Formulaic expressions in English and Japanese:

implications for teaching and learning

Julie Norton

Introduction
Japanese learners often fail to do themselves justice with regard to the mysterious
phenomenon English conversation. In oral tests, which grade candidates on their ability
to communicate interactively for example, to initiate topics, take turns, express opinions
and thus develop the interaction according to Western norms of communicative
behaviour, empirical evidence suggests that Japanese candidates tend to do worse than
their European counterparts.

The nature of conversational interaction
Conversation is often described as the archetypal form of talk (see Sacks, Schegloff and
Jefferson, 1974). The study of conversational interaction can be approached in terms of
formal descriptions of its structural organisation - such as those proposed by
conversation analysts and discourse analysts. It can, however, be examined in terms of
other component features. For example, the use of formulaic expressions, the influence
of culture on communicative style, the question of how rapport is established between
interactants, the role of speakers and listeners and aspects of non-verbal behaviour. Due
to the confines of this paper, I will focus on one aspect only of conversational
interaction, that is, the use of formulaic expressions and briefly mention the significance
of this aspect for Japanese learners of English.

Formulaic expressions
...much of what is said in everyday interaction is by no means unique.
Rather, a great deal of communicative activity consists of enacting routines,
making use of prefabricated units in a well-known and generally accepted
manner. (Coulmas 1981:1)

The great body of literature on this subject testifies to the widely-held belief that much of
conversational activity is based on the ability of members of a particular speech
community to trot out highly conventionalised pre-patterned expressions (ibid:1; see
also Edmondson, 1981: 273).

One problematic aspect of discussion of this conversational phenomenon in the literature
is the diffuse use of terminology - conversational routine; linguistic routine; routinized
speech; pre-patterned speech; pre-fabricated speech; which are employed more or less
interchangeably. Clearer definitions are required if we are to perceive the distinctions
described by the scholars.

Coulmas (1981:2), it must be noted, does define routine formulae as highly
conventionalised pre-patterned units whose occurrence is tied to more or less
standardised communication situations. He mentions greeting formulas, politeness
routines such as please help yourself! (ibid:4) and automatic responses such as God bless
you when someone sneezes (ibid:77). Laver (1981: 290) deems linguistic routine
behaviour a tool of polite behaviour which includes greetings, partings, pleas, thanks,
excuses, apologies and small-talk.

The function of formulaic expressions
Wardhaugh (1985: 134) notes the pervasiveness of formulaic expressions in every day
speech. For example, to clarify a point (Let me put it this way...), to buy time (Well, let's
see now...), to refer to previous topics (Anyway, where was I?), to signal the end of a
conversation (It makes you think...).

The work of Sorhus (1977) gives empirical support to Wardhaugh's observation. The
focus of Sorhus's investigation was on hesitation phenomena. From a corpus of 130,000
words of spontaneous Canadian speech, she uncovered the surprising result that twenty
percent of all words uttered in daily conversational exchanges were fixed expressions.
Sorhus posits that routine formulae act as fillers which allow the speaker time to find
words for his ideas. Coulmas (1981:9-11) also points out that routine formulae can be
retrieved from memory easily and thus, facilitate conversational planning. They are said
to have the function of sustaining orderliness and maintaining a smooth flow of
interaction (ibid:12).

The frequency and distribution of routine formulae depends, it is claimed, on two
factors:

the social organisation of a speech community
the structural make-up of a particular language (ibid:11)

Japanese is said to have a particularly rich repertoire as the more tradition oriented a
society is, the more its members seems to make use of situational formulae (ibid:11).
Concerning Japanese, it has also been pointed out that they are very particular about
using the appropriate form in the appropriate context. (ibid:11). There is less concern
about originality and hence, no stigma attached to repeating the same formula as a
previous speaker. What is more, the choice of possible locutions in Japanese is said to be
very limited. (ibid:11).

The significance of formulaic expressions for Japanese learners of English
There is a strong link between routine formulae and culture:

...routines make the fullest use of cultural knowledge common to members of a
community... (Coulmas, 1981:8)

An anecdotal account given by Doi, a Japanese psychologist on a visit to the United
States (reported in Coulmas 1981:13) illustrates this. For Doi, the expression, Please
help yourself! carried the negative connotation of No one else will help you rather than
the friendly hospitality it is supposed to engender. Hence, many routines, particularly
politeness ones can only be interpreted in light of background knowledge of cultural
values, habits and traditions as the sentiment encapsulated in the expression can often
not be inferred from comprehension of the words in isolation.

If routine formulae are closely linked to cultural values, this will lead to differences in
conversational styles cross-culturally. For example, in many languages, the first part of a
politeness formula prospects a particular response, establishing a mini-dialogue between
interactants. (See Slama-Cazacu, 1991:398; Tannen and Oztek, 1981; Verscheuren,
1981:134; Wolfson, 1976:190).

Japanese learners of English may find the plethora of formulaic expressions used in
English quite bewildering. Their use in Japanese seems highly predictable with regard to
particular situations. For example, it is absolutely necessary to say Itadakimasu before
eating. The fact that no corresponding expression exists in English may induce anxiety in
the learner (see Slama-Cazacu, 1991:400), especially bearing mind that violating a social
rule involves loss of face and that maintenance of face is said to be a central value
governing interaction in Japanese (Coulmas, 1981:83). Edmondson (1981:273) notes
that prevalence of routines leads to strong expectations as regards what someone might
say and the type of conversation likely to occur (see also Tannen, 1981:225). Hence, the
anxiety induced through attempting to converse in a foreign language may be
compounded as the learner feels unsure as to how the interaction will develop.

