This study investigates pragmatic failures in English conversations among Chinese university students, focusing on their types, causes, and coping strategies. Using a qualitative approach, the study interviewed 8 English major undergraduates, evenly divided by gender and academic year. The results reveal two main categories of pragmatic failure: social pragmatic failures (75% of errors), including issues with directness, inappropriate forms of address, and cultural missteps, and language-related pragmatic failures (25% of errors), primarily linked to misused vocabulary or structures. The causes of pragmatic failures include language transfer from Chinese to English, lack of cultural context awareness, and insufficient classroom training and practical exposure. A significant number of participants indicated that they often transferred Chinese communication norms into English, which led to misunderstandings. Additionally, many students lacked awareness of cultural differences, such as politeness and appropriate address forms in English, further contributing to pragmatic failures. The study also explores the students’ awareness of their mistakes and coping strategies. While most students were able to identify their mistakes through non-verbal feedback, only a few attempted to rephrase or apologize. The study highlights the need for more explicit instruction on pragmatics in the classroom and suggests integrating more real-life communication practice, cross-cultural comparisons, and immersive experiences to improve students’ pragmatic competence. The findings emphasize the importance of cultural sensitivity and practical exposure in second language teaching, and call for educational reforms that focus on both linguistic accuracy and cultural adaptation in English language learning.

Xiaobang Wu, You Chen. A Study of Pragmatic Failure in Chinese University Students’ English Conversations: A Qualitative Interview Approach. Frontiers in Educational Research (2025), Vol. 8, Issue 5: 161-170. https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2025.080524.

[1] Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

[2] Shi, W., & Li, W. (2019). Pragmatic failures in intercultural communication of Chinese foreign language learners. Scholars International Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 2(8), 196-222.

[3] Ed-deraouy, B., & Sana, S. (2024). Examining pragmatic knowledge in speech acts of request, compliment response, and apology among Moroccan EFL students. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 7(1), 109-122.

[4] Xabibullayevna, I. U. (2024). Developing pragmatic competence in language teaching. Pedagogical Cluster-Journal of Pedagogical Developments, 2(6), 57-63.

[5] Leech, G. N. (2016). Principles of pragmatics. Routledge.

[6] Kasper, G. (2022). Interlanguage pragmatics. In Handbook of pragmatics. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[7] Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.

[8] Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in second language acquisition, 18(2), 149-169.

[9] Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language Learning, 52(Suppl 1), 1–352.

[10] House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 225-252.

[11] Kecskes, I. (2019). English as a lingua franca: The pragmatic perspective. Cambridge University Press.

[12] Long, M. F. (2017). Analysis of pragmatic errors from the perspective of cross-cultural pragmatics. Macroeconomic Management, 33(S1):104-105.

[13] Ping, W. J. (2017). A study on pragmatic errors in communication. Language Planning, 62(32): 65-66.