Effect of Cultural Distance on Pragmatic Comprehension and Production

Vahid Rafieyan

doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.4p.25

Vahid Rafieyan

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.4p.25

Copy DOI

Abstract

National cultural distance is considered to be a strong predictor of language learners’ pragmatic competence. To test the actual effect of national cultural distance on pragmatic competence holistically and comprehension and production aspects of pragmatic competence discretely, the current study was conducted on two groups of undergraduate student of English: 24 German students considered culturally close to Britons as target language community and 28 South Korean students considered culturally distant from Britons. A 24-item pragmatic comprehension test developed by Taguchi (2007, 2008) was used to measure language learners’ pragmatic comprehension ability. A discourse completion task developed by Bardovi-Harlig (2009) was also used to measure language learners’ pragmatic production ability. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed the significant positive effect of national cultural distance on pragmatic competence holistically and comprehension and production aspects of pragmatic competence discretely. The pedagogical implications of the findings suggested incorporating target language pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic features into class instruction and providing abundant opportunities for language learners to be exposed to pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic features of the target language. Keywords: Cultural Distance, Pragmatic Competence, Pragmatic Comprehension, Pragmatic Production

Highlights

National cultural distance, defined as the extent to which the shared norms and values in one country differ from those in another country (Hofstede, 2001), is considered to be a strong predictor of language learners’ pragmatic competence, defined as “the ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context” (Thomas, 1983: 92)
Language learners who come from countries whose cultural features are closer to the cultural features of the target language community are supposed to possess a higher level of pragmatic competence than language learners who come from countries whose cultural features are more distant from the cultural features of the target language community because culturally close counties normally share a lot of cultural features (Rafieyan et al, 2014a)
All three null hypotheses of the study which state that national cultural distance from the target language community has no effect on overall pragmatic competence, national cultural distance from the target language community has no effect on pragmatic comprehension ability, and national cultural distance from the target language community has no effect on pragmatic production ability are rejected

Summary

Introduction

National cultural distance, defined as the extent to which the shared norms and values in one country differ from those in another country (Hofstede, 2001), is considered to be a strong predictor of language learners’ pragmatic competence, defined as “the ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context” (Thomas, 1983: 92). National cultural distance was presented in a model developed by Hofstede (2001) which consists of five dimensions. The first dimension is power distance which refers to the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. The second dimension is individualism, as opposed to collectivism, which refers to societies in which ties between people are loose and people are not integrated into strong, cohesive groups. The fifth dimension is Confucian dynamism which on long-term orientation pole refers to perseverance, ordering relationships by status, thrift, and having a sense of shame and on short-term orientation pole refers to personal steadiness and stability, protecting face, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts (Rafieyan et al, 2014a; Rafieyan, in press a)

Results

Discussion

Conclusion