Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners

Makin g Requests by Chinese EFL Learners Vincent X. Wang Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners Pragmatics & Beyon...

Author: Vincent X. Wang

178 downloads 894 Views 11MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Makin g Requests by Chinese EFL Learners

Vincent X. Wang

Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series (P&BNS) Pragmatics & Beyond New Series is a continuation of Pragmatics & Beyond and its Companion Series. The New Series offers a selection of high quality work covering the full richness of Pragmatics as an interdisciplinary field, within language sciences.

Editor

Associate Editor

Anita Fetzer

Andreas H. Tucker

University ofWtirzburg

University of Zurich

Founding Editors Jacob L. Mey

Herman Parret

Jef Versc.hueren

University of Southern Denma:rk

Belgian National Science Foundation, Universities of Louvain and Antwerp

Belgian National Science Foundation, University of Antwerp

Robyn Carston University College London

Sachiko Ide Japan Women's University

Deborah Schiffrin Georgetown University

Thorstein Fretheim University of Trondheim

Kuniyoshi Kataoka Aichi University

John C. Heritage University of California at Los Angeles

Miriam A. Locher

Editorial Board

Susan C. Herring Indiana University Masako K. Hiraga St. Paul's (Rlkkyo) University

Universitii:t Basel Sophia S.A. Marmaridou University of Athens Srikant Sarangi Cardiff University Marina Sbisa University of Trieste

Volume207 Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners by Vincent X. Wang

Paul Osarnu Takahara Kobe City University of Foreign Studies Sandra A Thompson University of California at Santa Barbara Teun A. van Dijk Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona Yun:daZhu The University of Queensland

Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners Vincent X. Wang University of Macau

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam I Philadelphia

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences - Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wang, Vincent X. Making requests by Chinese EFL learners I Vmcent X. Wang.

p. em. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, ISSN 091.2-I42..X; v. 207) Includes bibliographical references and index. English language--Study and teaching--Chinese speakers. 1.. English language--Study and teaching--China. 3· Language and culture--China. 4· Literacy--China. 5· Second language acquisition--China. I. Title. PE113o.C4W297

2011

41.8.0071'0951--dc1.2 ISBN 978 90 272 5611 9

2011009753

(Hb ; alk. paper)

ISBN 978 90 272 8680 2 (Eb)

© 2011- John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co.· P.O. Box 36224 • 1020 ME Amsterdam· The Netherlands John Benjamins North America· P.O. Box 27519 ·Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • usA

Table of contents

Preface List of tables List of abbreviations Acknowledgements

IX XI XIII XV

CHAPTER 1

Introduction ILP and requesting 2 The context-based and formulae-based approach Questions for this study 5 Organisation of the book 7

1

4

CHAPTER 2

Interlanguage pragmatics: A critical review 2.1 Essential notions in relation to pragmatics 9 2..1.1 What pragmatics studies 9 2..1.2. Communicative competence 10 2..1.3 Speech acts and requesting n 2..1.4 Indirect request realisations, politeness and cultural relativity 2..2. Cross-cultural speech-act realisation 16 2.2.1 Cross-linguistic variation 21 2..2..2. Inter language variation 29 2..3 Two problems with previous ILP studies 42 2.3.1 Context-based approach to ILP 42 2.3.2 Formulae-based approach to ILP 45 2..4 Summary 51

9

11

CHAPTER 3

Method 3.1 Respondents 53 3.2. Issues around the native-speaker model 3·3 Design of scenarios 57

53

54

VI


3-4 Data analysis methods

61 Utterance length 61 3-4-1 3-4-2 Strategy types 61 3-4-3 Formulaic expressions 63 3-4-4 Internal modifications 64 3-4-5 External modifications 65 3-5 Valid request utterances 66 CHAPTER 4

Strategy use 4.1 Strategy types and strategy categories: An overview 4.2 Individual strategy types and categories 69 4.2.1 Direct strategies 69 4.2.2 Conventionally-indirect strategies 77 4.2.3 Non-conventionally indirect strategies 81 4-3 Strategy use in scenarios 84 4-4 Summary 87

67

5 Formulaic e.Ypressions 5.1 The formulae repertoires oflearners and native speakers 89 5.1.1 The most commonly used formulae: Learners vs. native speakers 89 5.1.2 Differences in preferred formulae between learners and native speakers 91 5.2 Individual formula types 94 5.2.1 Formulae commonly used by native speakers 94 5.2.2 Formulae commonly used by learners 96 5-3 Scenario-based use offormulae 99 5-3-1 The distribution of formulae across all scenarios 99 5.3.2 The use formulae in the four groups of scenarios 101 5·4 Formulae-based vs. strategy-based examination uo CHAPTER

