PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS 43

The Interlanguage Pragmatics of Greetings

Galina Shleykina
[email protected]
Miami University
USA
Abstract
The present study centers on interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics. It investigates
semantic formulas (SF) in the speech act of greeting as performed by Russian EFL learners. In
particular, it compares the non-native speakers’ (NNS) and native speakers’ (NS) production of
SF in terms of number, frequency, and content. A Free Discourse Completion Test (FDCT)
containing 16 situational prompts elicited greetings by the English NNSs and NSs. The results
demonstrate significant differences in NS and NNS production in terms of number, frequency,
and content of greetings strategies, namely, greetings proper, phatic questions and phrases,
address terms, and situational greetings. The differences result from negative pragmalinguistic
and sociopragmatic transfer, lack of appropriate linguistic means, attitude towards the FDCT,
and induced instruction. Important pedagogical implications for pragmatic instruction are
discussed. The results contribute to a better understanding of how EFL learners greet and
respond to greetings. They also shed light on the discussion of L2 learners’ pragmatic
competence and appropriateness.
Keywords: interlanguage, cross-cultural pragmatics, speech acts, greetings.
Introduction
In the recent years, in the fields of speakers (NNSs) of different languages.
applied linguistics and Teaching English as a Among a variety of speech acts, requests and
Second/ Foreign Language, interlanguage apologies are the most well-studied (Blum-
pragmatics (ILP) – acquisition and use of Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989; Trosborg,
second language (SL) or foreign language 1995).Research has demonstrated that
(FL) pragmatics – has drawn extensive performing speech acts is a complex task
research interest (AlcónSoler &Martínez-Flor, which requires linguistic as well and
2008; Culpeper, Mackey, & Taguchi, 2018; communicative and pragmatic competence. In
Martínez-Flor &Usó-Juan, 2010a; Taguchi, the process of speech acts production, a target
2019; Trosborg, 2010). Among many language(L2)learner relies not only on the
directions in ILP research, such as politeness linguistic rules – phonetics, phonology,
strategies, conversational implicatures, turn- morphology, semantics, and syntax, but also
taking, discourse markers, and others, the on the appropriate use of these rules and
central attention of the researchers in cross- interactional norms according to a specific
linguistic ILPhas was devoted to the context. In other words, in order to interact
production of speech acts by non-native successfully in the immediate as well as broad

Beyond Words Vol. 7 No. 1 (May 2019)

44 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS

socio-cultural context, a learner should breakdowns, misunderstandings, and

develop communicative, pragmatic, and pragmatic failure. Pragmatic errors or “errors
interactional competences. Such of appropriacy” (Crandall &Basturkmen,
communication includes performing 2004, p. 38) are perceived as serious by native
appropriate utterances and communicative speakers (NSs) and compared to grammatical
tasks and also joint construction and or vocabulary errors are “less easily forgiven”
negotiation of meaning in a dynamic (Yates, 2010, p. 288) and might beseen
discourse (Taguchi, 2017). This becomes vital asoffensive, disrespectful, and rude.
under today’s conditions of globalization and Developing competence in performing
multiculturalism with the goal of current speech acts is therefore of paramount
English as a Second language (ESL) importance in relation to successful
pedagogy to create conditions for effective communication. It becomes especially
cross-cultural interaction between speakers of important in the case of performing the
different languages and representatives of speech act of greeting considering its
different cultures (Savignon, 2018). significant social function in speech
Previous literature has documented and communities. Greetings are keys for
described difficulties that SL and FL learners establishing and maintaining contacts and for
of all proficiency levels encounter in language learners serve “as a door to the
acquisition ofL2 communicative rules and target culture” (Kakiuchi, 2005, p. 63).
pragmatic norms (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). It Knowledge and appropriate use of greetings
has been shown that the learners often is an important component of L2
inappropriately transfer pragmalinguistic communicative and pragmatic competences:
(linguistic forms) and sociopragmatic “the more speakers understand the cultural
(sociocultural and contextual conventions) context of greetings, the better the society
rules of their native language (L1) into the L2 appreciates them, and the more they are
production (Thomas, 1983). Such pragmatic regarded as well behaved” (Schleicher, 1997,
transfer often leads to communicative p. 334).
Literature Review
The speech act theory views greetings as particular culture depends on different factors
ritualized speech utterances which lack such as social status, age, gender, degree of
propositional content and denotational familiarity, and degree of intimacy or distance
meaning (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969). Their (Ferguson, 1981; Laver, 1981). In the
main function is social: to establish and Politeness Theory, Brown and Levinson
reestablish relations and to acknowledge (1987) characterize greetings as face-saving
differences in social status (Goffman, 1971). acts (FSA)since they demonstrate positive
Moreover, greetings represent politeness, politeness, phatic communication, and
distinguish and recognize hearer (H), express establish relationships in a non-threatening
attitudes of speaker (S) towards H, attract atmosphere. However, if greetings violate a
attention, and are expected in a certain social variable of power (P) or social distance (D),
situation. The choice of greetings in a they may turn into a face-threatening act
 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS 45

