DIE SPRECHHANDLUNG „BESCHWERDEN" IM FREMDSPRACHENERWERB: EINFLUSSFAKTOREN AUF DIE PRAGMATISCHE KOMPETENZ.
This study examines the importance of developing pragmatic competence in the context of foreign language acquisition. Pragmatic competence enables learners to communicate appropriately in the target language. It is defined as "knowledge of the linguistic means available in a given language for reali...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Language & Literary Studies / Folia Linguistica & Litteraria no. 54; pp. 265 - 295 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Journal of Language & Literary Studies / Folia Linguistica & Litteraria
2026
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| Sumario: | This study examines the importance of developing pragmatic competence in the context of foreign language acquisition. Pragmatic competence enables learners to communicate appropriately in the target language. It is defined as "knowledge of the linguistic means available in a given language for realising specific illocutions, an understanding of the sequential aspects of speech acts, and knowledge of the appropriate contextual use of linguistic resources" (Barron 2003, 10). In this sense, pragmatic competence includes both the ability to fulfil linguistic functions and the knowledge of socio-culturally appropriate use of linguistic means in a given communicative context. Leech's distinction between socio-pragmatic and pragma-linguistic knowledge proves particularly useful in defining pragmatic competence. Sociopragmatic knowledge refers to the "specific 'local' conditions of language use [...], since it is clear that the cooperative principle and the politeness principle operate variably across different cultures, speech communities, social situations and social classes" (Leech 1983, 10). This includes knowledge of context, recognition and production of illocutionary meaning, distribution of politeness strategies, speaker-hearer relationships, formality of the situation, social values and cultural beliefs. In contrast, pragma-linguistic knowledge refers to the specific linguistic means that a language provides for realising particular illocutions. Since both socio-pragmatic and pragma-linguistic rules are not always immediately apparent, learners often fail to fully comprehend native speakers' utterances or misinterpret them. Even more challenging is learners' ability to produce expressions that meet native speakers' pragmatic expectations. The discussion above leads to the question of which specific skills students need to develop to achieve pragmatic competence. Most studies in this field focus on the investigation of speech acts (Roever 2005; Liu 2004; Beebe et al. 1990; Blum-Kulka 1982; Kasper 1989; Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993; Olshtain & Weinbach 1993; Trosborg 1995). Other research explores routines, implicatures, the ability to realise politeness and discourse functions, and the application of cultural knowledge. This paper focuses on Macedonian- and Albanian-speaking German students and their performance of the speech act of complaining. Firstly, a precise definition of the speech act of complaining is provided, followed by an analysis of relevant research that forms the foundation of this study. Subsequently, the methodological research framework and the study's findings are presented. Finally, selected linguistic behaviours of the students are discussed. This study aims to examine the pragmatic competence of German students (GS) at Goce Delcev University in Stip and the South East European University in Tetovo by analysing their realisation of the speech act of complaints. The study addresses the following research questions: 1. Do German students use the same complaint strategies as native speakers? 2. Do Macedonian- and Albanian-speaking students of German modify their complaints appropriately? 3. How do native speakers perceive the complaints made by Macedonian- and Albanian-speaking students of German? ***The analysis is based on responses from 40 students of German (GS) at level B2 and 40 native German speakers (NS). The GS that participated were second- and third-year students at Goce Delcev University in Stip and the South East European University in Tetovo, aged between 19 and 25. The native speakers were Germans who voluntarily participated in a Discourse Completion Task. Additionally, ten native speakers were invited to evaluate some of the GS responses, marking acceptable answers and commenting on unacceptable ones. The language corpus consists of 220 responses from native speakers and 201 responses from GS, collected through a Discourse Completion Task with five scenarios. These scenarios were selected from previous studies on complaints (Trosborg 1995) and involved conflicts requiring careful face management. For the analysis, we adopted Trosborg's (1995) coding of complaints. The main acts for both groups were classified and a chi-square test was used to examine whether the frequency of complaint strategies depended on group affiliation. Additional taxonomies (Aijmer 1996; Brown & Levinson 1987; Koshik 2005; Trosborg 1995) were applied to analyse complaint frames and modifications. Results indicate that both GS and NS most frequently employed the disapproval/annoyance strategy - 63% of NS responses and 72% of GS responses. The second most common strategy was accusation (19% for NS, 20% for GS). Native speakers produced more