Abstract

General Background: The ability to use politeness expressions effectively in a second language is a crucial component of communicative competence. Specific Background: Recent studies have highlighted challenges language learners face in expressing themselves appropriately in different cultural contexts. Knowledge Gap: Despite the importance of pragmatic competence, there is a lack of research on how Iraqi university students, learning English as a foreign language (IEFL), navigate politeness phrases in real-life situations. Aims: This study aims to examine the pragmatic realization of politeness expressions such as requests, refusals, apologies, offers, and gratitude among IEFL students. Results: Using Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs), the study found that Iraqi students face significant challenges in pragmalinguistic realization of politeness expressions compared to American native speakers. Cultural differences were identified as a key factor contributing to these challenges, with Iraqi students often using expressions considered impolite in English-speaking cultures. Novelty: This study contributes new insights into the pragmatic difficulties faced by IEFL students in Iraqi cultural contexts. Implications: The findings suggest that language teaching should focus on developing pragmatic competence by providing contextual and culturally relevant teaching methods, helping students navigate speech conventions more effectively.

Highlights:

1. Pragmalinguistic challenges: Iraqi students struggle with polite English expressions.

2. Cultural influence: Cultural differences affect polite expression use.

3. Teaching implications: Focus on pragmatic competence in language education.

Keywords: pragmatics, politeness expressions, English as a foreign language, cultural differences, communicative competence

Introduction

Due to globalization, the objectives and requirements for learning foreign languages have changed. So, it is important to teach and learn in native-like circumstances that arise in actual situations in order to strengthen learners' pragmatic knowledge and their propensity for successfully utilizing a foreign language[1]. Communication is the exchange of information between a speaker and a hearer. In other terms, it refers to the discussion of issues between two or more people. Students at Iraqi University may encounter several challenges in the practical application of polite language. According to the researcher's information, Iraqi students learning English as a second language struggle to interpret and produce the necessary form and function. of courteous speech. The study looks into how five polite expressions—asking, declining, apologizing, offering, and thanking—are pragmatistically realized by undergraduates. When interlocutors do not speak the same native tongue, misunderstandings might happen. For non-native speakers to make the best choices for their speech partners, they must quickly learn the cultural values and communicational norms that support those choices. The most effective way to make these decisions is typically through immersion in a foreign culture that is different from their own culture[2]. "people communicate differently in different societies and communities." Ignoring these disparities is the same as putting oneself at risk of the investigation's potential failure for failure, particularly because of misunderstanding or of what has been referred to as a "pragmatic failure" in the literature.

When a student attempts the appropriate speech act but employs the incorrect language strategy, pragmatic linguistic failure results. A range of social circumstances pertaining to the relationship between the "speaker" and the "addressee" influence the choice of linguistic realization.

According to Liu [3] failure to realize any aspect in any language setting by FL learners will result in pragmatism or a breakdown in communication. He continues, "induced by variations in the linguistic encoding of pragmatic force," pragmalinguistic failure is caused by a lack of language. According to [4], there are at least two reasons why language learners could exhibit various patterns of realization: First of all, they Second, learners frequently are not exposed to adequate and sufficient input, which results in a lack of pragmatic awareness and may impair their capacity to communicate in a foreign language. Neither do they have enough linguistic or pragmatic tools at their disposal.

Politeness "is a question of precise language choices from a variety of available ways of saying things," For example, phrases like Sir, Would you mind if.., and I was wondering if.. are proper and courteous ways to ask for something when speaking to a stranger or one's manager[5].

This raises a significant question: why are foreign language students unable to effectively use polite expressions? The explanation is that they might not have the necessary skills. Grammatical proficiency is contrasted with pragmatic proficiency. "pragmatic competence is the ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context, whereas grammatical competence consists of" abstract" or contextualized knowledge of intonation, phonology, syntax, semantics, etc. She continues by pointing out that if a first-language speaker interprets the goal of a second-language speech as different from what the second-language speaker intended, there has been a pragmatic failure; the speaker's intention was not achieved[6]. a lack of social connection is one of the factors contributing to subpar performance while employing polite language. Foreign language learners must develop pragmatic ability and by being exposed to specific social environments, social appropriateness to improve their capacity to use the acceptable expressions[7].

