1

___________________________________________________________________________

CROSS-CULTURAL PRAGMATICS AND ITS CHALLENGES IN

EFL CONTEXT
Dian Rianita

Abstract
The target of teaching and learning a foreign language, like English, is
customary to give the learners knowledge in using the target language for
communication in an appropriate way. Because of that, it is not enough to teach the
learners merely grammar skills, but they have to be provided with the cross-cultural
competence in using the target language. Linguists believe that mastering high-level
skills in grammar does not mean the learners have the equal pragmatic competence.
Thus, the instruction concerning pragmatics is compulsory in term of rising a cross-
cultural awareness. This paper discusses the intercultural pragmatics and its
importance in second language acquisition. The discussion covers the challenges face
by the learners in becoming proficient at using English as their target language

Key words : cross-cultural communication, pragmatics, challenges.

1. Introduction
In general, the target of foreign language learning is to enable the learners to
communicate the language in foreign communication context appropriately. In this
case, it involves not only the grammar competence but also the cross-cultural
pragmatics competence since they have to be able to talk in appropriate ways in a
particular communication context. Crystal (1997) states that learning pragmatics is
learning of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they
make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the
effects their use of language has on their participants in the act of communication.
Hence, learning intercultural pragmatics can be defined as to study of communicative
action in its sociocultural context (Rose & Kasper, 2001).
High level of grammatical competence does not ensure the equally high level
of pragmatic competence (Bardovi-Harlig et.al, 1991). Apparently, both capabilities
are not contradictory. Linguistic competence is important but not sufficient as a
platform for foreign language pragmatic competence development. The acquisition of
the linguistics competence generally goes before the acquisition of the pragmatic
 2
___________________________________________________________________________

competence. Hence, the instruction in pragmatics is necessary in order to develop of

pragmatic principles governing interpersonal interaction in cross-cultural
communication (Kumar Dash, 2015). The lack of sufficient pragmatic knowledge like
politeness, implicature, speech acts, etc. can be the primary cause of breaking down
of communication. It can lead towards the emergence of uncooperative and, more
seriously rude or insulting.
Some potential research identify that common problem in teaching pragmatics
is regarding the complete number of speech acts, as Williams (1988) observes. He
argues that a large number of language functions and speech acts makes the teaching
of specific acts an unattainable goal and instead suggests, “the focus should be on
using language in ongoing discourse, in a particular context, for a particular purpose,
and as part of a strategy (pp. 46)”. However, it is impossible to prepare students for
every context, or even all of the most common situations they will face in natural
language settings (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 1991). Therefore, the creativity of the
teachers to provide specific strategies is needed to overcome the lack of the
intercultural pragmatics learning in EFL.

2. Objective
This paper discusses: (a) the importance of the intercultural pragmatics
knowledge, (b) and its challenge in EFL context. Because of that, the description of
the analysis will give emphasis on the cross-cultural pragmatics and the challenges to
master it by ESL learners.

3. Previous studies
Recent studies have resulted in valuable descriptions of a variety of speech
acts demonstrating the development of pragmatic competence in different cultures. To
say and response a certain speech act in particular culture or cross-culture context
concerning the target-language community has become exciting topics in EFL context
(Bardovi-Harlig, 1991, Kasper, 1997). The following previous studies show us that
several cases regarding cross-cultural speech acts depict the possible conflict between
native speakers of English as the target language and Non-native speakers occur
because of cultural differences background and the strategy to create EFL learning
activity.
 3
___________________________________________________________________________

Yuan et al. (2011) studied American and Chinese complaints as seen from
strategy use from a cross-cultural perspective. 40 American and Taiwanese university
students were recruited and asked to fill out a discourse completion test (DCT)
containing eight complaint-provoking scenarios. As the finding, they found out that
compared to American complaints, the Chinese complaints seem to be more sensitive
to social power. Meanwhile, the American participants expressed facts of annoyance
across all the situations, even though they mitigated their complaint by employing
downgraders when speaking to a higher-standing person as recognition of unequal
power relationship between the employer and the employee.
Bergman & Kasper (1993) studied the perception and performance in native
and non-native apology. In their research, they identified the contextual factors in a
variety of offense contexts perceived by Thai and American informant and the
selection of apology strategies by giving assessment question to 423 Thai graduate
students and 30 NS of American English are given the assessment questions regarding
to study. As a result, the Thai-English users differed least from the English NS in
their suppliance of upgrading and the canonical strategies IFID and taking on
responsibility, and besides, most differences occurred in the context-dependent
strategies. Besides that, more than half of the differences in apology suppliance could
tentatively be attributed to pragmatic transfer from Thai apology patterns.
Beebe, Takahashi and Ulis-Weltz (1990) examined how Japanese learners of
English refused request, invitation, offers and suggestion by using DTC. Their
classification was divided into semantic formulas. Those expressions used to perform
a refusal and adjuncts (expressions which accompany refusal). In conclusion, Beebe
et al. (1990) divided refusal strategies were applied by Japanese EFL learners as
follows: (a) direct: performance and non-performance,
(b) Indirect: Statement of regret, statement of principle/philosophy, wish, excuse,
reason, explanation refusal, statement of alternative, set condition or future or past
acceptance, avoidance, attempt to dissuade, and
(c) adjunct : Statement of positive opinion, statement of empathy, pause fillers,
gratitude /appreciation.
Kumar Dash (2015) conducted his research reviewing students’ perception of
the place the pragmatic objective holds in their oral and written courses syllabi and
creating a case for a more pragmatics-oriented language teaching at the university
 4
___________________________________________________________________________

level, not only by an explicit instructed learning but also by situating pragmatics at the
heart of Foreign Language Teaching. In order to do it, he used a questionnaire as a
research tool submitted to120 University students. As the result of the study, he found
out that FL learners can learn the strategies and linguistic forms in line with pragmatic
features different contexts. In addition, Dash proposed that “this instruction should be
reinforced by some communicative activities (written or oral) in which a set of
activities could be proposed (p. 4)”.

4. Method
This study is conducted by library research and the analysis of the data is
provided in a descriptive way. Some data from the related studies are used in order to
support the discussion of the topic.

5. Discussion
When Leech (2005) questions the differences of politeness strategy between
East and West, he proposes a framework for studying linguistics politeness
phenomena in communication. It is a common principle of politeness, and grand
strategy of politeness, which is “evident in common linguistic behavior patterns in
the performance of polite speech acts such as requests, offers, compliments,
apologies, thanks, and responses to these (p.1)”. Furthermore, Leech (2005) also
confirm that according to grand strategy of politeness, it is clear that a speaker
communicates meaning which “(a) place a high value on what relates to other person
(typically the addressee) (Major Constraints), and (b) place a low value on what
relates to the speaker (Minor constraint) (p.1). However, it should be acknowledged
that there are differences in the setting of social parameter and the linguistic
parameter of politeness among different languages. Largely, Whizbicka (in Leech,
2005) confirms, "interaction is governed by norms which are culturally specific and
which reflects cultural values cherries by a particular society (p.3).
Hofstede' (in Yuan et al., 2011) claims that most English speaking country has
the high related individualism index (IDV) assesses a culture's relative position in the
individualism-collectivism continuum. Cultures with high IDVs like, American,
Australian, Canada, etc. have highly individualistic populations. They place great
importance on their personal rights, and the autonomy of the individual is paramount.
 5
___________________________________________________________________________

They take care of themselves and their immediate families only. The words that best
reflect their attributes are “self,” “privacy,” and “independence.” On the contrary,
cultures with low IDVs such as Chinese, Japanese etc. tend to be group-oriented.
People living in those societies must be loyal to the group to which they belong. The
absolute obligation to the group and the group’s best interest always come before
individual interest, and the individual expects to be taken care of by the group
(Bouchard, 2011).
By understanding the different norms and cultural values, the learners enable
comprehend that what is polite in one culture may not be polite in another. Likewise,
what is considered polite by some may not be regarded as polite by others. It is the
importance of cross-cultural pragmatics knowledge to avoid pragmatic failure. This
kind of failures often happen when the felicity conditions are violated (Austin in
Bouchard, 2011).
Many other language-specific pragmatic norms can be brought to EFL
learners'attention. Dufon (2008) points out the example of the Japanese culture that it
places a high value on form and outward appearance. It is a shred of evidence in
pragmatic routines as well as other aspects of the culture and another specificity of
Japanese language use concerning turn-taking strategies. According to Bouchard
(2011):
Japanese speakers can remain silent for a more extended stretch of time
than what most English speakers may deem appropriate. For the
Japanese, the strategy of silence is not always to opt out of a
conversation, but often to take time to reflect on an issue, or to position
themselves in such a way as to avoid face-threatening acts head-on.
They also tend to avoid interrupting others, unless the element of power
is especially marked. In Western cultures, on the other hand, hierarchical
relationships ― while very much prevalent ― tend to be masked by a
preference for more symmetrical discourse structures (p. 87)

Another case occurred regarding to cross-cultural communication revealed

that learners of English are often unable to end, or close, conversations appropriately
(Bardovi-Harlig, 1989). Even advanced learners of English have difficulty
recognizing when a native speaker is closing the conversation, providing the
necessary responses, and initiating a closing. Wuryaningrum’s study (2008) showed
the case when an Indonesian student met a female teacher of English (NS) for the first
time in Jakarta, and they have conversation as follows:
NS : Nice to meet you.
 6
___________________________________________________________________________

NNS : Nice to meet you, too

(after chatting for a while)
NS : Nice meeting you. (intended to close the talk)
(NNS continued talking)
NS : Sorry I have to go.

There is a misunderstanding in intercultural communication in that conversation.

