Exploring Cross-cultural Pragmatic Judgment of Two Groups of EFL Teachers on Formal Written Requests

Abstract

This study examines the pragmatic judgments made on formal request letters written by adult L2 learners of English by two groups of EFL teachers at a university in Hong Kong. A pragmatic Judgment Questionnaire was completed by each of the sixteen teachers, comprising eight native Cantonese speakers (CSTs) and eight native English speakers (ESTs). Pragmatic judgment was examined by investigating four pragmatic variables -- i.e., politeness, directness, formality and amount of information. Main research findings suggest that there were no significant differences between the two groups of teachers in their pragmatic judgments except for their views on: a) what constituted “unnaturally polite” expressions, b) whether negative words would help achieve the purpose of a message, c) what supporting moves should be avoided, and d) what writing plans they preferred. Qualitative analysis revealed examples of "unnaturally polite" expressions (e.g., “forgive”) and supportive moves (e.g. compensating class teachers) considered appropriate by CSTs only.