(FTA). In regards to greetings, Brown and personalized greetings, and other (Qian,
Levinson’s formula for determination the 1996). Specific opening phrases functioning
weight of an FTA as a greeting or preceding it are expected in
these contexts, e. g. the phrase “Can I help
Wx= D (S,H) + P (H,S) + Rx
you?” in service encounters; summons in
might be revised as X= D (S,H) + P (H,S) + telephone calls (Schegloff, 1986); summons
… (Qian, 1996), where X is the degree of in academic office hours (Limberg, 2010);
greeting politeness. It varies if variables of D “Nice to meet you,” “How do you do,” “My
or P change. For example, in the dialogues name is …” in introductory greetings
“Hey buddy! – Hey! Glad to see you here!” (Greere, 2005; Masi, 2008); and inquiries
and “How do you do, Mr. Smith? – How do about interlocutor’s health, feelings, family,
you do, Mr. Jones? I am pleased to meet you” compliments or remarks appropriate to the
the variables of P and D are contextually situation in personalized greetings.
different. Consequently, X–the greeting In cross-linguistic descriptive studies,
politeness–is changed (Qian, p. 36). The greetings from a number of languages
suggested formula is open-ended as other Chinese (Li, 2009; Ma, 2000; Qian, 1996),
factors, for example, time of day, Vietnamese (Suu, 1990), Polish (Jakubowska,
communicative intention, number of 1998), Spanish (Pinto, 2008), Thai
interlocutors and so on, may interfere (Bornmann, 2001), Persian (Negargar, 2015;
(Felecan, 2015; Qian, 1996). Salmani-Nodoushan, 2007), German and
Traditionally, verbal greetings in English Spanish (Feller, 2007), Italian (Bonsignori,
are classified according to time indication, Bruti, &Masi, 2011)– have been compared to
contextual factors (P, D, age (A), etc.), and English. These studies demonstrate the
lexico-semantic content. First, English diversity of greetings and their contextual,
greetings are divided into time-free (such as social, and linguistic variability. The
“Hello,” “How are you?”) and time-bound determining factors can be D, P,A, gender, or
(such as “Good morning,” “Good afternoon”) socio-religious norms of a community. Such
(Halliday, 1975). Another classification variability presents a challenge for L2
distinguishes formal and informal greetings learners in terms of linguo-cultural
(Greere, 2005; Leech &Svartvik, 2002). comprehension and linguistic production. For
Formal greetings denote formality of context instance, Chinese and Thai greetings “Have
and are used in business situations, with you eaten?” or “Where are you going?” might
interlocutors of higher P and A, and become FTAs for English speakers (Li, 2009;
unfamiliar or not so well familiar Sukwiwat & Fieg, 1987). In contrast, for
interlocutors. Informal greetings have more Chinese speakers such greetings “show
variability and flexibility and are used concern for others’ welfare and at the same
between family members, friends, P and A time maintain the hearer’s positive face” (Li,
peers, and in informal situations in general. p. 74). Another example of a challenge for L2
Finally, greetings are distinguished by the learners is the English greeting phatic
social context: different kinds of service questions such as “How are you?” Because of
encounters, telephone calls, media broadcasts,
46 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS

the “mismatch between the literal meaning, or of American English and Japanese NNSs of
locutionary force, of the utterance and its English and found NNSs to be less target-like
intended meaning, or illocutionary force” and showing low variability in greetings.
(Sykes, 2018, p. 121),this phrase might be Gharaghani, Eslami-Rasekh, Dabaghi, and
perceived as a genuine question about well- Tohidian (2011) further confirmed and
being, leading to misunderstandings, cultural exemplified challenges for English learners in
profiling (Kartalova, 1996), and pragmatic the production of greetings. In their research,
failure (Jaworski, 1994). Persian EFL learners inappropriately
In ILP research, the speech act of transferred L1 greeting strategies into the
greeting has been under studied. Although English production, which led to pragmatic
many greetings are relatively straightforward failure. In addition to these three studies,
and formulaic (Baratta, 2009),they can several others direct attention to the L2
involve extensive forms and additional production of greetings in languages other
contextual features emerging in context and than English. Omar (1991) explored greeting
during interaction (Baratta, 2009; Duranti, performance by learners of Kiswahili. Du Fon
1997). In this regard, the speech act of (1999) focused on the process of acquisition
greeting mightpresent difficulties for L2 of Indonesian greetings. Lastly, Sithebe
learners (Waring, 2012) and consequently is (2011) analyzed greetings produced by
of interest for ILP scholarship. Nonetheless, American learners of Swazi. These studies
the studies exploring the ILP aspect of provide additional evidence on the
greetingsare scarce up to date. Few studies complexities of greetings and challenges for
analyze the NNSs’ production of English L2 learners.
greetings. The first one done by Ebsworth, The current article aims to address the
Bodman, and Carpenter (1995) looked at the research gaps outlined above. Adopting cross-
types of English greetings performed by linguistic comparative perspective, it analyzes
English NNSs with various L1s. The the production of the speech act of greeting
analysisof Discourse Completion Tests (DCT) from the ILP view and identifies and explains
and role-plays demonstratedsignificant differences between NS and NNS production
difficulties that English learners at the of this particular speech act. The following
advanced level of proficiency have with research questions are addressed in this
producing and responding to English article: Are semantic formulas (SF) in
greetings. Pragmatic transfer, sociopragmatic greetings produced by Russian EFL learners
and pragmalinguistic deficiencies, and a different or similar to those produced by
limited variety of greeting phrases were English NSs in terms of their number,
noted. The second study – byKakiuchi (2005) frequency, and content? What types of
–analyzed greetings in conversations by NSs greetings exhibit differences/ similarities?
Methods
The data for the present research wa two rounds of piloting for prompts revising
scollected through a Free Discourse and rewording, ensuring comprehensibility
Completion Test(FDCT). It has undergone for the NNS respondents, feasibility to
 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS 47

answer, and practicality to administer. The (informal situation); +D (S and H do not

final version included 16 situational prompts know each other), -D (S and H know each
with the contextual variables of P, D, A, and other); +P(H has more power than S) and =P
Formality (F) which, as discussed above, (power status of S and H is equal). In the P
influence greetings production significantly. variable, the possible scenario of -P (S has
The prompts in the FDCT represent all more P than H) was not included in the
possible configurations of P, D, A, and F FDCT, as the participants were undergraduate
variables for the participants. The distribution students and it might have been unfeasible for
of variables is represented in Table 1. All them to envision contexts of greeting
variables are binary and are presented as someone of less P. The complete FDCT is
follows: +A (H is older than S) and =A (equal presented in Appendix 1.
age of S and H); +F (formal situation), -F
Table 1.
Variables distribution between items of the FDCT