6 Internal modifications 6.1 Syntactic modifiers 113 6.1.1 Conditionals 113 6.1.2 Bi-clausal structures CHAPTER

113

115

Table of contents

6.2. Lexical modifiers 119 6.2..1 Lexicaldo~graders 6.2..2. Address terms 12.1 6.3 Summary

119

123

CHAPTER 7

External modifications and utterance length 7.1 External modifications 12.5 7.1.1 Supportive moves 125 7.1.2. Information sequencing 130 7.2. Utterance length 134

125

8 How Chinese EFL learners make requests: Overall pattern & implications 137 8.1 Patterns of request behaviour: Learners and native speakers 137 8.2. Basic questions about interlanguage pragmatics 145 8.3 Two major approaches 155 8.3.1 The context-based approach 155 8.3.2. The formulae-based approach 160 8.4 The native-speaker model revisited 161 CHAPTER

CHAPTER 9

Conclusion

163

Notes References

169 171

APPENDIX 1

The discourse completion tasks

183

APPENDIX 2

Strategy types by scenario

189

APPENDIX 3

Formulaic expressions by scenario

191

Index

197

VII

Preface

This research monograph has grown out of the author's interest in understanding how adept language learners are at performing social interactions in their 12. One question began to puzzle the author during his graduate years at UQ -if we consider that language learning should aim to develop learners' communicative competence, why has research on 12 learning and acquisition focused so much on grammatical competence, extending so little our understanding oflearners' communicative competence in social contexts? This question has led me to explore the area of cross-cultural pragmatics, and to conduct an empirical study, which forms the basis of this book. The book thus aims to throw some light on interlanguage pragmatics, focusing on an important population - Chinesespeakers learning English in their home country - and an important speech act- requests- that is frequently used in day-to-day social interactions. The book is primarily written for cross-cultural pragmatics researchers and those who are interested in Chinese pragmatics. TES01 professionals, particularly those working with Asian students, may also find the book useful, for example, in terms of the data it provides on learners' request behaviour in specific scenarios, their use of formulae, and their perceptions of social and contextual factors. Graduate students can also use this book as a reference for their studies on cross-cultural pragmatics, politeness and language pedagogy.

List of tables

2.1 Strategy types in requests 2.2 Studies of request strategy use in Chinese Speakers 2.3 Directness scales in Hebrew and English: Mean directness ratings for nine request types in five situations 2.4 Yu's (1999b) study of requests in Chinese EFL learners 3.1 Basic information of the three respondent groups 3.2 The ten scenarios for the discourse completion tasks 3.3 Coding scheme for the ten strategy types 3.4 Valid utterances by scenario 4.1 The distribution of ten types and three categories of strategy 4.2 The distribution of the three strategy categories for each scenario 4.3 Chi-square tests for inter-group variance of distributions of three strategy categories for the ten scenarios 5.1 The request formulae in order of frequency: The 75th and 90th percentiles 5.2 Inter-group variance between the two learner groups and native speakers in formulae use in each scenario 5.3 The first and the second most commonly used formulae in each scenario 6.1 Chi-square tests for differences between learners and native speakers in scenario-based use of conditionals 6.2 The distribution of conditionals in four groups of scenarios 6.3 The distribution of hi-clausal structures in the four groups of scenarios 6.4 Requests with both hi-clausal structures and conditionals by native speakers and learners by scenario 6.5 The use oflexical downgraders by native speakers and learners by scenario 6.6 Most commonly used address terms by native speakers and learners by scenario 7.1 The use of supportive moves by learners and native speakers by scenario 7.2 The use of four positions of supportive moves by learners and native speakers 7.3 The use offour positions of supportive moves by scenario 7.4 Utterance length by learners and native speakers 7.5 Utterance length by learners and native speakers by scenario

xn Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners

8.1 An overview of request behaviours in learners and native speakers 8.2 Overview of scenario-based patterns of request behaviours 8.3 A comparison of studies of Chinese speakers' request strategies

List of abbreviations

CCSARP CID D DCT

EFL ELF ESL FTA

ILP L1 12 NCID SBU WEs

Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realisation Patterns conventionally indirect strategy types direct strategy types discourse completion task/test English as a foreign language English as a lingua franca English as a second language face-threatening act interlanguage pragmatics first language second language non -conventionally indirect strategy types situation-bound utterance World Englishes

Acknowledgements

I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to those people who made this book possible. My sincere thanks go to my whole family. My beloved wife and my in-laws have constantly supported and encouraged me. My parents have always shared their love, understanding, and support despite the physical distance between us. I sincerely thank Professors Roland Sussex and Ping Chen for their valuable and insightful comments, criticism and suggestions, from the very early stages of this research onward. The valuable comments, queries and suggestions offered by two anonymous reviewers were also greatly appreciated. My heartfelt thanks also go to the editorial board of Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, especially Professor Anita Fetzer, who supported this project when the book proposal was submitted, and showed patience and understanding during the prolonged preparation of this manuscript. Special thanks also go to Ms. Isja Conen ofJohn Benjamins for her professional handling of administrative matters. I am very grateful to Ms. Anne Platt for her valuable editing and proofreading of the drafts of my manuscript. I also express my appreciation to Professors Juliane House and Anna Mauranen for their favourable responses to this research. This research has been financially supported by the University of Macau (RG036/08-09S/WXW /FSH).