1.1 Aim

The research aims at:

1. Investigating Iraqi EFL students' pragmatic failure in politeness expressions (performing correct form and function, performing correct form, and performing correct function), in using politeness expressions including: (request and apologize).

2-Theoretical Background

2.1 Historical Background of Communicative Competence and Pragmatic Competence.

The ability to know "when to speak, when not to, what to talk about with whom, when, where, and in what manner" as well as "to execute a repertory of speech acts, to take part in speech events, and to evaluate their performance by others" is referred to as "communicative competence.",first introduced pragmatic directions of language learning by incorporating the concept of communicative competence and expanding[8].

Cognitive account of language learning by including sociolinguistic competence, as depicted in figure[9].

Provide the model of communicative Competence by expanding on Canale and Swain's model and adding pragmatic Competence as one of the four Competencies of linguistic Competence. Pragmatic knowledge[10].

"enables us to produce or interpret discourse by linking utterances or sentences and texts to their meanings, to the intention of language users, and to relevant elements of the language use settings." Then, as referenced in Bachman and Plamer.One of the sub-components of language use is the demonstration of the ability to perform speech acts. The development or interpretation of intentional meaning in discourse by an individual or between two or more individuals in a particular scenario is how they define language use[11].

Figure 1.[8]model of communicative Competence. (Park,2012:13)

Canale and Swain as cited in Johnson present their model of communicative Competence by expanding Hymes's model with adding two competencies (discourse and strategic Competences) [12].as shown in figure (2)

Figure 2.Canale and Swain's Communicative Competence [12].

By developing Canale and Swain's model of communicative Competence, Bachman presents his model of communicative Competence with adopting Pragmatic Competence as one of the four Competence of language Competence. Bachman and plamer point out that " Pragmatic knowledge enables us to create or interpret discourse by relating utterances or sentences and texts to their meanings, to the intention of language users, and to relevant characteristics of the language use settings ". Then, Bachman and plamer as cited in Park. Show the ability to perform speech acts as one of the sub- Components of language use . They define language use as " the creation or interpretation of intended meaning in discourse by an individual or between two or more individuals in a particular situation "[13]. Figure (3) shows Bachman's model clearly:

Figure 3.Bachman's model of communicative Competence (park, 2012: 14).

A variety of linguistic codes or linguistic diversity is assumed in communicative competence. Depending on his or her competence, the speaker can choose a suitable code to carry out Speaking. According to the SPEAKING, Hymes illustrates eight criteria that characterize the speech situation:

1. S stands for setting, which includes the temporal, spatial, physical, and psychological contexts.

2. Prefers speakers and hearers among the participants.

3. E denotes the ends, which are purposes, results, and objectives.

4. Act sequences for both message form and content are referred to as A.

5. K stands for keys, also known as the way or spirit in which something is said.

6. I use the term instrumentalities, which includes forms and channels.

7.N stands for interaction and interpretation norms.

8. G denotes genres i.e., categories of communication.

To be able to speak appropriately and effectively, a language learner must develop all facets of communicative competence. A crucial component of communication competence is pragmatic competence. Cross-cultural communication requires both speakers to have a sufficient command of the target language's linguistics as well as their pragmatic skills[14].

Koike defines pragmatic competence as "the speaker's awareness and use of standards of appropriateness and politeness, which determine the way the speaker will comprehend and formulate speech acts" as a crucial component of communicative competence.

The ability to use language effectively in a social environment is known as pragmatic competence, which involves both innate and learned abilities and naturally arises during the socialization process. It a variety of fields, such as linguistics, applied linguistics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, communication research, and cross-cultural studies, have begun to investigate it[15].