In addition, it must be noted that the scale of fixity of formulaic expressions could prove
troublesome for foreign language learners. A notice in a shop announcing, All pigs fed
and ready to fly! (S. Mandela, 1995, personal communication) exemplifies how the
fixity of a particular expression may be exploited to humorous effect. On a more
mundane level, there is far greater licence to exploit particular frameworks in English
such as Have a nice day! or Have a good day! The latter possibility is related to the
positive cultural value attached to novelty of expression as a means of communicating
sincere sentiments in the West. As has already been pointed out, this is not the case in
every culture and Tannen and Oztek (1981: 38) note that those who come from cultures
in which formulae constitute a large proportion of their every day speech find it very
difficult to get along without them.

Pedagogical implications of formulaic expressions
Coulmas (1981:8) suggests there are several reasons why formulaic expressions are
significant to second language learners. Firstly, the rote memorisation of prefabricated
patterns is a strategy identified in the second language learning of infants (see Hakuta
1974, Schieffelin 1979, Wong Fillmore 1976, 1979). This could mean it may be
worthwhile to teach particular phrases as unanalysed wholes or chunks which learners
may utilise to quickly achieve a communicative aim. However, as Hakuta (1974:296)
notes, we still do not know if such rote memorisation accelerates or decelerates the
acquisition of a particular structure into one's communicative competence. Hakuta
questions whether the prefabricated pattern would signal or inspire the learner to seek its
internal structure or hinder the search as it is far simpler to use the pattern automatically.
Furthermore, if a learner does finally perceive the internal structure of a prefabricated
pattern, will the pattern remain a convenient short-cut to production? (ibid:276).

Keller (1981) terms formulaic routines gambits and stresses their important role in the
way conversation is organised. For this reason, he believes they should be taught in
foreign language classrooms. Students would clearly need to appreciate the precise
situations in which such gambits may be utilised, taking into account such contextual
features as the relationship between the interactants and other situational constraints, if
pragmatic failure is to be avoided. Having said that, it would seem useful to teach
Japanese learners expressions such as just a minute or let me think to fill silences which
may be embarrassing for their Western interlocutors and so gain time to organise their
ideas, rather than have their speaking turn usurped by an unsympathetic conversation
partner. Indeed, many of the expressions previously identified by Wardhaugh seem
easily teachable and useful in this respect.

Finally, it must be noted that much of the interaction in conversation takes place on a
non-verbal level as well as a verbal level (see Urmston-Philips, 1976:94; Tannen,
1981:222.) Thus, in a classroom context, it is insufficient to merely focus on the role of
formulaic expressions and the domain of purely verbal behaviour if the aim is to teach
conversational competence to Japanese learners of English. It may be useful to
incorporate video and film into lessons to provide an accurate model of interaction and
allow learners to focus on the role of speakers and hearers and the regulation of the
interaction in terms of how turn-taking is controlled through, non-verbal as well as
verbal devices.

Conclusion
In this paper, I have tried to exemplify one aspect of verbal behaviour in conversational
interaction, that is, the use of formulaic expressions. I have tried to link this linguistic
behaviour with particular cultural values in the hope of raising the awareness of English
language teachers and making a limited number of recommendations for language
pedagogy. My final justification for this comes from Edmondson et al (1983):

Learning about conversational conventions and norms in the target culture seemed to us
to presuppose an awareness of one's own communicative procedures, and those
operating in the native culture.

Hence, I feel there is place for reflection on the part of both teacher and learner alike as
to how particular cultural values may be linked to verbal and non-verbal behaviour
respectively in one's first language and in the target language if we are to demystify the
phenomenon of English conversation for Japanese learners of English.

References

Coulmas F. 1981. Poison on your soul: thanks and apologies contrastively viewed'. In F.
Coulmas (Ed.) Conversational Routine (pp.69-91). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

Edmondson, W. 1981. On saying sorry' in F. Coulmas (Ed.) Conversational Routine
(pp.273-288). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

Edmondson W., House J., Kasper G. and Stemmer B. 1983. Learning the pragmatics of
discourse' in Applied Linguistics 5/2 (pp.113-125), Oxford University Press.

Hakuta K. 1974. Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second
language acquisition' in Language Learning 24/2 (pp.287-297).

Keller E. 1981. Gambits: conversational strategy signals' in F. Coulmas (Ed.)
Conversational Routine, (pp.93-113). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

Laver J. 1981. Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting' in F. Coulmas
(Ed.) Conversational Routine, (pp.289-304). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

Sacks H., Schegloff E., Jefferson G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation
of turn-taking for conversation' in Language 50/4 (pp.696-735).

Slama-Cazuca T. 1991. Politeness strategies and contrastive foreign language teaching'
in Vladimir Ivir and Damir Kalogjera (Eds.) Trends in Linguistic Studies and
Monographs 54: Languages in Contact and Contrast. Essays in Contact
Linguistics, (pp.391-406). Mouton de Gruyter.

Sorhus H. 1977. To hear ourselves - implications for teaching English as a second
language' in English Language Teaching Journal 31/3 (pp.211-221).

Tannen D. 1981. Indirectness in discourse: ethnicity as conversational style' in
Discourse Processes 4. (pp.221-238).

Urmston Philips S. 1976. Some sources of cultural variability in the regulation of talk'
in Language and Society 5 (pp.81-95). Cambridge University Press.

Verscheuren J. 1981. The semantics of forgotten routines' in F. Coulmas (Ed.)
Conversational Routine, (pp.133-153). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

Wardhaugh R. 1985. How Conversation Works. Basil Blackwell.

Wolfson N. 1976. Speech events and natural speech' in Language and Society 5
(pp.189-209). Cambridge University Press.


This article was originally published in Teaching English to Japanese Students in
Britain (Issue 8: March 1996), with the title Japanese and English patterns of
communicative behaviour in conversational interaction and its implications for
Japanese learners of English.