blame attributions (10%) than GS (5%). Hints were the least frequent strategy: 1.5% among NS and completely absent in GS responses. Furthermore, this study explores how students of German (GS) formulate complaints in German and whether their strategies align with those of native speakers (NS). The findings reveal that both GS and NS used similar complaint strategies, with a comparable distribution. This aligns with previous studies on complaints (Chen, Chen & Chang 2011; Olshtain & Weinbach 1993; Trosborg 1995). However, differences emerged in how these strategies were applied, particularly in scenarios such as Late Pickup and Damaged Car, where the two groups displayed distinct communicative approaches. In the Late Pickup scenario, NS used more direct, even harsh language, including sarcasm, insults (e.g. „Verdammt", „Du, Idiot") and colloquial expressions (e.g. „Was zum Teufel!"). GS, in contrast, softened their complaints, often following an expression of dissatisfaction with a reconciliation attempt. This supports Olshtain and Weinbach's (1993) claim that NS tend to express complaints harsher than learners. Additionally, cultural differences may play a role - punctuality is perceived more strictly in German-speaking cultures than in Macedonian culture, where lateness is more tolerated. A significant difference between NS and GS was the length of responses. GS employed more complaint strategies per response, averaging 3.5 moves compared to 1.3 by NS. While NS preferred one-or two-move responses, GS frequently used three- or four-move structures, often including preparatory statements and mitigations, particularly apologies. Despite this, longer responses did not necessarily enhance the effectiveness of complaints produced by students of German (GS). On the contrary, their extended complaints were often perceived as overly verbose, repetitive and less efficient. The native speakers who assessed the responses frequently remarked that the complaints tended to be excessively long, imprecise, indirect or, in some cases, even aggressive due to an overabundance of justification. This tendency toward over-explanation was considered counterproductive, as it occasionally intensified the confrontational tone of the complaint rather than mitigating it. Internal modification of complaints was minimal for both NS and GS, but some notable differences emerged: Use of können vs. könnten: GS frequently used können (e.g. Können Sie mir bitte meine Note erklären?), while NS preferred the more polite form könnten. Native evaluators noted that können could imply that the professor was at fault, putting him in a defensive position. NS suggested depersonalised formulations such as: Es gab einen Fehler instead of direct accusations. Embedded requests: NS often softened their requests with indirect constructions such as Ich habe mich gefragt, ob...; or Glauben Sie, dass...; while GS used direct translations from Macedonian (e.g. Ich möchte Sie höflich fragen...), which sounded unnatural or overly formal. Negation strategies: GS tended to replace the indirect negations of NS with intensified positive constructions, making their complaints sound more forceful (e.g. Ich denke wirklich, dass ich eine höhere Note verdiene instead of Ich denke nicht, dass Sie mich fair benotet haben). GS lacked awareness of how negation can make complaints sound more diplomatic. Modal verbs: GS favoured möchten (Ich möchte über diese Delle sprechen), while NS used brauchen (Sie brauchen für die Schäden zahlen), reflecting differences in how necessity is expressed. Additionally, GS overused müssen, making their complaints more assertive than those of NS. Use of Ich meine and Ich denke: GS frequently used Ich meine in a strong, assertive way rather than as a mitigating device. While Ich meine can function as a softener in some contexts, GS consistently paired it with strong modal verbs and reasoning statements, making their complaints sound more direct and confrontational. NS evaluators confirmed that GS often expressed strong personal opinions rather than softening their speech. GS apologised significantly more often than NS (33% vs. 10%). NS primarily used Entschuldigung, while GS used a wider variety, including Ich entschuldige mich sehr and Es tut mir wirklich leid, Sie zu stören, which sometimes sounded overly formal or out of place. A key issue was the misuse of Entschuldigung vs. Ich entschuldige mich - GS treated Entschuldigung as a universal apology, overlooking context-specific distinctions. While GS and NS used similar complaint strategies, GS exhibited several deviations in length, linguistic modification and politeness. GS tended to over-elaborate, relied on direct translations and used modal verbs in ways that sometimes made their complaints sound overly assertive. These findings highlight the importance of pragmatic awareness in foreign language learning, particularly regarding politeness norms, cultural expectations and linguistic economy in complaint formulations. The analysis of complaints presented in this study provides insights into the pragmatic competence of GS. While many aspects of communication between GS and NS show correlation, several significant deviations in the linguistic behaviour of GS have been identified. The analysis of complaints presented in this study offers valuable insights into the pragmatic competence of GS and their ability to use language appropriately in socially sensitive situations. While many aspects