their apologies in the context of professor forgetting to grade a students paper.
48
It is clear that ‗a statistically significant trend toward one of the alternatives‘ is not
simply related to the used strategy, but it ties to the chosen alternative itself.
2. Types of Pragmatic Transfer
In 1992, Kasper developed and applied pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics as methodological approaches in studying pragmatic transfer in
interlanguage pragmatics.
a. Pragmalinguistic Transfer
The term ‗pragmalinguistics‘ is applied by Leech as a methodological
approach which is studied under a paradigm of ‗General Pragmatics‘, a paradigm
which he launched in 1983.
49
‗Pragmalinguistics‘ was also developed by Thomas in 1983 as a pragmatic analysis in studying pragmatic failure.
50
In 1992, Kasper developed operational theory of pragmatic transfer, in which pragmalinguistic
become a methodological approach in pragmatic transfer. According to Kasper, ‗pragmalinguistics‘ refers to either particular strategies which are used to convey
particular illocutions or variety of strategies which are chosen by the interlocutors to convey similar illocutionary act but they are vary in meaning or politeness.
51
A lthough the term ‗pragmalinguistics‘ refers to strategies to convey
illocutions, it does not mean that pragmalinguistic transfer in the field of
48
Ibid. pp. 212-213, 224.
49
Geoffrey Leech, Principles of Pragmatics¸ London: Longman, 1983, pp. 10-11.
50
Jenny Thomas, ―Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure,‖ Applied Linguistics, vol. 4, vo. 2, 1983, p.
99.
51
Gabriele Kasper 1992, op.cit,. p. 208.
pragmatic transfer can simply be defined as the tranfer of L1 strategies. Hence, Kasper
criticizes Thomas‘s which restricts the notion of pragmalinguistic transfer into the transfer of speech act strategies and utterances. Explaning
pragmalinguistic transfer is a factor which causes pragmalinguistic failure, Thomas argues that pragmalinguistics transfer refers to inappropriate transfer of
speech act strategies or utterances:
… pragmalinguistics transfer‘ –the inappropriate transfer of speech act strategies from one language to another, or the transferring from the mother
tongue to the target language of utterances which are semantically and syntactically equivalent, but which, because of different interpretative bias, tend
to convey a different pragmatic force in the target language.
52
Kasper stated that , in the field of pragmatic transfer, pragmalinguistic transfer occurs when learners‘ perception and production of strategies to convey
illocutionary act in L2 is influenced by illocutionary force or politeness value which is assigned in linguistic materials such as speech act strategies or utterances
in their L1.
53
Transferring the illocutionary force assigned in Russian‘s utterance konesno to the production of of course in English is an example of
pragmalinguistic transfer as a result of transferring illocutionary force assigned in an utterance of L1 that semantically equivalent but having different illocutionary
force in L2:
A Is it a good restaurant?
B Of course. [Gloss for Russian speaker]: Yes indeed it is. For English hearer: What a stupid question]
54
By semantical and syntactical point of view, there is nothing wrong with of course which is uttered by Russian speaker in a given example above. But, in
52
Jenny Thomas 1983, op.cit., p. 101.
53
Gabriele Kasper 1992, op.cit,. p. 209.
54
Jenny Thomas 1983, op.cit., pp. 101-102.
pragmatic point of view, of course which is uttered by Russian speaker has different illocutionary force for Russian as the speaker and English hearer. It
happens since in Russian, konesno or equal to of course in English is used to convey enthusiastic affirmative such as: yes, indeed, certainly, while in English
of course is used to answer a question about something which is eventually self- evident.
55
Pragmalinguistic transfer as a result from transferring politeness value assigned in L1 strategies is found when Hebrew learners of English successfully
transfer their L1 politeness value assigned in indirect strategy of request in expressing indirect
request ‗Can you do X?‘ when conversing in English.
56
As Wierzbicka stated, reflecting Anglo-Saxon culture which respects everyone‘s privacy, accepts compromises and avoids in showing dogmatism,
English eventually has special non-universal grammatical devices in which the interrogative form, normally used for asking, can function to make an offer or to
be indirect request for avoiding imperatives.
57
Since Hebrew and English have grammatical device of interrogative form which is used to make indirect request,
it can be concluded that those languages have similar politeness value to respect everyone‘s privacy and etc which is assigned in the interrogative forms for
making indirect request which the languages provide.
55
Ibid. p. 101.
56
Shosana Blum-Kulka, ―Learning to Say What You Mean in a Second Language: A study of the
Speech Act Performance of Learners of Hebrew as a Second Language, ‖ Applied Linguistics vol.
3, no. 1 1983, p. 48.
57
Anna Wierzbicka, Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, The Semantics of Human Interaction, Second Edition Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 2003, p.30.
b. Sociopragmatic Transfer
