Scholarlink

<p>Intonation and pragmatic strategies play a crucial role in effective communication, particularly in high-imposition speech acts like requests and refusals. However, second-language (L2) speakers often struggle to align their intonational patterns and pragmatic choices with native-speaker (L1) norms. This study aims to investigate the interplay between intonational variation and verbal and sociopragmatic strategies used by L1 and L2 speakers in high-imposition requests and refusals. Using a mixed-methods approach, role-play data were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for intonational variations using Brazil’s (Brazil, D. (1997). <i>The communicative value of intonation in english</i>. Cambridge University Press.) framework. A comparative analysis of speech patterns was conducted with PRAAT software, focusing on waveform representations, spectrograms, pitch contours, and formant distributions. Intonational variation and verbal strategies were interpreted qualitatively, while sociopragmatic strategies were analyzed quantitatively. The sociopragmatic results were coded using Beebe et al.’s (Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., &amp; Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, &amp; S. D. Krashen (Eds.), <i>Developing communicative competence in a second Language</i> (pp. 55–73). Newbury House.) taxonomy for refusals and Blum-Kulka et al.’s (Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., &amp; Kasper, G. (1989). <i>Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies</i>. Ablex.) classifications for requests, with Chi-Square tests applied in SPSS to examine patterns. The findings reveal that L1 speakers employ more nuanced intonation patterns and indirect strategies, while L2 speakers rely more on direct refusals and requests with limited intonational variation, affecting perceived politeness. Additionally, L1 speakers use more politeness markers such as hedging, apologies, and gratitude. These results underscore the importance of explicit instruction in L2 pragmatics and intonation training to enhance communicative competence in intercultural settings.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Analyzing Intonational Variation and Pragmatic Strategies in High-Imposition Requests and Refusals by L1 and L2 Speakers

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月5日

查看全文
  • Summiya Azam,
  • Muhammad Habib Qazi,
  • Tahir Saleem

摘要

Intonation and pragmatic strategies play a crucial role in effective communication, particularly in high-imposition speech acts like requests and refusals. However, second-language (L2) speakers often struggle to align their intonational patterns and pragmatic choices with native-speaker (L1) norms. This study aims to investigate the interplay between intonational variation and verbal and sociopragmatic strategies used by L1 and L2 speakers in high-imposition requests and refusals. Using a mixed-methods approach, role-play data were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for intonational variations using Brazil’s (Brazil, D. (1997). The communicative value of intonation in english. Cambridge University Press.) framework. A comparative analysis of speech patterns was conducted with PRAAT software, focusing on waveform representations, spectrograms, pitch contours, and formant distributions. Intonational variation and verbal strategies were interpreted qualitatively, while sociopragmatic strategies were analyzed quantitatively. The sociopragmatic results were coded using Beebe et al.’s (Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second Language (pp. 55–73). Newbury House.) taxonomy for refusals and Blum-Kulka et al.’s (Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex.) classifications for requests, with Chi-Square tests applied in SPSS to examine patterns. The findings reveal that L1 speakers employ more nuanced intonation patterns and indirect strategies, while L2 speakers rely more on direct refusals and requests with limited intonational variation, affecting perceived politeness. Additionally, L1 speakers use more politeness markers such as hedging, apologies, and gratitude. These results underscore the importance of explicit instruction in L2 pragmatics and intonation training to enhance communicative competence in intercultural settings.