The relatively young field of “[v]ariational pragmatics can be conceptualized as the “intersection of pragmatics with sociolinguistics” (Barron & Schneider 2009: 426) and addresses the fact that “pragmatic differences may occur across varieties of the same language” (Barron & Schneider 2009: 425), which points at intra-lingual intercultural differences. Within the framework of variational pragmatics, and even before the name of the field was introduced in 2008 (Schneider & Barron 2008), the use of so-called “imbalance-reducer[s] after thanks (IRAT)” (Bieswanger 2015: 531) in different varieties of English and/or situations has received considerable attention (cf. e.g., Edmondson & House 1981, Aijmer 1996, Schneider 2005, Talla Sando Ouafeu 2009, Mulo Farenkia 2012 & 2013, Rüegg 2014, Bieswanger 2015). Most of the early work provides no or very little empirical evidence for claims about variety-specific uses of IRATs. More recent studies are generally based on empirical investigations, but rely either exclusively on experimental data, i.e. data elicited with the help of instruments such as discourse completion tasks, or exclusively on natural/naturalistic data, often elicited with Labovian-style fieldwork methods frequently used in variationist sociolinguistics. Both types of data have their well-known advantages and disadvantages and are used side-by-side in variational pragmatics, but it should not be forgotten that they lead to different results (cf., e.g., Kasper 2008). Due to the differences in research design in previous work, there are hardly any comparable results concerning the use of IRATs in different varieties of English and the actual differences between the two data types have not been sufficiently investigated. The present paper thus addresses two issues: First, based on naturally-occurring discourse, the use of IRATs in Brisbane, Australia, is compared with results from New York City, USA, and Vancouver, Canada, presented in Bieswanger (2015). Second, the paper reports on an analysis of both experimental and natural/naturalistic data concerning the use of IRATs in the same city and comparable situations.

 

References:

 

Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London et al.: Longman.

Barron, Anne & Klaus P. Schneider. 2009. Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(4). 425-442.

Bieswanger, Markus. 2015. Variational pragmatics and responding to thanks – revisited. Multilingua 34(4). 527-546.

Edmondson, Willis & Juliane House. 1981. Let’s talk and talk about it. Munich et al.: Urban & Schwarzenberg.

Kasper, Gabriele. 2008. Data collection in pragmatics research. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory, 2nd edn. 279–303. London & New York: Continuum.

Mulo Farenkia, Bernard. 2012. Face-saving strategies in responding to gratitude expressions: Evidence from Canadian English. International Journal of English Linguistics 2(4). 1–11.

Mulo Farenkia, Bernard. 2013. ‘All thanks go to the Almighty’ A variational and postcolonial pragmatic perspective on responses to thanks. Sino-US English teaching 10(9). 707–724.

Rüegg, Larssyn. 2014. Thanks responses in three socio-economic settings: A variational pragmatics approach. Journal of Pragmatics 71. 17–30.

Schneider, Klaus P. 2005. ‘No problem, you’re welcome, anytime’: Responding to thanks in Ireland, England, and the U.S.A. In Anne Barron & Klaus P. Schneider (eds.), The pragmatics of Irish English, 101-139. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Schneider, Klaus P. & Anne Barron. 2008. Where pragmatics and dialectology meet: Introducing variational pragmatics. In Klaus P. Schneider & Anne Barron (eds.), Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages, 1-32. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Talla Sando Ouafeu, Yves. 2009. Thanking responders in Cameroon English. World Englishes 28(4). 544–551.