The study investigated similarities and differences between refusal strategies conducted by British native speakers of English (NSE) and Javanese learners of English (JLE). The data were elicited, using discourse completion tasks (DCT), from 20 NSE and 50 JLE. Comparative data concerning refusal strategies in Javanese were elicited from 35 native speakers of Javanese (NJ) to provide a baseline for investigating the extent to which differences between JLE and NSE could be explained by the influence of L1 pragmatics. The refusal strategies were classified based on modified refusal taxonomy by Beebe et al. (1990) and were analysed into sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic strategies. Z test and Chi Square (χ2) were applied to test the statistical significance of differences between JLE and NSE usage. The study found that all three groups employed broadly similar sequential orders, frequencies of occurrences, and contents of both semantic formulae and adjuncts. Some differences were found, however, in which the strategies of the two Javanese groups (JLE and NJ) were more alike than either was to NSE. These findings suggest that distinctive JLE usages (i.e. different from NSE) are either due to the influence of L1 (negative pragmatic transfer) or simply deviation (idiosyncratic usage). The former occurred mainly in the utilization of politeness strategies by the Javanese groups. The salient elements of Javanese cultural values and their relation to the expression of politeness are discussed in some detail, and are shown to be reflected in the English of Javanese learners. The latter (deviations) appeared to arise from a conflict between JLE speakers’ notions of “correct” grammar and word meanings, on the one hand, and the pragmalinguistic demands of the interaction, on the other hand.

This thesis is concerned with the investigation of directionality of difficulty in second language acquisition (SLA) by Chinese-speaking learners learning English as a foreign language (EFL) and by English-speaking learners learning Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) . Chinese allows both subject PRO in finite clauses and object pro. However, subject PRO in finite clauses and object pro give rise to ungrammaticality in English. Unlike Chinese, in which topics can be base-generated, English does not allow a base-generated topic. Chinese and English are also different in that while English reflexives can only take a local subject in finite clauses as their antecedent (thus a short-distance reflexive), the Chinese reflexive ziji can take the matrix subject as well as the embedded subject as its antecedent (thus a long-distance reflexive) . With respect to these differences between the two languages, our focus is on whether it is more difficult for CFL learners to acquire subject PRO, object pro, base-generated topics and the long-distance reflexive in the acquisition of Chinese than for EFL learners to unlearn subject PRO, object pro, base-generated topics and the long-distance reflexive in the acquisition of English. The results of our study suggest that there is no single direction of difficulty in the SLA of Chinese and English. In terms of object pro, the direction of difficulty is from Chinese to English. However, in acquiring and unlearning the subject PRO, neither CFL learners nor EFL learners seem to have much difficulty. As for base-generated topics, it is found that the acquisition of this feature by CFL learners is more difficult than the unlearning of this feature by EFL learners. The results concerning the acquisition of the Chinese long-distance reflexive ziji by CFL learners suggest that a lack of long-distance binding for ziji is fossilized in these learners' interlanguage (IL) grammars of Chinese. Based on the findings in this study, we argue that the directionality of difficulty in SLA can only be studied with respect to individual language features and that the mere existence of relevant positive evidence in the input is not a guarantee that there will be a change in the learner's IL grammar. There are many factors involved in deciding the direction of difficulty in SLA. These factors include the availability of informative evidence to the learner, the possibility that the learner makes use of the evidence available for the restructuring of his IL grammar of the target language, the learners' ability to process the relevant data in the input, and the interaction between the structure in the learners' L1 and the inherent developmental stage of the target language.

Many adults who have dual language experience describe themselves as "passive bilinguals," able to understand two languages, but speak only one. The aim of this study was to examine the relation between language production and comprehension in bilingual children in order to determine whether bilingual comprehension is more readily achieved than production. ... Productive and receptive skills in both languages were assessed using standardized tests. Children's relative amount of exposure to each language, as well as their language choice during production was measured via interview with the primary caregiver.... Language exposure as measured via dominance in one language over another appears to affect productive language differently than receptive language, further evidencing that language exposure is a significant predictor of acquisition that predicts production and comprehension differently. Additionally, when input is held constant, child language choice is uniquely related to productive and receptive language skill. The results of this study not only describe patterns of productive and receptive language skills and their correlates in young bilinguals, but they also address competing theories regarding the roles of input and output in the development of language comprehension and production. / by Krystal M. Ribot. / Thesis (M.A.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2012. / Includes bibliography. / Mode of access: World Wide Web. / System requirements: Adobe Reader.

Evidentials are one of the language codes that convey the speaker's beliefs in terms of the degree of reliability of information and how the speaker obtained information (Chafe, 1986; Ishida, 2006; McCready and Ogata, 2007). Evidentials play an important role in communication since they also function to show the speaker's attitude toward the interlocutors by making a sentence softer (Trent 1998). In his theory of territory of information, Kamio (1990, 1997, 2002) proposed that pragmatic rules of evidentials are different in Japanese than in English. Ishida (2006) studied these differences and argued that learners of Japanese (JF learners) face difficulties when conveying information with evidentials in Japanese. This study aimed to see how learners of Japanese as a foreign language (hereafter JF learners) use evidentials differently from Japanese native speakers by replicating Ishida's (2006) study. Discourse data, consisting of utterances produced by Japanese L1 speakers (J-speakers) in Japanese and JF learners in Japanese and English, was produced based on twelve situations where participants were instructed to convey hearsay information verbally to the specific third party. Collected productions were compared to see differences in the frequencies of evidentials, in general, and in terms of the source of information, the timing of conveyance, and the addressees. The study showed that JF learners use evidentials less frequently both in Japanese and English than J-speakers. This less frequent use of evidentials by JF learners in both languages indicates a transfer effect from English to Japanese. Additionally, a close look at each evidential use revealed other factors that might impact the speaker's choice of evidentials. This study revealed that JF learners tend to prefer to use evidentials such as soo da and to itta, while they tend to avoid using lexical evidentials such as rashii, mitai da, and yoo da which require more practice. These findings have implications for future research and for a classroom pedagogical approaches to the use of evidentials.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (M. A.)--University of Hong Kong, 2006. / Title proper from title frame. Also available in printed format.

Thesis (M. A.)--University of Hong Kong, 2006. / Title proper from title frame. Also available in printed format.

Thesis (M. A.)--University of Hong Kong, 2006. / Title proper from title frame. Also available in printed format.