LINGUIST List 21.4272 Wed Oct 27 2010 Diss: Pragmatics: Osimo: 'Mitigating Strategies in the Pragmatic ...' Editor for this issue: Mfon Udoinyang <mfonlinguistlist.org> To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm. Directory         1.     Helen Osimo , Mitigating Strategies in the Pragmatic Interlanguage of Pre-service Teachers of English: Focus on formulaic chunks Message 1: Mitigating Strategies in the Pragmatic Interlanguage of Pre-service Teachers of English: Focus on formulaic chunks Date: 27-Oct-2010 From: Helen Osimo <helen.osimonetvision.net.il> Subject: Mitigating Strategies in the Pragmatic Interlanguage of Pre-service Teachers of English: Focus on formulaic chunks E-mail this message to a friend Institution: University of Haifa Program: Department of English Language and Literature Dissertation Status: Completed Degree Date: 2010 Author: Helen Osimo Dissertation Title: Mitigating Strategies in the Pragmatic Interlanguage of Pre-service Teachers of English: Focus on formulaic chunks Linguistic Field(s): Pragmatics Subject Language(s): English (eng) Dissertation Director: Dennis Kurzon Dissertation Abstract: This dissertation addresses two areas of linguistics: mitigation as a pragmatic strategy, and formulaic language as a linguistic device. It examines to what extent mitigation is part of the pragmatic interlanguage of a population of English teachers in training, in a foreign language setting, with regard to recognition and production of formulaic mitigating devices. In most of the literature, mitigation is treated as part of politeness phenomenon. The view taken in this work is that mitigation is a distinct and cohesive strategy adopted to reduce severity of perlocutionary effects, particularly in interactions which involve oppositional speech acts. I draw on the research of Aijmer (1996), Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1990), Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), Brown and Levinson (1987), Caffi (2007), Fraser (1980), Locher and Watts (2005) and Tannen (1993) to establish a cohesive model of mitigation. This includes a frame of conditions, patterns of head act modification and mitigating strategies. The model then serves as a construct on which to map a target set of formulaic mitigators. In the growing body of research on formulaic language, pragmatic functions of formulae have been under-researched, specifically with regard to formulae for mitigation. Proceeding from the research of Moon (1998), Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992), Schmitt (2004), Wray (2002) among others, I set out criteria for defining a pragmatic category of 'formulaic mitigating chunks' (FMCs), exemplified by a target set of items and categorized according to their mitigating functions (minimization, forewarning, understatement, etc.). The empirical study is comprised of two stages. Stage I concerns the validity of a set of pragmalinguistic items as salient mitigators with a triangulation procedure: confirmation of the status of formulaicity from the literature, corpora searches for frequency, and native speaker preferences. Stage II, part 1 examines the effects of one year of natural exposure on the recognition of FMCs of 82 first-, second- and third- year students. Tests were administered at the beginning and end of one academic year as a cross-sectional, longitudinal investigation. A significant difference was found between the amount of time spent in the program and recognition of the target set. In stage II, part 2 of the study, oppositional interactions - complaints and criticisms - produced by learners are analyzed for mitigating devices. Data of naturally-occurring interactions with faculty in e-mail exchanges, recorded interviews, feedback questionnaires and verbal comments were collected from six subjects. This qualitative analysis suggests that pragmatic failure is mainly due to pragmalinguistic and not sociolinguistic deficiencies, seen in the many attempts at indirectness which, while not target-like, demonstrate awareness of target-language norms. Thus, in an EFL setting, even where studies and communication are conducted in the target language, natural exposure over three years is insufficient for incidental learning of mitigating devices to take place to prevent occurrences of pragmatically deviant moves. This dissertation joins the body of research on Interlanguage Pragmatics and calls for explicit metapragmatic intervention and conscious modeling of pragmalinguistic devices in second language pedagogy. Formulaic mitigating chunks should take their place alongside other well-documented, canonical mitigating devices in the construction of a pragmatic syllabus. Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue Page Updated: 27-Oct-2010       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.