An interlanguage pragmatic study on the speech act of disagreement performed by Thai EFL learners and addressed to the lecturer in the classroom context

Abstract

The study explored politeness strategies Thai EFL learners used to disagree with their lecturer in English in the classroom context and compared two groups of Thai EFL learners, with less and more exposure to English as a medium of instruction−the EFLt and the EFLe, respectively−in terms of the politeness strategies they used to perform student-lecturer disagreements. Their levels of English proficiency were intermediate as assessed based on their mean scores from the Test of English for International Communication. In the classroom context where there is an asymmetrical power between the students and the lecturer, Thai EFL learners were hypothesized not to use bald on-record strategies. In addition, the two groups of Thai EFL learners were hypothesized to use different politeness strategies due to their different amounts of exposure time to English as a medium of instruction. The data were collected by means of videotaping two classrooms of 18−20 students for 30 hours for 10 weeks. The learners’ verbal expressions of student-lecturer disagreements were analyzed in terms of politeness strategies based on the use of different linguistic features (Rees-Miller, 2000; Kakava, 2004; Locher, 2004; Walkinshaw, 2009; Sifianou, 2012), and secondarily analyzed in terms of paralinguistic features (Rees-Miller, 2000, Kakava, 2002; Hong, 2003), and non-verbal gestures (McClave, 2000; Pease and Pease, 2004; Sifianou, 2012). The results showed that Thai EFL learners used bald on-record strategies to disagree with their lecturer. Furthermore, the two groups of Thai EFL learners normally used different sets of politeness strategies. The EFLt normally used negative politeness strategies, that is, they modified their disagreements through imposition minimizers. The EFLe normally used bald on-record strategies, that is, they disagreed with the lecturer explicitly. This study also investigated what politeness strategies native speakers of Thai (the NT) and native speakers of English (the NE) used to disagree with their lecturers in the classroom context. Results showed that the NT normally used negative politeness strategies while the NE normally used bald on-record strategies. In comparison with the NT’s and the NE’s politeness norms, it was discovered that the EFLt transferred some pragmatic competence in Thai to their production of student-lecturer disagreements in English. However, there was no evidence to conclude that the EFLe’s pragmatic competence in English was fully developed. Having compared the EFLt’s and the EFLe’s politeness strategies they used to perform student-lecturer disagreements in English, the researcher found that their pragmalinguistic competence and sociopragmatic competence were different.