms
Specific pragmatic attribute: In the United States formality varies more significantly with “social distance” (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010, p. 42).
Instructional approach: deductive (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010, p. 116)
Topic: Thanking in various social contexts

Displayed in the classroom (on a marker board or power point) is a table with the following columns:

Person ‘1’ | Person ‘2’ | How much do they know each other? | Boss | Employee | First Meeting | Taxi Driver | Customer | Met one week ago | Store Worker | Boss | See each other often | Employee | Store Worker | Friends |

And a list of “thanking phrases:”

* Thanks * Thanks a lot * Thank you * Thank you very much * Thank you sir / ma’am * Thank you very much sir / ma’am

The teacher explains that person ‘1’ has just done a simple favor (such as opening a door) for person ‘2.’ Students take turns proposing which of the thank-you phrases might fit, given the roles and relationship status chosen by the teacher (who varies the scenario by mixing elements from the various rows).

Students explain the reason for their choice. The teacher, through guiding questions and statements, explores with the class what influences the formality of the “thank you” phrasing, with a focus on social distance.

Analysis phase: The students are asked to describe how person “two” might react if the thank-you phrase is mismatched to the relationship (teacher provides example mismatches e.g. a store worker says “thanks” casually to a new customer).

Awareness-Raising Task 2

Learner divergence targeted: Overgeneralization of Pragmatic Norms
Specific pragmatic attribute: The act of thanking serves multiple purposes, including signaling “the conclusion of a conversation” and “to show gratitude” (http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/thanks/american.html ).
Instructional approach: inductive (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010, p. 116)
Topic: Pragmatic Strategies Associated with Thanking

Students’ homework is to watch several news broadcasts and note when on-air personalities say “thank you.” They are asked to bring a brief description of the context of the “thank you” and the thanking words that were used.

In class, students take turns presenting their notes and the teacher leads a discussion.

Example scenarios that may be recorded by students:

1) The news anchor “thanks” a remote reporter as the remote report concludes and the anchor is about to turn to the next story. 2) At the beginning of an interview, an interviewer thanks his subject for agreeing to speak. 3) An interviewer thanks her subject for being willing to appear on camera in very difficult circumstances. 4) At the end of the broadcast, the news anchor thanks viewers for watching. 5) Others . . .

Discussion (perhaps one discussion prompted by a scenario from each student, as long as the scenarios are different):

* What was the speaker trying to achieve by thanking? * Based on the listener’s response, did the speaker succeed? * Is “thank you” in this case a heart-felt statement, or something said as a matter of politeness?

Analysis phase: Students discuss how the pragmatic strategies associated with “thanking” in their native culture differ from the examples reported through their observation of the news broadcasts.

Awareness-Raising Task 3

Learner divergence targeted: Negative Transfer of Pragmatic Norms
Specific pragmatic attribute: Thanking can be used to reassure the listener, especially when combined with certain phrases. (http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/thanks/american.html ).
Instructional approach: inductive & deductive (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010, p. 116)
Topic: Pragmatic Strategies Associated with Thanking

The teacher explains “reassurance” including the goal of the speaker and the intended outcome of making reassuring statements.

Students are presented with the following table (on a marker board or computer projection):

“Thanks” | “Thanks for arranging my surprise birthday party. You invited exactly the people I wanted.” | “Thank you sir.” | “Thank you sir. I appreciate that you noticed my effort on this project.” | “Thank you very much.” | “Thank you very much for the ride. If you hadn’t seen me and picked me up, I’d still be walking home.” | “Thank you dear.” | “Thank you for the roses dear. I was feeling sad and they cheered me up.” |

The teacher leads a class discussion about each row using the following prompts and questions:

* Is the thanking language formal? Informal? * Who might be doing the thanking? * Are there any cases where this language would not be appropriate? * If you were thanked each of the two ways, would you feel differently? * How?

Analysis phase: The teacher leads students in a discussion of why thanking for reassurance is a practice in the United States. Is it done in Bosnia? (Speculation: the remarkable difference in “individualism” scores on the Hofstede scale may underlie a difference in thanking practice: in a more collective culture, it’s possible that reassurance is less needed. This discussion may help students gain insight into the pragmatics of thanking, or it may help the teacher find out if such differences exist, or both.)