Knowing what constitutes appropriate language action in a given setting is known as pragmatic competence. According to Guzman and Alcon pragmatic competence appears essential in learning a foreign language because, unlike Native Speakers, who might not need to consciously recognize speech act type, Non Native Speakers need to be familiar with pragmatic issues due to the input difficulties they may encounter in foreign language contexts[16].

2.1.1 The Pragmatics Concept

Several definitions of pragmatics exist today, each reflecting the theoretical bent and target audience of the authors. According to Levinson's observations, it may describe from the relationship between signs and interpreters point of view, pragmatics. Pragmatics is the study of people's intended meaning, assumptions, intentions or goals, and the kinds of acts they are engaging in when they communicate, according to Yule the study of pragmatics focuses on how the "creation and reception of literary texts to their use of linguistic forms" are related. Typically, linguistics, literary theory, and the philosophy of language intersect in this field of study. Thus, pragmatics is the study of how language is used in communication. This includes examining how real-world knowledge affects how utterances are understood and used, how speakers employ and comprehend specialized speech, and how the organization of sentences affects communication. depends on the interaction between the speaker and the hearer. Communication breaks down when the pragmatic force of language is misread, which results in pragmatic failures[17],[18].

2.1.2 Pragmatic Error

According to Richards and Platt pragmatic failure or pragmatic error is the presentation of inappropriate communication effects by the speaker through the wrong use of a speech act or one of the norms of speaking. Linguistic and social-pragmatic pragmatic failures make up the pragmatic failures. The pragmatic failures might be avoided by increasing learners' language and communication proficiency as well as cultural quality[18],[19].

Despite their proficiency in a second language, students may have a tendency to their Second Language production follows the pragmatic conventions of their First Language. As a result, learners could have a tendency to adopt speech acts that are different from those in their first language in terms of form, purpose, and performance techniques. So, second-language learners typically look for pragmatic rules and performance strategies that are similar to those in their native language. In their research, Dippold[20]and Charlebois [21]drew on the concept of "pragmatic failure." This phrase is used to describe a person's incapacity to comprehend what is being said or meant by it. Any time "the hearer (H) sees the power of the speaker's (S) speech as other than S intended she," according to Thomas, or he ought to notice it ".

When speakers of a foreign language are unable to talk accurately, effectively, and use the language with appropriate form and purpose, the cultural differences between communicators may lead to misunderstandings. Because of pragmatic failure, which could have also resulted in communication failure, this happened [22].

According to Thomas ,pragmatic failure can be divided into two types: "sociopragmatic failure" and "pragmalinguistic failure" depending on the difficulty of the analysis and the parameters of both "the duty" of language teachers and "the answers" of language learners.

2.1.3 Failure in Sociopragmatics and Pragmatics

The term "pragmatic failure" refers to the initial "failure of pragmatic language The phrase "pragmalinguistic mistake" is not used by Thomas because she thinks pragmatics is not "strictly formalizable." Hence, the word "error" , doesn't seem to apply in this case. In other words, despite the fact that grammar can be utilized in accordance with prescriptive principles, it is impossible to state that "the pragmatic force of an utterance is erroneous" due to the nature of pragmatic language. As a result of the differing communicative conventions underlying the employed utterances, the Second Language learners will be unable to communicate their meaning in this situation.

The field of interlanguage pragmatics is a great example of how pragmatics addresses the use of language forms in the presentation of specific speech acts. Failure to produce adequate illocutionary acts indicates pragmalinguistic, which refers to the proper use of meaning and form and the absence of presenting these two points, in cross-cultural pragmatic failure. referred to as pragmalinguistic error. According to pragmalinguistic theory, utterance failures are mostly the result of a mismatch between a particular linguistic form and a particular illocutionary force, which is how American Native Speakers interpret and produce language. The word "of course" is the most common example of this[22].

(1) Is it accessible on Sundays?

(2) B: Certainly.

"Of course" typically signifies "yeah, indeed," however that is not always the case. In the scenario given above, A is likely to interpret B's "of course" as meaning "Only a stupid foreigner would ask!" and feel insulted as a result.