Two groups of participants were an American university (N=40). Both groups

employed: NNSs of English – EFL students in answered demographic questions on their age,
a Russian university (N=50), and NSs of gender, and university major. The NNSs
American English – undergraduate students in group was additionally asked about the
48 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS

number of years of English learning and (Cohen, 1996) – were used as major units of
opportunities to use English outside the analysis.
classroom. SF of greetings produced in the FDCTs
The majors of the NNS participants were were identified and coded. The SF in the
English language and literature (52%), present data include the constituents of
Finnish and English languages (36%), ,English greetings: greetings proper, address
andjournalism (12%). NS participants had a terms, and elements of phatic communication
variety of majors – English, German, arts, (Bonsignori et al., 2011; Greere, 2005; Sacks,
music, history, geography, psychology, 1975) and were coded as follows:
sociology, business and finance, botany, 1. Greetings proper. This category was
strategic communication, engineering, and further divided into time-free/ time-bound and
political science. NNS participants were 10% formal/ informal variants. For example,
male and 90% female; NS – 30% male and 70 “Hello” is time-free, neutral greeting proper;
% female. Age of both groups was between “Hey” is time-free, informal greeting proper;
18 and 24 years (the mean – 19.5 years). For “Good afternoon” is time-bound, formal
the NNSs, the number of years of English greeting proper.
learning varied from five to 16 years (the 2. Address terms. This category was
mean – 9.8 years). Regarding using English further divided into personal names,
outside the classroom, 38% of the NNSs university titles (Doctor, Professor),
never communicate in English, 28% – rarely, honorifics (Mr./ Mrs., Sir/ Madam), and
26% – sometimes, and 8% – often;14% have colloquial addresses (man, dude);
travelled to countries where English is used 3. Phatic questions. This category was
for communication. further divided into neutral (How are you?),
For the NNS group, the prompts of the formal (How do you do?), and informal
FDCT were written both in L1 and L2 in (What’s up?) questions;
order to ascertain their full understanding. 4. Phatic phrases (Nice to see you/ Nice
The test was run during class time or to meet you);
immediately after it by the researcher or 5. Situational greetings. This category
cooperating university instructors. The NS includes contextualized or individualized
participants completed the FDCT at their phrases or questions which serve as a greeting
convenience. in specific circumstances of the constructed
In the current study, following the dialogue.
method of data analysis used in cross- For example, the greeting “Hi, John!
linguistic ILP research (Bardovi-Harlig, What’s up?” includes the following
2009;Bardovi-Harlig, Bastos, Burghardt, components – SF: time-free informal greeting
Chappetto, Nickels, & Rose, 2010; Bardovi- proper ‘Hi’, a personal name, and the
Harlig & Hartford, 1990; Beebe, Takahashi, informalphatic question.
Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Keshavarz, Eslami- In order to ensure the reliability of coding
Rasekh, &Ghahraman, 2006), semantic and further analysis, a second coder coded
formulas (SF) – components of a speech act 10% of the data, a sufficient amount for
 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS 49

establishing raters’ reliability (Mackey between the two groups and whether the
&Gass, 2005, p. 243). The results were highly difference is significant, the chi-square test
reliable (97%), with disagreements being was conducted, and the p-value was
resolved through discussion. calculated. The frequency of SF was
The number of SF was calculated and calculated as the percentage of the total
compared between the two participant groups. number of SF produced by the respondents
The mean number of all SF was calculated by ([total # of particular SF / total # ofSF] x 100)
dividing the total SF number by the number (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993, p. 147).
of responses (total # of SF / N). The mean For qualitative analysis, the NNSs’ responses
number of particular SF was calculated by were examined from the SF perspective in
dividing the total number of particular SP by relation to NSs’ responses; attention was paid
the number of responses (total # of particular to the features and content of obtained
SF / N). In order to determine whether there is discourse data.
a difference in the number of produced SF
Results and Discussion
Table 2 presents the numbers of SF produced in the entire FDCT and the mean in the two
participant groups.
Table 2
Numbers and Mean of SF in NS and NNS Data

As shown in Table 2, the total mean of similar. In other words, in average, the NSs
SF produced by the NS and NNS groups is and NNSs produced similar number of SF in
50 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS

the entire FDCT. For the total number of SF, information and express themselves more
X2= 0.0384, p=.844567 which is not clearly. The current research partially
significant at p < .05. However, the results of supports these results. In the present study,
the mean of SF per each FDCT item(#1-16) the NNSs similarly exhibited “waffling;”
are different: they demonstrate discrepancies however, it is found not in the number of
between the NSs and NNSs. Mainly, the discrete words but in the number of SF. The
number of SF varied depending on P and D. NNSs used strings of formulas in order to
The NNSs produced a higher number ofSF highlight the illocutionary meaning, to ensure
when greeting status peers (=P) in items# 1-3. its complete understanding, and to achieve the
More SF were also produced in introductory overall communicative goal. For example, a
greetings (+D) in items # 9-16. A lower typical NNS greeting of a peer(=P, =A, -F, -
number of SF was produced in greeting status D) includes three SF contrasting with the
superiors – university professors and single-formula NS greeting, as shown in (1)
instructors (+P) in items # 5-8. and (2):
The higher number of SF in the NNSs’ (1) Oh, hi! It’s so good to meet you.
production can be accounted for by an How are you? (NNS 4, dialogue 1);
interlanguage characteristic known as “waffle (2) Hey (NS 1, dialogue 1).
phenomenon” (Edmonson & House, 1991). It Additionally, the high numbers of
refers to “excessive use of linguistic forms to formulas in FDCT items # 1-3 and # 9-16 can
fill a specific discourse ‘slot’ or ‘move, i.e. be explained by the NNSs’ attitude towards
achieve a specific pragmatic goal” (pp. 273- the FDCT. They treated it as a serious task
274). According to Blum-Kulka and Olshtain and intended to demonstrate their competence
(1986), such verbosity and overuse ofSF is and ability to produce long and extended
evident in more proficient learners. In utterances in L2 (Ellis, 2003; Faerch &
producing a high number of words and Kasper, 1989). The NSs, on the other hand,
excessive elaboration, they demonstrate “a did not have to prove their proficiency and
desire to ‘play it safe’ by making responded to the FDCT dialogues in the most
propositional and pragmatic meanings as natural manner approaching and resembling
transparent as possible” (Ellis, 2003, p. 172). natural conversations. As one of the NS
Additionally, the L2 learners may not be respondents commented, “This is how I really
entirely competent in the usage range and talk most the time” (NS 12).
appropriateness of a particular SF The second interesting finding regarding
(Edmondson & House, 1991). As Blum- the number of SF in the NNS production is
Kulka and Olshtain (1986) and Edmondson the low numbers of formulas in the FDCT
and House (1991) showed, NNSs produced items# 5-8. Such production was influenced
longer DCT responses for the speech acts of by and transferred from politeness rules and
requests and apologies. In these studies, the communication style of L1. As shown in the
NNSs used fewer formulas and a higher literature (Bergelson, 2012; Larina, 2009;
number of words compared to the NSs. Such Wierzbicka, 2002), Russians are more
verbosity was intended to communicate verbose with close friends and peers than with
 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS 51

superiors and typically find it inappropriate to However, the numbers of SF vary in each
converse and to engage in small talk with FDCT item depending on the factors of P, A,
status superiors. In this study this observation and D. The NNSs were more verbose with P
is supported by the use of the phatic question and A equals and in introductory greetings of
“How are you?” which was produced less all types, and less verbose – with P superiors.
frequently by the NNSs in greeting status The next part presents and discusses the
superiors as will be discussed further. results of particular SF production of the two
To summarize, in the entire FDCT, the groups. The distribution of particular SF in
NNSs did not produce significantly higher their number, mean and frequency in the NS
number of SF as compared to the NSs. and NNSs data is presented in Table 3.
Table 3.
Number, mean, and frequency of particular SF in the NS and NNS data

As shown in Table 3, the statistically honorifics; phatic questions; phatic phrases;

significant differences (p < .05) are found in and situational greetings (FDCT items# 1-8).
the production of the following SF: greetings The first significant difference is found in
proper “Hello,” “Hey,” and time-bound the greetings “Hello,” “Hey,” and time-bound
greetings; terms of address – titles and phrases: the NNSs employed “Hello” and
52 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS

time-bound greeting frequently and the NSs – names. The NSs used them frequently to
the greeting “Hey” frequently. This result can address instructors. For the NNSs, however,
be explained by the induced instruction as such use was unacceptable. The NNSs based
well as sociopragmatic transfer of the L1 their addresses on the politeness norms of L1
norms. Traditionally, EFL classes present and being that students must address interlocutors
use “Hello,” “Hi,” and time-bound greetings of the higher status – here, teachers –
as typical and standard. Besides, these phrases respectfully. Consider the following FDCT
correspond to Russian greetings: a more dialogue in Example (3):
formal – здравствуй/ здравствуйте (3) - Hello, Nick.
(zdrastvuy/ zdrastvuyte) corresponding to - Shhh. We are in the university. I'm
“Hello”, and a more informal – привет your instructor.
(privet), corresponding to “Hi”, making the - Excuse me. I didn't want to say it.
use of these English greetings easier for the - It's okay. Later you'll accustom.
learners. In contrast, the greeting “Hey” does (NNS 42, dialogue 8).
not have a single translational equivalent. In Example (3), a student used the first
Thus, as the data showed, the NNS production name to address an instructor. The use of a
of “Hey” was very limited. The NNSs were personal name was perceived as inappropriate
not completely competent and confident in its in the given context and consequently, the
usage and “played safe” (Ellis, 2003, p. 172) student had to apologize. In Russian, students
preferring the neutral “Hello”. In addition, should address all instructors – irrespective of
they used time-bound greetings frequently their age – by their first full name and
which can be explained by the high level of patronymic. Using the first name only or its
politeness of their equivalents in L1. The diminutive is considered unacceptable at the
NNSs used such greetings in order not to university setting. In Example (3), the lack of
insult the interlocutor and not to sound the corresponding linguistic form in L2
inappropriate. caused difficulties in the NNSs’ address
The second significant difference was production.
observed in the production of address terms, Next, the participants demonstrated
namely in the use of titles and honorifics to significant discrepancies in the phatic greeting
address professors and personal names to questions. The NNSs employed questions
address instructors. The NSs employed titles “How are you?” and the like less frequently
(such as Doctor and Professor) to address than the NSs. Such tendency reveals transfer
their professors, the NNSs – honorifics (such of L1 politeness rules and a difference in the
as Mr., Mrs.). Such production stems from the “How are you?” meaning and use between
differences in academic culture in L1 and L2 English and Russian. In English, it is a phatic
environment. Besides, it is indicative of and ritualized phrase the response to which
insufficient information on the academic does not imply an elaborate and honest
address termspresented during EFL answer. The “How are you?” sequence might
instruction.Another difference in address open a conversation; however, the phrase
terms is observed in the use of personal primarily serves a social purpose – recognize
 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS 53

the presence of an interlocutor, create a greetings – context-specific phrases and

conversational routine, and maintain questions. The NNSs employed a wide variety
politeness rules of interaction. In Russian, the of those in FDCT dialogues # 1-8: questions
corresponding phrases such as “Какдела?” “Where are you going?” and “What are you
(“Kakdela?” – “How are things?”) are doing (here)?”Expressions of surprise,
ritualized to a lesser extent. Such questionsare personal comments, speech acts of requests,
commonly used among friends, family suggestions, offers, compliments, and
members, or in-group participants; rarely – complaints. Such production again refers to
among interlocutors who do not know each the “waffle phenomenon” (Edmonson &
other well and interlocutors of a higher social House, 1991, p. 273)and willingness to
status; and never – between strangers. It is demonstrate L2 proficiency(Ellis, 2003).In
regarded more as a genuine question and a addition, the use of direct questions such as
conversation opener rather than a routinized “Where are you going?” and direct comments
greeting. Such lingua-cultural differences or personal remarks in items# 1-4– greeting
have led to the lesser use of “How are you?” friends – might be explained by transfer of L1
and similar phrases by the NNSs. socio-pragmatic rules. The Russian speakers
Interestingly, a formal phatic question “How tend towards straightforwardness and
do you do?” – brought up through instruction openness in the conversations with friends
– occurred in the NNS data. While “How do and close people, thus demonstrating
you do?” for the NNSs participants was a directness, honesty, and content orientation
polite and appropriate way to greet superiors, typical for Russian communicative style
i.e. professors, “How are you?” seemed an (Larina, 2009; Wierzbicka, 2002).
inappropriate question to ask of professors As we see, the major factors that
and instructors. A revealing dialogue is given influenced the NNS production of greetings
in Example (4): are induced instruction, L1 transfer, low
(4) - Hey! How are you? competence in a particular greeting phrase or
- I don’t think it’s appropriate to talk to strategy, desire to sound polite, and attitude
your university instructor in that towards the FDCT as a means to prove L2
way… (NNS 1, dialogue 8). proficiency. Besides, the NSs and NNSs
In Example (4), a student greeted applied dissimilar rules of greetings as
auniversity instructor with an informal components of politeness systems in their
greeting “Hey” and a neutral phatic question L1s. For the NSs, greetings are mostly casual
“How are you?” The response to such a and informal, even in the academic setting in
greeting showed that the instructor perceived greetings of status superiors – professors and
it aa inappropriate attempt to chat, to initiate instructors. For the NNSs, such informality is
an informal conversation, breaking the unacceptable. The evidence for such a view
hierarchy subordination of P status between is, first, in the high numbers of the informal
the student and the instructor. greeting “Hey” in the NS data; second, in the
Lastly, the participant groups showed high numbers of time-bound greetings in the
significant differences in the situational NNS data, and third, in the low numbers of
54 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS

the “How are you?” question and its informal to status peers in the NNS data.
variants and high numbers of direct questions
Conclusion
To contribute to the ILP scholarship, the representation of speech acts in EFL
article has established and systematically textbooks which might provide deficient
analyzed a research gap in the area of the illustrations of speech acts including greetings
speech act of greeting produced by English (Kakiuchi, 2005; Usó-Juan, 2007; Williams,
NNSs. The focus of the investigation was the 2001). Lack of authentic materials and
SF in greetings and comparison of NNSs and instruction might avert development of
NSs production. The study found that the pragmatic competence. As the results of the
NNSs’ production differs from the NSs in current study demonstrate, some of the
regards to the number, frequency, and content learners’ pragmatic choices are directly
of SF. The differences were discovered in all instruction-related and are influenced by
components of the speech act – greetings textbooks and classroom discourse. To reduce
proper, phatic questions and phrases, and such limitations of EFL pragmatic instruction,
address terms. Several factors explain the teaching materials should include corpus-
divergences: “waffle phenomenon” based data and teachers could become more
(Edmonson & House, 1991), explicit aware of variability of speech acts uses in the
demonstration of English competence, target-language.
insufficient confidence in the use of particular However, in teaching pragmatics, it is
formulas, efforts to use politeness strategies, essential to address the needs of the learners
induced instruction, attitude towards the and the current conditions of English teaching
research instrument – FDCT, and pragmatic in a globalizing world. First, the learners may
transfer from L1. not necessarily aim at achieving native-like
The current study has important pragmatic competence (Ishihara &Tarone,
implications for learners and instructors of 2009; Kasper, 1998). In contrast, they may
ESL/ EFL. Research has demonstrated the deliberately choose to distance themselves
benefits and need for explicit instruction of from L2 pragmatic behaviors and sustain their
speech acts, cross-linguistic comparisons, NNSs’ or multicultural identities through
cross-cultural awareness (Bardovi-Harlig, language use (Ishihara, 2010). Second, and
2001; Martínez-Flor &Usó-Juan, 2006; even more importantly, today, most of
Martínez-Flor &Usó-Juan, 2010b; Takimoto, communication in English is between NNSs
2008), and in general, the explicit strategic of English (Crystal, 2012).Thus, achieving
approach to development of ILP (Cohen, and demonstrating native-like proficiency in
2018; Sykes & Cohen, 2018). A variety of language skills, including pragmatic skills, is
materials for pragmatic instruction in general not the goal of instruction; rather the
(Sykes, 2018; Taguchi & Sykes, 2012) and instruction is oriented on successful
teaching greetings and conversation openings interaction when interlocutors constantly
in particular have been developed (Wong & negotiate and adjust their language resources
Waring, 2010). An important issue here is the to reach a desired communicative goal(House,
 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS 55

2010; Taguchi & Ishihara, 2018). greeting strategies should be studied more in
Consequently, in teaching pragmatics, we depth. The secondquestion – a more general
need to consider this dynamics of pragmatic one – concerns theNNSs’ attitudes towards
conventions and their instant negotiation NS pragmatic conventions and politeness
(Kasper, 2006), and the modern reality of rules and maintaining multicultural and
English as a lingua franca (ELF) with its multicultural identity in L2.
“diversity, fluidity, and variability” (Jenkins, Anotherinterestingdirection of research is the
2015, p. 50).Pragmatic instruction should use of conversational analysis and emic
consider “the users’ cultural content and their approach in ILP in order tobetter understand
sense of appropriate use of English” (McKey, talk-in-interaction and the construction of
2003, p. 13) and aim at developing an “in- meaning by the participants in the immediate
between style of interaction” (House, 2003, p. context. Additionally,approaches to pragmatic
150) or “hybrid pragmatics” (Murray, 2012, instruction should be investigated further
p. 4). todevelop pragmatic and interactional
The results of the present study point out competence of EFL/ ESL/ ELF learners and
the importance of further research in several users. Lastly, the application of the theoretical
directions. First, variables of NNSs such as constructs of communicative, pragmatic, and
age, gender, university major, L2 proficiency interactional competences and their
level, and contacts with L2 speakers, and the significance in ELF should be addressed in
influence of these variables on the choice of future research.

References
Alcón Soler, E. &Martínez-Flor, A. (Eds.) (2008). Bardovi-Harlig, K., Bastos, M., Burghardt, B.,
Investigating pragmatics in foreign language Chappetto, E., Nickels, E., & Rose, M.
learning, teaching and testing. Bristol, UK: (2010). The use of conventional expressions
Multilingual Matters. and utterance length in L2 pragmatics. In G.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with Kasper, H. T. Nguyen, D. R. Yoshimi, & J.
words? Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Pragmatics and
Baratta, A. (2009). A fine ‘How do you do’: language learning: Vol. 12 (pp. 163-186).
Contextual factors within English greetings. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i,
In M. A. Vyas & Y. L. Patel (Eds.), Teaching National Foreign Language Resource Center.
English as a second language: A new Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1990).
pedagogy for a new century (pp. 162–179). Congruence in native and nonnative
New Dehli, India: PHI Learning. conversations: Status balance in the academic
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the advising session. Language Learning, 40,
empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction 467-501.
inpragmatics. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1993).
(Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching Redefining the DCT: Comparing open
(pp. 13-22). New York, NY: Cambridge questionnaires and dialogue completion
University Press. tasks. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.),
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional Pragmatics and language learning: Vol. 4
expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: (pp. 143-165). Urbana-Champaign, IL:
Recognition and production of conventional Division of English as an International
expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Learning, 59, 755–795. Champaign.
56 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS

Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., &Uliss-Weltz, R. DuFon, M. A. (1999). The acquisition of linguistic
(1990). Pragmatics transfer in ESL refusals. politeness in Indonesian as a second
In R. Scarcella, E. Anderson, & S. Krashen language by sojourners in a naturalistic
(Eds.), Developing communicative context (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
competence in a second language (pp. 55- from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations
73). New York, NY: Newbury House. Publishing. (UMI number 9951181)
Bergelson, M. (2012). Russian cultural values and Duranti, A. (1997) Universal and culture-specific
workplace communication patterns. In L. A. properties of greetings. Journal of Linguistic
Samovar, R. E. Porter, & E. R. McDaniel Anthropology, 7, 63-97.
(Eds.), Intercultural communication: A Ebsworth, M. E., Bodman, J. W., & Carpenter, M.
reader (pp. 189-198). Boston, MA: (1995). Cross-cultural realization of greetings
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. in American English. In S. M. Gass& J. Neu
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper G. (1989). (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures:
Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and Challenges to communication in a second
apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing language (pp. 89-107). Berlin, Germany:
Corporation. Walter de Gruyter.
Blum-Kulka, S., &Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many Edmondson, W., & House, J. (1991). Do learners
words: Length of utterance and pragmatic talk too much? The Waffle phenomenon in
failure. Studies in Second Language interlanguage pragmatics. In R. Phillipson, E.
Acquisition, 8, 165-179. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. S. Smith, & M.
Bonsignori, V., Bruti, S., &Masi, S. (2011). Swain (Eds.), Foreign/ Second language
Formulae across languages: English pedagogy research: A commemorative
greetings, leave-takings and good wishes in volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 273-287).
dubbed Italian. In A. Serban, A. Matamala, Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
& J. M. Lavaur (Eds.), Audiovisual Ellis, R. (2003). The study of second language
translation in close-up: Practical and acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
theoretical approaches (pp. 23-44). Bern, Press.
Switzerland: Peter Lang. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and
Bornmann, G. (2001). “Where you go?”: external modification in interlanguage
Teaching Thai students about speech acts. request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J.
Thai TESOL Bulletin, 14 (2), 16-20. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp.
Some universals in language usage. 221-247). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Felecan, D. (2015). Conventional vs
Press. unconventional linguistic means of address
Cohen, A. D. (2018). Learning pragmatics from (Old and new greetings in Romanian).
native and nonnative language teachers. Diacronia, 1, 1-23.
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Feller, S. (2007). Cultural differences in the
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Developing the ability to speech act of greeting. In M. Grein& E.
perform speech acts. Studies in Second Weigand (Eds.), Dialogue and culture (pp.
Language Acquisition, 18, 253-267. 177-190). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John
Crandall, E., &Basturkmen, H. (2004). Evaluating Benjamins.
pragmatics-focused materials. ELT Journal, Ferguson, C. A. (1981). The structure and use of
58, 38-49. politeness formulas. In F. Coulmas (Ed.),
Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language. Conversational routine: Explorations in
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University standardized communication situations and
Press. prepatterned speech (pp. 21-35). The Hague,
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A, & Taguchi, N. (2018). the Netherlands: Mouton Publishers.
Second language pragmatics. [electronic Gharaghani, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., Dabaghi, A.,
resource]: from theory to research. New &Tohidian, I. (2011). Effect of gender on
York, NY: Routledge. politeness strategies in greetings of native
 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS 57

