Negotiating Pragmatics of Student’s Writing through Tutorials: A Case Study for Exploring World Japaneses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/sh.v9n4-2.1362Keywords:
L2 Japanese writing, pragmatic failure, style, constructions, world japanesesAbstract
The aim of the present study is to explore the thin line between a learner’s pragmatic failures and styles through their writings and to call for the pragmatic variations of Japanese as a second language in writing such that we establish World Japaneses in the same spirit as World Englishes. In order to achieve this goal, we discuss the role of tutorials in creating a ground of meaning negotiation between peer tutors and students and second the importance of negotiation in choosing the linguistic forms best expressing the non-native students’ ideas rather than automatically conforming to the norms of the native speakers. Specifically, this study offers an ethnographic analysis of writing tutoring sessions between an advanced-level Japanese learner and a native Japanese peer tutor. One of the main findings was the student’s unique use of honorifics when discussing his own home country, which conflicts with native Japanese expectations of honorific use. We suggest examples that need much discussions between the learner and the teacher/tutor at writing conference sessions in order to determine whether it is a pragmatic failure or a student’s style, in the latter a pragmatic variation of World Japaneses. By examining the above-mentioned pragmatic phenomena produced by a L2 writer, we attempt to connect theoretical issues in linguistics, especially Construction Grammar, linguistic ideology, and second language pedagogy
Â
References
Blau, S., Hall, J. & Sparks, S. (2002). Guilt-Free Tutoring: Rethinking How We Tutor Non-Native-English-Speaking Students, Writing Center Journal, 23(1), 23-44.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching, TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185-209.
Cook, V. (2016). Where Is the native speaker now?, TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 186-189.
Fillmore, C. J. (1981). Pragmatics and description of discourse, In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 143-166. New York: Academic Press.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P, &.O'Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501-538.
Fillmore, C. J. (1997). Lectures on Deixis. CSLI Publications.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164.
Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.).Urbana & Chicago: University Of Illinois Press.
Pawley, A. & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards, & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.). Language and communication (pp. 191-225). London: Longman.
Shibatani, M. (2003). Directional verbs in Japanese. In E. Shay, & U. Seibert (Eds.). Motion, direction and location in languages: In honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier (pp. 259-286). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure, Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
Williams, J. (2005). Writing center interaction: Institutional discourse and the role of peer tutors. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, & B. S. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk. Mahwah, N. J.:Lawrence Erlbaum.