Some Indonesian learners may know the literal meaning of an utterance, but to some
extent, they fail to comprehend its contextual meaning. In the example above, in fact,
the NS wanted to close the conversation politely by saying ‘nice meeting you.
Unfortunately, NNS did not understand that farewell expression and kept talking. This
situation becomes inconvenient when NS said something straightforward that she had
to go. In line with this, Bardovi-Harlig (1989) emphasizes, "knowing how to close or
say 'goodbye' in one's native language does not ensure success in another language.
Closings are culture-specific, both in their obligatoriness and structure (p. 6)".
Furthermore, according to her, an American English closing must have, at a bare
minimum, a terminal pair. It is by use of this pair that speakers terminate
conversations. Although the terminal exchange is central to saying goodbye, other
turns are frequently involved. Speakers may take a turn to verify that the conversation
has ended. In this case, the NS should have understood the signal of the closing, and
response in the same meaning, such as ‘oh..okay, nice meeting you, too.” or “see you
later.” Instead of doing so, he kept talking and possibly became a nuisance for NS.

In order to avoid the cross-cultural pragmatics failure, the EFL learners should
develop pragmatic awareness, which can be obtained by observing how pragmatic
notions vary cross-culturally (Bouchard, 2011). Kasper (1996) proposes that to
generate the pragmatic awareness: "there must be pertinent input, the input has to be
noticed, and the learners need ample opportunity to the develop a high level of
content (p.148)”.
The disparity between learners' and NSs' pragmatic competence may be attributed to
two key factors related to input: the availability of input and the salience of relevant
linguistic features in the input from the learner (Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1998). In
specific, there are four basic steps to integrating pragmatically appropriate language
 7
___________________________________________________________________________

into the English classroom. First, an identification of the speech act that can result
from observing students' conversational or written language use, anticipating students'
needs, or asking students to identify areas of difficulty. Selections should be made
according to the learners' needs or interests and by the current or future type of target-
language contact. Next, Data collection and description, which may be accomplished
by observing or recording spontaneous conversations or by collecting data through
role plays or discourse completion questionnaires (written role plays). Third, text and
materials evaluation that must be evaluated for authenticity. Depending on the speech
act, teachers should check for representation of the speech act in different types and
topics of conversations, and the status and relationship of the speakers, to name a few
parameters. Then, development of new materials in which Even inappropriate or
incomplete dialogues can be used profitably. There is also should be understood by
the learners that English is recently acknowledge as lingua franca, therefore is no
exclusivity that a specific culture is better than others.

6. Conclusion
To be able to communicate appropriately in the cross-cultural context is one of
the objectives in EFL. Consequently, mastering linguistics competence is not enough
without developing pragmatic competence. Dealing with foreign language means
getting in touch with the different norm or cultural values of the target language.
Therefore, EFL learners should have capacity identifying the differences of both
cultures to avoid pragmatic failure. Pragmatic competence apparently involved not
only speech acts, implicature, etc.. but most important thing is how to apply the
politeness strategy in different context situation.
The challenges for the learners to accommodate the cross-cultural pragmatics
is to comprehend the norms and cultural values of the target society; thus the learners
can avoid cross-cultural pragmatic failure. The availability of input and the salience of
relevant linguistic features in the input from the point of view of the learner, the
process of cross-cultural understanding can be enhanced eventually.
 8
___________________________________________________________________________

References

Bouchard, J. (2011). Pragmatic failure and language ideologies: Challenges in the

Japanese EFL context. Studies in Culture. 49. 69-114.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics

and pedagogy together. L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning, 4
(21-39). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dornyei, B. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic

violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning.
TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233-245

Bergman, M.L. & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and non-
native apology. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.) Interlanguage
Pragmatics. 82-107.

Beebe, L.M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatics transfer in ESL
refusals. In R.Scarcella.E. Anderson and S.D. Krashen (Eds). On the
development of communicative competence in a second language. 55-73.

Dufon, M. (2008) Language socialization theory and the acquisition of pragmatics in

the foreign language classroom. In E. Alcon Soler & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.),
 9
___________________________________________________________________________

Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing

(pp.25-44). Buffalo:Multilingual Matters

Kasper, G. (1996)The development of pragmatic competence. In E.Kellerman, B.

Weltens & T. Bongaerts (Eds.), EUROSLA 6: A Selection of papers (pp.103-
120). Tilburg: Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen

Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Retrieved from

www.lll.hawaii.edu/nflrc/NetWorks/NW6/default.html

Kasper,G. & Rose,K.R.(2000). Pragmatic development in a second language.

Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

Leech. G.(2005). Politeness: Is there an East-West divide?. Journal of Foreign

Language. 6. 1-25

Wuryaningrum, R.S & Andanty, F.D. (2008). Pragmatic failure in intercultural

learning. Fifth conference on English Studies: Center for Studies on Language
and Culture – Atmajaya Chatolic University.

Yuan-shan, C. et.al. (2011). Strategy use from a cross-cultural perspective .

Intercultural Pragmatics 8-2 (2011), 253–275.
 10
___________________________________________________________________________