speakers of Persian, English and EFL learning, theory, and practice (pp. 61-86).
learners. Cypriot Journal of Educational Tokyo, Japan: The Japan Association for
Sciences, 3, 93-117. Language Teaching.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Kartalova, Y. (1996). Cross-cultural differences in
Microstudies of the public order. American and Russian general conventions
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. of communication. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.),
Greere, A. (2005). Politeness as communicative Pragmatics and language learning: Vol. 7
strategy: Greetings. Studia Universitatis (pp.71-96). Urbana-Champaign, IL:
Babes-Bolyai. Philologia, 50 (4), 11-22. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,
Halliday, M. (1975). Learning how to mean: Division of English as an International
Explorations in the development of language. Language.
London, UK: Edward Arnold. Kasper, G. (2006). Introduction. Multilingua, 25,
House, J. (2010). The pragmatics of English as a 243-248.
lingua franca. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Kasper, G. (1998). Interlanguage pragmatics. In
Handbook of pragmatics: Vol. 7 (pp. 363- H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and
387). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. second languages: Perspectives in research
House, J. (2003). Teaching and learning and scholarship (pp. 183-208). New York,
pragmatic fluency in a foreign language: the NY: The Modern Language Association of
case of English as a lingua franca. In A. America.
Martínez-Flor, E. Usó-Juan, & A. Fernándes Keshavarz, M. H., Eslami-Rasekh, Z,
Guerra (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and &Ghahraman, V. (2006). Pragmatic transfer
foreign language teaching (pp. 133-160). and Iranian EFL refusals: A cross-cultural
Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la perspective of Persian and English. In K.
UniversitatJaume I. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. S.
Ishihara, N. (2010). Maintaining an optimal Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language
distance: Nonnative speakers’ pragmatic learning: Vol. 11 (p. 359-402). Honolulu, HI:
choice. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), Non-native University of Hawai’i Press.
speakers of English in TESOL: Identity, Laver, J. (1981). Linguistic routines and
politics, and perception (pp. 35-53). politeness in greeting and parting. In F.
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine:
Scholars. Explorations in standardized communication
Ishihara, N. &Tarone, E. (2009). Subjectivity and situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 289-
pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating 304). The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton
and resisting pragmatic norms. In N. Taguchi Publishers.
(Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 101-128). Leech, G. N., &Svartvik, J. (2002). A
Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. communicative grammar of English (3rd ed.).
Jakubowska, E. (1998). Greetings and farewells London, UK: Longman.
contrastively viewed. LinguisticaSilesiana, 1 Li, W. (2009). Different communication rules
(1), 87-98. between the English and Chinese greetings.
Jaworski, A. (1994). Pragmatic failure in a second Asian Culture and History, 1 (2), 72-74.
language: Greeting responses in English by Limberg, H. (2010). The interactional
Polish students. International Review of organization of academic talk: Office hour
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, consultations. Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
32,41-55. John Benjamins.
Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and Ma, J. S. (2000). On English and Chinese
multilingualism in English as a Lingua greetings from cultural perspective (Doctoral
Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2 (3), 49-85. Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest UMI
doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2015-0003 Dissertations Publishing. (UMI number
Kakiuchi, Y. (2005). Greetings in English: H004486).
Naturalistic speech versus textbook speech.
In D. Tatsuki (Ed.), Pragmatics in language
58 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS

Mackey, A., &Gass, S. M. (2005). Second linguistic routines and politeness. Beijing,
language research: Methodology and design. China: Shang wu yin shu guan.
New York, NY: Routledge. Sacks, H. (1975). Everyone has to lie. In B.
Martínez-Flor, A., &Usó-Juan, E. (Eds.).(2010a). Blount & M. Sanches (Eds.), Sociocultural
Speech act performance: Theoretical, dimensions of language use (pp. 57–80).
empirical and methodological issues. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2007). Greeting
Martínez-Flor, A., &Usó-Juan, E. (2010b). The forms in English and Persian: A socio-
teaching of speech acts in second and foreign pragmatic perspective. Pakistan Journal of
language instructional contexts. In A. Social Sciences, 4, 355-362.
Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages Savignon, S. J. (2018). Communicative
and cultures (pp. 423-442). Berlin, Germany: competence. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The
Mouton de Gruyter. TESOL Encyclopedia of English teaching.
Martínez-Flor, A., &Usó-Juan, E. (2006). A Wiley Online Library. doi: 10.1002/
comprehensive pedagogical framework to 9781118784235. eelt0047
develop pragmatics in the foreign language Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as
classroom: The 6Rs approach. Applied achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111-151.
Language learning, 16, 39-64. Schleicher, A. F. (1997). Using greetings to teach
Masi, S. (2008). Verbal greetings and leave‐taking cultural understanding. Modern Language
formulae across time and situational settings. Journal, 81, 334-343.
In M. Gotti& S. Kermas (Eds.), Socially- Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the
conditioned language change: Diachronic philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK:
and synchronic insights (pp. 115-136). Cambridge University Press.
Lecce, Italy: Edizioni del Grifo. Sithebe, F. B. (2011). The speech act realisation
McKey, S. L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL of requests and greetings by non-native and
pedagogy: Re-examining common ELT native speakers of siSwati: Communication
assumptions. International Journal of challenges faced by American Peace Corps
Applied Linguistics, 13, 1-22. Volunteers in their interaction with Swazi
Murray, N. (2012). English as a lingua franca and people (Master’s Thesis). University of
the development of pragmatic competence. Stellenbosch. Retrieved from
ELT Journal, 1-9. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccso16 http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/17874
Negargar, S. (2015). A contrastive study of speech Sukwiwat, M., &Fieg, J. (1987). Greeting and
acts of greeting in two Persian and English leave-taking. PASAA: A Journal of Language
soap operas with regard to the level of Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 17 (2),
formality, structure and frequency. IMPACT: 1-12.Suu, N. P. (1990). A cross-cultural
International Journal of Research in study of greeting and address terms in
Humanities, Arts and Literature, 3 (6), 47- English and Vietnamese (Master’s thesis
60. abstract). Retrieved from
Omar, A. (1991). How learners greet in Kiswahili: http://erl.canberra.edu.au/public/adt-
A cross-sectional survey. In L. F. Button & AUC20061109.114406/
Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language Sykes, J. M. (2018). Interlanguage pragmatics,
learning: Vol. 2 (pp. 59-73). Urbana– curricular innovation, and digital
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, technologies. CALICO Journal, 35 (2), 120–
Urbana-Champaign, Division of English as 141.
an International Language. Sykes, J. & Cohen, A. (2018). Strategies and
Pinto, D. (2008). Passing greetings and interlanguage pragmatics: Explicit and
interactional style: A cross-cultural study of comprehensive. Studies in Second Language
American English and Peninsular Spanish. Learning and Teaching, 8, 381-402. doi:
Multilingua, 27, 371-388. 10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.9.
Qian, H. (1996). Greetings and partings in Taguchi, N. & Ishihara, N. (2018). The
English and Chinese: A contrastive study of pragmatics of English as a lingua franca:
 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS 59

Research and pedagogy in the era of Taguchi, N. (2017). Interlanguage pragmatics. In

globalization. Annual Review of Applied A. Barron, P. Grundy, & G. Yueguo (eds.),
Linguistics, 38, 80-101.
The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 153–167). Oxford/New York: Routledge
Taguchi, N. & Sykes, J. (Eds.) (2012).Technology Waring, H. Z. (2012). ‘How was your weekend?’:
in interlanguage pragmatic research and Developing the interactional competence in
teaching. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John managing routine inquiries. Language
Benjamins Publishing Company. Awareness, 21, 1-16.
Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of input-based Wierzbicka, A. (2002). Russian cultural scripts:
tasks on the development of learners’ The theory of cultural scripts and its
pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, applications. Ethos, 30, 401-432.
30, 1-25. Williams, K. E. (2001). An evaluation of greeting
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic exchanges in textbooks and real life settings.
failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112. Sophia University Junior College Division
Trosborg, A. (Ed.). (2010). Pragmatics across Faculty Bulletin, 21, 49-64. Retrieved from
languages and cultures. Berlin, Germany: http://www.jrc.sophia.ac.jp/kiyou/ki21/
Mouton de Gruyter. kenw.pdf.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Convers-ation
Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin, analysis and second language pedagogy.
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. New York, NY: Routlege.
Usó-Juan, E. (2007). The presentation and Yates, L. (2010). Pragmatic challenges for second
practice of the communicative act of language learners. In A. Trosborg (Ed.),
requesting in textbooks: Focusing on Pragmatics across languages and cultures
modifiers. In E. Alcón& M. P. Safont (Eds.), (pp. 287- 308). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Intercultural language use and language Gruyter.
learning (pp. 223-244). Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: Springer.

Appendix
Free Discourse Completion Test (FDCT)
You need to write a short dialogue for each situation in English that represents typical language
that you would use if you were in these situations.
1. You run into a good friend (of the same age with you) in one of the streets in the city.
2. You run into a good friend (of the same age with you) when you come for an internship
to a business company/ government agency, etc.
3. You run into a good friend (older than you) at a restaurant/ café.
4. You run into a friend/ a colleague (older than you) when you come to studies/ work on
Monday morning.
5. You run into your professor on one of the streets in the city.
6. You meet your professor in the university hallway.
7. You run into your university instructor (of the same age with you) in a café in the city.
8. You meet your university instructor (of the same age with you) in the university hallway.
9. At a friend’s party you see someone whom you don’t know (of the same age) who smiles
in a friendly manner and seems willing to chat.
60 PRAGMATICS OF GREETINGS

10. On the first day of classes at the university you see a new student (of the same age) and
decide to talk to him/her.
11. At a friend’s party you see someone whom you don’t know (older than you) who smiles
in a friendly manner and seems willing to chat.
12. On the first day of classes at the university you see a new student who looks older than
you and decide to talk to him/her.
13. At a university party you see a new professor whom you don’t know yet and decide to
talk to him/ her.
14. You come for a consultation to a new university professor whom you haven’t met before.
15. At a university party you see a new instructor who is of your age and decide to talk to
him/ her. You haven’t met the instructor before.
16. You come for a consultation to a new university instructor (of the same age with you)
whom you haven’t met before.