Japanese Native Speakers Perceptions of Politeness when Refusing an Invitation: An Analysis of the Relationship between Length and Appropriateness ITO Emiko This study attempts to investigate the correlation of length with appropriateness in terms of refusals to an invitation. The data was collected from 116 Japanese native speakers who participated in a survey. The survey consisted of two variables: 1) length (long/short) and 2) appropriateness (appropriate/inappropriate). The analysis of the survey results verified the general hypothesis that, Longer expressions are politer than shorter expressions with regard to refusals under the condition that the expression is appropriate. The results of the present study show an important implication for learners of the Japanese language. The Japanese language is considered HC communication (High Context). This means that the context of communication is important in socio-cultural discourses regarding Japanese language use. If these socio-cultural expressions of communication are not followed, communication is considered incomplete (Hall 1976). This suggests that learners also need to be able to estimate the appropriate level of politeness in a close relationship and to use acceptable expressions when speaking with Japanese native speakers. 145
18 (2006 ) (second language) 1) (pragmatic competence) (interlanguage pragmatics) (Blum- Kulka, House, & Kasper 1989) (The perception and comprehension of illocutionary force and politeness) (Kasper & Rose 1999: 81) (politeness) 2) ( ) (Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz 1990; 1992; 1993; 1994 ) 146
1. 1. 1 Brown & Levinson (1987) (face) (positive face) 3) (negative face) FTA (Face Threatening Act) FTA (power) (distance) (ranking) (Ide 1989; Matsumoto 1989 ) ( 1997) Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz (1990) (1994) (1992) (1993) 147
18 (2006 ) (2002) 1. 2 4) (semantic formulas) (Blum-Kulka, & Olshtain 1984; Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz 1990; 1993) ( 1993: 44){ } {}{}{}{}{} ( 1994; 2002; 2004) 2. 2. 1 2002 2 3 FTA 148
2. 2 2. 2. 1 20 50 116 1 1 20 30 40 50 ( ) 7 13 16 8 44 26 18 15 13 72 33 31 31 21 116 2 3 20 30 40 50 20 50 ( 1993 ) Thomas (1983) (pragmatic failure) (pragmalinguistic failure) (sociopragmatic failure) (socialization) (1997) Yamashita (1996) 149
18 (2006 ) (1992) (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984: 198 199) (Cowan, Drinkard & MacGavin 1984; Instone, Major & Bunker 1983 ) (Takai, Cargile & Wiemann 2000) 2. 2. 2 2002 3 2. 2. 3 2. 2. 4 6 1 1 6 1 6 5 7 20% (Dörnyei 2003: 37) 150
6 ( ) (1) (6) (1) 1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 () () (2) 1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 () () (3) 1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 () () 151
18 (2006 ) (4) 1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 () () (5) 1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 () () (6) 1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 () () 4 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) 4 152
(1) (2) {} {} {} {}{} 5 (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (2) (1) (2) {} {} {} {} {} 5 (3) (4) {} { } 2 (3) (4) (3) (4) (1984) 2 (5) (6) 153
18 (2006 ) 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 2. 2. 5 (1) (4) 5) 3. 3 (Analysis of Variance) 1 (A B) (interaction effect) 6) (F (1, 115) = 217.44, p < 0.001) t (t-test) 7) 4 t 0.1% (t (115) = 19.29, p < 0.001) (t (115) = 5.07, p < 0.001) (t (115) = 5.64, p < 0.001) (t (115) = 10.06, p < 0.001) 5% α () 154
4 p < 0.05 1 (A B) 3 (A) () () (B) 4.62 (1.40) 3.69 (1.13) 1.76 (1.01) 3.21 (1.11) A (1, 115) 0.053 B (1, 115) 0.000*** A B (1, 115) 0.000*** ***: 0.1% **: 1% *: 5% : 10% 4 t t () (1) (2) 115 19.29 0.000*** (3) (4) 115 5.07 0.000*** (1) (4) 115 5.64 0.000*** (2) (3) 115 10.06 0.000*** ***: 0.1% **: 1% *: 5% : 10% 155
18 (2006 ) 3 (1) 4.62 (2) 1.76 (3) 3.21 (4) 3.69 (1) > (4) > (3) > (2) 1 6 1 6 (1) > (4) > (3) > (2) (1) > (4) > (3) > (2) 3 4 1 t 4 0.1% 4. 156
(3) (4) > > > (Hall 1976) (sociopragmatic failure) 8) (Kasper & Rose 2001) (grammatical errors) (pragmatic errors) (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei 1998) 157
18 (2006 ) 1) 2) Brown & Levinson (1987) 3) positive negative ( 1999 ) Brown & Levinson (1987) face 4) 5) SPSS11.0 ( ) t 6) 2 2 7) 2 8) Thomas (1983) (pragmatic failure) (pragmalinguistic failure) (sociopragmatic failure) 2 158
(1992) politeness strategy ( 1) 495 59 74 (1993) politeness strategy ( 2) 529 59 71 (1997) 26 6 66 71 (1993) 79 41 52 (2002) 115 61 70 (2004) ( ) (1992) (1) 28 1 1 44 (1997) () ( ) 13 24 (1994) 1 1 19 H (1984) 13 1 254 260 Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations?: Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233 262. Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language. (Pp. 55 73). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. (Pp. 1 34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 159
18 (2006 ) Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196 213. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cowan, G., Drinkard, J., & MacGavin, L. (1984). The effects of target, age, and gender on use of power strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1391 1398. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and Processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Press. Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistics politeness. Multilingua, 8, 223 248. Instone, D. Major, B., & Bunker, B. B. (1983). Gender, self confidence, and social influence strategies: An organizational simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 322 323. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81 104. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. (Pp. 1 9). New York: Cambridge University Press. Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals-observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8, 207 221. Takai, J., Cargile, A., & Wiemann, J. (2000). Situational and relational contexts of direct communication strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Convention of the National Communication Association, Seattle, 1 32. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91 112. Yamashita, S. O. (1996). Six Measures of JSL Pragmatics. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa. 160