Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-qq8pn Total loading time: 0.207 Render date: 2021-06-20T08:16:21.400Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Formulas, Routines, and Conventional Expressions in Pragmatics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Abstract

This article reviews the recent research on formulaic language in pragmatics from three perspectives: foundational issues, recurrent research questions, and the populations studied. Examination of foundational issues, including definitions and operationalization of the concept of formula in pragmatics, shows the way in which pragmatics understands formulaic language and what it contributes to the study of formulaic language, namely, a strong sense of social contract. Recurrent themes in contemporary investigations include how formulas are used in general and in specific contexts, determining how extensive the use of formulas is, attitudes toward formulas, acquisition of formulas in second language (L2) pragmatics, and formulas in pragmatics pedagogy. The third section reviews pragmatic research according to language community, defined for the purposes of this review as first language (L1; native-speaker communities), L2, cross-cultural comparisons, indigenized varieties, and lingua franca communities. The investigation of formula use by different communities addresses questions of the particular and the universal in formula use and the importance of community and community membership.

Type
SECTION C: SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON FORMULAIC LANGUAGE
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Al-Ali, M. N., & Alawneh, R. (2010). Linguistic mitigating devices in American and Jordanian students’ requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7, 311339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A crosslinguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 385406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2006). On the role of formulas in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In Bardovi-Harlig, K., Félix-Brasdefer, C., & Omar, A. S. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning: Vol. 11 (pp. 128). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2008). Recognition and production of formulas in L2 pragmatics. In Han, Z.-H. (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 205222). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59, 755795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). Recognition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. In Kasper, G., Nguyen, H. t., Yoshimi, D. R., & Yoshioka, J. K. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning: Vol. 12 (pp. 141162). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2011). Assessing familiarity with pragmatic formulas: Planning oral/aural assessment. In Houck, N. R. & Tatsuki, D. H. (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching natural conversation (pp. 722). New York, NY: TESOL.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012a). Pragmatic variation and conventional expressions. In Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. & Koike, D. (Eds.), Variation in pragmatics (pp. 141173). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012b). Pragmatics in SLA. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 147162). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M.-T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 347384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Nickels, E. L. (2011). No thanks, I'm full: Raising awareness of expressions of gratitude and formulaic language. In Houck, N. R. & Tatsuki, D. H. (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching natural conversation (pp. 2340). New York, NY: TESOL.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Vellenga, H. E. (2012). The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Bastos, M.-T., Burghardt, B., Chappetto, E., Nickels, E., & Rose, M. (2010). The use of conventional expressions and utterance length in L2 pragmatics. In Kasper, G., Nguyen, H. T., Yoshimi, D. R., & Yoshioka, J. K. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning: Vol. 12 (pp. 163186). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. A. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Rose, M., & Nickels, E. (2008). The use of conventional expressions of thanking, apologizing, and refusing. In Bowles, M., Foote, R., Perpiñán, S., & Bhatt, R. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 113130). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Retrieved from http://www.lingref.com/cpp/slrf/2007/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 3770). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bing, J., & Ruhl, C. (2008). It's all my fault! The pragmatics of responsibility statements. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 537558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouton, L. F. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicatures in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. In Bouton, L. F. & Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning: Vol. 5 (pp. 88109). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL: Division of English as an International Language.Google Scholar
Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49, 4458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. Modern Language Journal, 91, 189212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1994). Formulaic language. In Asher, R. E. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics: Vol. 3 (pp. 12921293). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (Ed.). (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventional impoliteness formula. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 32323245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. (2007). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context. Language Learning. 57, 611649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Pablos-Ortega, C. (2011). The pragmatics of thanking reflected in the textbooks for teaching Spanish as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 24112433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (2008). The emotional weight of I love you in multilinguals’ languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 17531780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2008). Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage request production: The case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture, 4, 111137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, W., & House, J. (1991). Do learners talk too much? The waffle phenomenon in interlanguage pragmatics. In Phillipson, R., Kellerman, E., Selinker, L., Sharwood Smith, M., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 273287). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. W. (1986). “I very appreciate”: Expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 167185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewert, A., & Bromberek-Dyzman, K. (2008). Impossible requests: L2 users’ sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic choices in L1 acts of refusal. EUROSLA Yearbook, 8, 3251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2009). Pragmatic variation across Spanish(es): Requesting in Mexican, Costa Rican, and Dominican Spanish. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 473515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Cowie, A. P. (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 145160). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Hong, W. (2011). Refusals in Chinese: How do L1 and L2 differ? Foreign Language Annals, 44, 122136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (2009). Subjectivity in English as lingua franca discourse: The case of you know. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 171193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, N. (2007). Web-based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a foreign language: An explicit awareness-raising approach. Language Awareness, 16, 2140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2000). Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances. Links & Letters, 7, 145161.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin, Germany: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language on English Lingua Franca. In Kecskes, I. & Horn, L. R. (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp. 191218). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatics acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 28892897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). The social dimension of proficiency: How testable is it? Language Learning, 56, s1.Google Scholar
Manes, J., & Wolfson, N. (1981). The compliment formula. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 115132). The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2009). Chunking in ELF: Expressions for managing interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 217233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48, 323363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohashi, J. (2010). Balancing obligations: Bowing and linguistic features in thanking in Japanese. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture, 6, 183214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouafeu, Y. T. S. (2009). Thanking responders in Cameroon English. World Englishes, 28, 544551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, M., & Yule, G. (2001). Formulaic disclaimers. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 4560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilcher, H. (2009).The functional and social reality of discourse variants in a northern English dialect: I DON'T KNOW and I DON'T THINK compared. Intercultural Pragmatics 6, 561596.Google Scholar
Quaglio, P. M. (2004). The language of NBC's Friends: A comparison with face-to-face conversation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.Google Scholar
Quaglio, P. M. (2009). Television dialogue: The sitcom Friends vs. natural conversation. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, R. M., Rainey, I., & Fulcher, G. (2005). A comparative study of certainty and conventional indirectness: Evidence from British English and Peninsular Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 26, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roever, C. (2005). Testing ESL pragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based assessment battery. Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roever, C. (2006). Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing, 23, 229256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roever, C. (2007). DIF in the assessment of second language pragmatics. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 165189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, K. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarcella, R. C. (1979). Watch up! Working Papers in Bilingualism, 19, 7988.Google Scholar
Schauer, G. A., & Adolphs, S. (2006). Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System, 34, 119134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2008). Cultural schemas in L1 and L2 compliment responses: A study of Persian-speaking learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture, 4, 5580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sifianou, M., & Tzanne, A. (2010). Conceptualizations of politeness and impoliteness in Greek. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7, 661687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence. In Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 137174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Su, I.-R. (2010). Transfer of pragmatic competences: A bi-directional perspective. Modern Language Journal, 94, 87102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience on pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2002). Politeness and formulaicity: Evidence from Cypriot Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 3, 179201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2005). Pragmatic correlates of frequency of use: The case for a notion of “minimal context.” In Marmaridou, S., Nikiforidou, K., & Antonopoulou, E. (Eds.), Reviewing linguistic thought: Converging trends for the 21st century (pp. 209233). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traverso, V. (2006). Aspects of polite behaviour in French and Syrian service encounters: A data-based comparative study. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture, 2, 105122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vellenga, H. E. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ, 8, 118. Retrieved from http://writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej30/a3.htmlGoogle Scholar
Vergaro, C. (2008). On the pragmatics of concessive constructions in Italian and English business letter discourse. Multilingua, 27, 255283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wee, L., & Tan, Y. Y. (2008).That's so last year! Constructions in a socio-cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 21002113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildner-Bassett, M. E. (1994). Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: “Polite” noises for cultural appropriateness. IRAL, 32, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, M. L.-Y. (2010). Expressions of gratitude by Hong Kong speakers of English: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK). Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 12431257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, M.-C. (2011). Learning how to read situations and know what is the right thing to say or do in an L2: A study of socio-cultural competence and language transfer. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 11271147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Formulas, Routines, and Conventional Expressions in Pragmatics Research
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Formulas, Routines, and Conventional Expressions in Pragmatics Research
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Formulas, Routines, and Conventional Expressions in Pragmatics Research
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *