THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN PRAGMATICS
Phase one of the project
The conduct of phase one
Five teachers volunteered to participate in phase one of the project over a period of several months. At an initial workshop, we outlined the principles of mitigation in English, and discussed some findings from previous projects involving non-native speaker use of mitigating strategies. We provided them with a small reading pack, and asked them to collect 10 samples of native speakers (5 males and 5 females) performing the same three request tasks on which the non-native speakers had been assessed in the earlier project (Wigglesworth 2000b, 2001). A sample task is given in figure 2. Once the teachers had done this, the tapes were transcribed by a research assistant.
Figure 2 Example of role-play request task used by teachers for data collection
Participant Card
● You have 4 weeks annual leave available this year. You would like to take 3 weeks leave now, even though it is a busy time at your workplace
● Talk to your manager about this situation, explain why you want to take the leave now and negotiate a solution
Interviewer Card
● You are the manager of a workplace. One of your employees has applied to take 3 weeks of their 4 weeks annual leave now.
● It is a particularly busy time at your workplace. Find out why he/she wants to take leave now. Explain that employees normally take leave at Christmas when things are quieter. Ask the employee to suggest ways to resolve the situation
The tapes and transcripts were returned to the teachers at a second workshop designed to deepen their understanding of mitigation, and to introduce them to the concept of coding data using a framework adapted from that used in previous studies of cross-cultural and interlanguage requests (e.g. Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989; Eslamirasekh, 1993; Lee-Wong, 1994; Mir-Fernandez, 1994; Rose, 1990; Trosborg, 1995; Yates, 2000). The transcripts were coded for the level of directness or strategy used in the request proper, and the ways in which various devices were used to soften the impact of the request.
Three types of mitigating devices were investigated: syntactic mitigation, such as the use of modals (I would like...), the continuous (I’m really hoping to), or embedding (I was just wondering if ...); prepositional mitigation, that is the use of extra propositions which functioned to soften the impact of the request (for example, phrases which provided the context for a request or gave reasons why it was necessary); and lexical mitigation, or lexical additions and choices which lessened the impact of the request (e.g. ‘just’ in ‘I was just wondering if..’; and the choice of ‘appreciate’ in ‘I would really appreciate being able’).
Following the second workshop, the teachers took their own tapes and transcriptions home, checked the transcriptions for accuracy, and attempted to code the data using the coding framework outlined in the workshop. Teachers were also each given 4-5 tapes and transcriptions of non-native speakers doing the same task to code. Two more workshops were held during the period in which the teachers were coding to discuss any problems and issues, and to check their understanding of the coding system. Once all the transcripts had been coded, we checked them for reliability and then analyzed the results both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The analyses revealed that, while both groups used fairly direct strategies for the request itself, the patterns of mitigation adopted by both groups were quite different. The native speaker group used a greater number and range of both lexical and syntactic mitigating devices that softened the impact of their requests. It is likely that NNS underused some of these mitigating devices, for example the use of embedding, such as ‘I was wondering if...’, because of their level of language proficiency. However, other linguistically simple devices were also avoided such as, for example, the use of continuous aspect, single lexical items such as ‘just’, hedges etc., which are relatively simple to learn and use. Although both groups provided propositional support for their requests in the form of reasons, the non-native speakers did not attempt to establish rapport with their interlocutor in the same way as the native speakers did. In particular, the NNS prepared the way for their difficult requests much less than did the NS, who frequently disarmed likely criticisms of their request by anticipating problem areas and offering to make good any difficulties arising out of their requests. A more detailed report of both the coding system and the results can be found in Wigglesworth & Yates 2001, 2002; Yates & Wigglesworth 2002.
Once these results had been discussed with the teachers, they conducted a review of what teaching materials were currently available to address these areas. This revealed that very little was available for learners at this intermediate level. With our support, but largely on their own initiative and in their own time, the teachers then developed teaching materials which explicitly tackled the mitigation devices and strategies highlighted in phase one, focusing on the introduction of a range of lexical and syntactic devices which could be used to support and soften a request, and on how and why such devices might be used. Together with print-based materials, the teachers also produced their own video to illustrate dialogues with more or less successful use of the devices targeted. They then trialed the materials with both their own students, and with other teachers.
