Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication
Ed. by Piller, Ingrid
IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.800
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.109
CiteScore 2018: 0.95
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.881
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.152
This study explores how a group of learners of English as a second language (ESL) criticize in everyday situations compared to the native speaker (NS) with a view to expanding the range of speech acts under inquiry in the interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) literature. Data were collected from five NSs of New Zealand English and five intermediate learners, with mixed first languages, via eight role-play situations. Findings show that the learners criticized in significantly different ways from the NSs. Unlike the NSs, who made regular use of all strategies, the learners relied predominantly on direct criticism and requests for change. The learners also opted out for different reasons than the NSs in those situations where both groups found criticizing inappropriate, and varied their pragmatic choices less considerably according to context. Furthermore, where learners used the same strategy as the NSs, they differed greatly in their choice of semantic formulas and mitigating devices.
Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.