of communication between GS and NS demonstrate noticeable similarities, particularly in the recognition of communicative intent and the general structure of complaint acts; several significant deviations in the linguistic behaviour of GS have been identified. These differences are reflected in their choice of strategies, the degree of directness and the use of internal and external modifications. First, there are linguistic strategies commonly used by native speakers that GS either do not use at all or use them only rarely. These include embedding questions and requests within conversations, employing negative constructions (e.g. Denken Sie nicht...; Ich denke nicht), using lexemes that soften statements, addressing forms that indicate politeness and in-group markers that express solidarity. The absence of these linguistic features suggests gaps in the ability of GS to navigate social interactions effectively in German. Second, certain linguistic elements appear in the interlanguage of GS with varying intensity compared to native speakers. For instance, GS display a different frequency of question use, Ich glaube-statements, directives, (de)focalisation and supportive linguistic devices. These variations indicate that, while GS have access to some key structures, their deployment differs from native speaker norms. Third, some linguistic elements are used inappropriately by GS. Examples include differences in the use of können vs. könnten, overuse of strong modal verbs and external modification strategies that do not align with native speaker usage. This suggests that GS may lack full awareness of how to phrase their utterances efficiently and appropriately within specific communicative contexts. The findings of this study contribute to the development of e-learning modules designed to enhance the pragmatic competence of language learners. These modules specifically address the deficiencies identified in the research and incorporate two key types of activities: 1. Awareness-raising exercises - These exercises aim to make students more conscious of the pragmatic meanings behind specific linguistic structures commonly used by native speakers. By analysing authentic language use, learners can gain a deeper understanding of how meaning is conveyed beyond mere grammatical accuracy. 2. Productive tasks - Learners are given opportunities to practice speech acts while considering situational factors such as the interlocutors, context and emotional tone. These tasks help students refine their ability to formulate appropriate utterances in real-life scenarios, ensuring their communication aligns with native speaker norms. This study highlights the evolving goals of German language acquisition. Previously, basic proficiency sufficed for travel or general communication. Today, learners must achieve fluency for academic, professional and international contexts, requiring not only grammatical accuracy but also a nuanced understanding of language as a social tool. To achieve this, learners must recognise that language socialisation depends on understanding what should be said in specific situations and what linguistic behaviour is considered appropriate in a given speech community (Kecskes 2014). Simply being able to form grammatically correct sentences is insufficient if the pragmatic intent behind those sentences does not align with native speakers' expectations. The study underscores the importance of pragmatic competence in language learning and highlights key areas where GS diverge from native speaker norms. By addressing these gaps through targeted e-learning interventions, learners can improve their ability to use German more naturally and effectively in real world interactions. Furthermore, as the demands on German language learners continue to evolve, a focus on social and contextual appropriateness in communication will become increasingly essential. Die vorliegende Studie untersucht die Realisierung der Sprechhandlung „Beschwerde" durch Germanistikstudierende im Rahmen einer Interlanguage-Analyse. Die Performanz der Lernenden wird mit derjenigen deutscher Muttersprachler kontrastiert, wobei insbesondere die Wahl der Beschwerdestrategien, die Äußerungslänge sowie der Einsatz interner und externer Modifikationen analysiert werden. Ein besonderer Fokus liegt auf der muttersprachlichen Rezeption nicht-muttersprachlicher Beschwerden sowie auf den Faktoren, die potenziell zu einer Bewertung als unangemessen führen. Die empirische Untersuchung basiert auf einem Diskursergänzungstest (Discourse Completion Task), in dessen Rahmen die Äußerungen von 40 mazedonischen Germanistikstudierenden und 40 deutschen Muttersprachlern erhoben und analysiert wurden. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass trotz gewisser Übereinstimmungen in der Formulierung von Beschwerden signifikante Abweichungen bei den nicht-muttersprachlichen Teilnehmenden festzustellen sind: bestimmte sprachliche Mittel werden entweder gar nicht oder nur in begrenztem Umfang verwendet, während andere in unangemessener Weise oder mit abweichender Intensität zum Einsatz kommen. Zudem mangelt es den mazedonischen Studierenden an hinreichendem pragmatischem Wissen, um ihre Beschwerden sowohl effektiv als auch kontextuell angemessen zu realisieren. Die gewonnenen Erkenntnisse bilden die Grundlage für die Entwicklung spezifischer E-Learning-Module, die darauf abzielen, die pragmatische Kompetenz von Fremdsprachenlernenden gezielt zu fördern. |
|---|