The two sorts of pragmatic failure, according to Dippold, are viewed as knowledge of pragmalinguistic competence is the ability to employ specific forms and tactics to transmit illocutions as well as understanding of when to use those forms and strategies.To be considered pragmatically competent, learners must be able to organize their sociopragmatic knowledge on pragmalinguistic forms and techniques and be able to use that information appropriately in a given communication scenario[23].

2.1.4 Politeness

"Dynamic and enduring elements of communication" influence politeness. The main goal of manners is to encourage cooperation among communicators. Thus, politeness serves a regulating societal purpose. "Speakers make various options when speaking, including the politeness level of their utterances," according to Coulmas ,the term "politeness" has a wide range and is difficult to define. (Not on record)[24]

In conclusion, because politeness expressions are closely tied to cultural norms that are the product of a particular culture's customs, views, and ideas, it can be challenging to understand them across cultural boundaries: The pupils must be familiar with these foreign cultural standards in order to use politeness phrases in foreign environments[25].

Methods

3.2 Sample

A sample is any collection of people chosen to represent a population. A good sample is one that serves the characteristics of the population it was taken from. All participants gave their consent to take part in the study, and the sample was selected at random.It comprises of two participant groups:

3.2.1 Students of Iraqi English as a Foreign Language

The first group consists of (150) Iraqi students from two Iraqi institutions who are enrolled in English as a Foreign Language courses for the 2023–2024 academic year. 100 students from the fourth year of the College of Education for Human Sciences and College of Education for Women at the University of Tikrit's Departments of English. The remaining (50) students are from the College of Education for Women. Of the (50) students from the Colleges of Education for Human Sciences, 25 are male and 25 are female. While there are (50) students in the Department of English from the University of Mosul's Colleges of Basic Education, there are (25) men and (25) women among them.

3. 2.2 Native English Speakers in the United States

The second group consists of (50) native English speakers from the United States. from the University of Tulane in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, with whom the researcher had email contact. students in third and fourth grades from the English Language and Applied Linguistics Department of the School of Graduate Studies and Research. Participants in the NSs comprise (25) men and (25) women. The demographic and sample of the study are clearly displayed in Table 1.

3.3. Instrumentation:

The research is carried out by conducting two types of Discourse completion Test (DCT):

a."Multiple- rejoinder Discourse Completion Test " (MDCT):

It is used, in this research , to the learners' pragma linguistic recognition of Politeness expressions . Alle and Corder [26] ; as cited in Najim state that Multiple- rejoinder Discourse Completion can be used as a useful instrument in testing recognition skill rather than production skill; it shows how the learners recognize speech acts and interpret them correctly[27].

2." Written Discourse Completion Test"(WDCT): it is used, in the research, to test the learners' pragma linguistic production of politeness expressions. Faster , as cited in Cohen & Olshtain developed the earliest form of a Written Discourse Completion Test for collecting speech act data for research purposes. The Written Discourse Completion Test provides sociocultural context and asks learners to provide utterances that would be appropriate for that situation[28].

3.3.1 Material Selection to Construct the Tests:

The tests have been constructed by the researcher. They consist of 30 real-life situations that have been used to investigate the learners' pragma linguistic realization of politeness expressions includes: request, apologize, thanking, offer, and refusal expressions.

3.3.2 Scoring Scheme of the Tests:

The first type of tests that used in the research is Multiple- rejoinder Discourse Completion Test which shows the learners' recognition level in using politeness expressions. The mark of this test is (30) marks distributed on (15) situations, each situation take scale (0, 1, 2). The second type of used tests is Written Discourse Completion Test which shows the learners' production level in using politeness expressions. The mark of this test is also (30) marks distributed on (15) situations, each situation also takes scale (0,1,2). The scoring scheme adopted in the tests of the research can be illustrated clearly in table (2).

3.4. Instrumentation

Two different Discourse Completion Tests (DCT) are used to perform the investigation.

The "Multiple- rejoinder Discourse Completion Test" (MDCT) is utilized in this study to measure how well learners can recognize expressions of politeness in context. Multiple-reply Discourse Completion, according to Alle and Corder and Najim ,can be used to measure recognition rather than production skills. It demonstrates how well learners can identify speech acts and interpret them.

2. "Written Discourse Completion Test" (WDCT): In the research, this test is used to gauge how well learners can produce politeness expressions in real-world situations. For the purpose of gathering information about speech acts, Faster , as cited in Cohen & Olshtain ,created the earliest version of a Written Discourse Completion Test. for research purposes. The Written Discourse Completion Test provides sociocultural context and asks learners to provide utterances that would be appropriate for that situation.

3.5 Execution of the Exams

The whole sample of the present study has been exposed to the tests, to investigate pragmalinguistic realization of politeness expressions including: request, apology, refusal, offering, and thanking. The test items represent real life situations that have been selected from various references as books, textbooks, and essays. The tests were administrated to the American Native Speakers of English group and then received via-email. In Multiple Discourse Completion (MDCT), students are asked to choose the one of four possible rejoinders that they feel best fits their situation. While, in Written Discourse Completion (WDCT),

The learner is asked to complete specific discourse sequences using the best expressions for offering, thanking, offering to apologize, and making a request.

4.0 Data Analysis

The study aims to look into how politeness expressions like "please" and "thank you" are pragmatistically realized by undergraduate students. The analysis of the research's restricted objectives can be summed up as follows:

1. The findings showed that Iraqi students have a lot of trouble pragmatizing politeness expressions. These findings could mean that pragmatic ability varies among learners depending on their level of English proficiency.

2. The results show that Iraqi students and American native speakers of English have significant differences in their pragmalinguistic realization of politeness expressions, favoring American native speakers of English. These findings are related to the fact that American participants are native English speakers, and that they are more pragmatically skilled than Iraqi students, who are less able to understand the right form and function in the given circumstances.

3. The results obtained indicate that there are significant discrepancies between American and Iraqi students who are native English speakers at both the recognition and production levels, favoring the latter group. These findings suggest that Iraqi students lack the pragmatic competence and cultural differences necessary to comprehend or produce appropriate polite expression. 4. The findings demonstrate that there are no statistically significant differences between the three Iraqi colleges (College of Education for Human Sciences and Performance at both the recognition and output levels by the College of Basic Education at the University of Mosul and the College of Education for Women at the University of Tikrit. These findings demonstrate how students from various cultural norms have varying levels of pragmatic competence, which can have a significant impact on how well they use the target language.

5. The findings show that male and female performance in the pragmalinguistic realization of politeness expressions differ significantly, with females performing better. These findings may be explained by women's tendency to be more polite than men and their capacity to recognize the appropriateness of females' polite expressions in a given situation across all cultures.

6. The obtained results demonstrate that Iraqi students differ significantly from other students in which their performance varies from one expression to another, and American native speakers of English realization of the fifth polite expressions, including (request, apologize, refusal, offer, and thanking).

The findings demonstrate that (thanking) takes the first level due to the performance of Iraqi students, but (apologize) takes the first level due to the performance of American native speakers of English. According to these results, it can be concluded that learners from different cultures showed different way of thinking, different value views, and different social construction. Hence, their interesting or norms of speaking must be reflected by using their cultural views.

7. In general, the research's findings show that Iraqi students and American native English speakers differ significantly in their pragmalinguistic performance of politeness expressions.

Result and Discussion

4.1.Final Thoughts.

When analyzing the research's findings, it can be said that cultural differences cause Iraqi students to have a lot of trouble pragmatizing politeness expressions. Cross-cultural differences may play a significant role in the pragmalinguistic mistakes Iraqi students make when using polite expressions. While American native speakers of English would use more polite expressions in the same situation, in some contexts they have a tendency to use rude, impolite, and inappropriate words and phrases. Learners of foreign languages must acquire all aspects of communicative ability. One of the most crucial aspects of communicative competence is pragmatic competence. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is essential to support foreign language learners in developing their pragmatic competence with the instructing in relevant contexts of everyday speech patterns. The best and least common expressions that can be used in a particular circumstance can be provided to students by language teachers, who can also assist them. Infrequent, highly constructed expressions with difficult vocabulary should be avoided because students will obviously have difficulty producing them correctly.

Conclusion

In analyzing the results of the research, it can be concluded that Iraqi Students face many difficulties in pragma linguistic realization of politeness expressions due to the cultural differences. Cross-cultural differences can be interpreted as an important reason behind the Iraqi Students commit of pragma linguistic failure when performance politeness expressions. In some settings, they tend to use rude, impolite, and inappropriate expressions in a given situation where American native speakers of English would use more polite expressions in the same situation. Foreign Language learners need to develop all competences of communicative competence. Pragmatic competence is one of the most important competences of communicative competence. So, it can be said that it is necessary to help Foreign Language students to develop their pragmatic competence with the contextual and meaningful teaching of daily speech conventions. The teachers of language can help their students and provide them with the data on best and least known expressions which can be performed in a given situation. Infrequent, highly constructed expressions with difficult vocabulary should be avoided because students will obviously have difficulty producing them correctly.

References

1. D. Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 72.
2. B. Wierzbicka, "Different Cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech Acts: Polish vs. English," Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 9, pp. 145-178, 2003.
3. S. Liu, Studies on Negative Pragmatic Transfer in International Pragmatics, Guangxi Normal University Journal, 2004, p. 16.
4. K. Bardovi-Harlig, "Evaluating the Empirical Evidence: Grounds for Instruction in Pragmatics," 2001, p. 64.
5. J. Holmes, "Women, Men, and Apologies in New Zealand English," Language in Society, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 72, 2006.
6. J. Thomas, "Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure," Applied Linguistics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 91-112, 1983.
7. M. Eisenstein and J. Bodman, "Expressions of Gratitude by Native and Non-Native Speakers of American English," Applied Linguistics, vol. 17, pp. 411-432, 1986.
8. D. Hymes, Sociolinguistics and the Ethnography of Speaking: Social Anthropology and Language, London: Tavistock, 1972, p. 54.
9. L. Bachman and A. Palmer, Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 69.
10. L. Bachman and A. Palmer, Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 36.
11. A. Hughes, Testing for Language Teachers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 34.
12. R. Ebel, Essentials of Educational Measurement, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972, p. 54.
13. K. Johnson and H. Johnson, Encyclopaedia Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1999, p. 56.
14. D. Koike, "Pragmatic Competence and Adult L2 Acquisition Speech Acts in Interlanguage," The Modern Language Journal, vol. 73, pp. 279-289, 1989.
15. R. Ellis, Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 67.
16. S. Levinson, Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 87.
17. G. Yule, Pragmatics, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 62.
18. P. Richards and H. Platt, Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics, Essex: Longman Group UK Limited, 2002, p. 127.
19. G. Leech, Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman, 1983, p. 13.
20. D. Dippold, "Reframing One Experience: Face, Identity, and Roles in L2 Argumentative Discourse," in Developing Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and Cross-Culture Perspectives, J. A. Putic and J. Neffvan, Eds., Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008, pp. 131-154.
21. J. Charlebois, "Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure and Language Teaching," JALT Hokkaido Journal, vol. 7, pp. 35-43, 2003.
22. F. Coulmas, Sociolinguistics: The Study of Speakers' Choice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 84.
23. D. Allan, Principles of Language Teaching, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1974, p. 322.
24. A. Cohen and E. Olshtain, "Developing a Measure of Socio-Cultural Competence: The Case of Apology," Language Learning, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 122-134, 2004.
25. S. Najim, "Pragmatic Failure of Iraqi EFL Learners at University Level with Reference to Indirect Speech Acts," Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Mosul, 2011, p. 67.