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

This book examines the competence of Chinese EFL learners in making English requests. It contributes to the understanding of cross-cultural pragmatics, a field of research that has been steadily growing for more than three decades. This line of study compares and contrasts how linguistic actions are performed in different languages and cultures, as well as investigating L2learners' competence in enacting linguistic behaviours - known as interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) - which is the focus of the present investigation. Our study casts light on the ability of Chinese learners of English outside the target-speech communities to perform social interactions in comparison to native English speaker norms. ILP research provides valuable information for L2 pedagogy in terms oflanguage use in social contexts. This social and contextual perspective is largely missing in various schools of grammar- e.g., lexical-functional grammar and transformational-generative grammar - which are not designed to study language use (Widdowson 1984). However, L2 pedagogy concerns the ability oflanguage learners to use the language appropriately and effectively to perform social interactions, and such an ability does not necessarily correlate with grammatical competence. Following Hymes's notion of communicative competence, researchers in the field of L2 pedagogy came to the view that L2 learning is not simply a matter of constructing grammatical sentences, but rather concerns learners' ability "to produce situationally acceptable, and more especially socially acceptable utterances, which, in his [Hymes's] view, would normally be held to be part of a native speaker's competence in a particular language" (Lyons 1996: 24). This posits a social and cultural perspective on language. Widdowson (1990) further elaborates on the social dimensions of language learning: We learn language in order to manage our affairs in the world we find ourselves in. Language is the means of initiation into the conventions of conceptualization and communication which define particular cultures. It has a crucial socializing purpose. (Widdowson 1990: 103)

For Widdowson, language learners need to become familiar with the conventions that govern thinking and communicating in the target language and culture - a process of socialising. Since particular cultures have specific conventions for performing social interactions in particular communicative contexts, L2 learners

2


need to gain knowledge about the use of these conventions in the target language. It is in this regard that ll..P research provides relevant information about L2learners' linguistic behaviour and how such behaviour develops. ILP is considered to be a hybrid of second language acquisition (SLA) and pragmatics (Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993). SLA is a relatively well established field in applied linguistics that examines how an L2 is acquired or learnt (Ellis 1994), while pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that studies how meaning is derived in context. So how is ILP related to SLA? In most SLA circles since the 1980s, SLA has been not only about linguistic competence, but also about Hymesyan communicative competence - recognising the rules of language use in social contexts (Block 2003). For example, Ellis (1985) proposed extending the scope of SLA to incorporate "all the aspects of language that the language learner needs to master" (p. 5), including socially-situated language use. However, mainstream SLA research has largely focused on the formal linguistic properties oflearners' interlanguage, marginalising the position of ILP in SLA (Ellis 1994: 159; Kasper 1996). Some researchers subscribe to a cognitive orientation of SLA, insisting that language use does not belong to SLA and is, rather, a separate category (Gass 1997, 1998; Gass & Selink.er 2001; Kasper 1997). Their view of SLA has been strongly challenged by researchers who believe in the social and cultural orientation oflanguage and language acquisition, who propose there conceptualisation of SLAby broadening its scope and giving it a social element (Block 2003; Firth & Wagner 1997; Tarone 2000). In their view, the narrower interpretation of SLA leads to the unbalanced development of the field, resulting in little relevance to L2 pedagogy (Lyons 1996). For example, Freeman and Johnson (1998) noted that the narrower view of SLA is of such minimal use in L2 education that practising language teachers probably do not need an understanding of the SLA literature. While the debate on whether or not ILP has a place in SLA is beyond the scope of the present study, we should note that interlanguage pragmatics has developed into an important research area in its own right. ILP research contributes to the fields of applied linguistics and L2 pedagogy, extending our knowledge of how learners perform social interactions with their L2, and how this competence develops (Ellis 1994; Kasper 1996; Kasper & Rose 2001, 2002).

ILP and requesting ILP research has mainly studied L2 learners' performance and acquisition of speech acts (Ellis 1994; Kasper & Dahl 1991). Requesting, rather than other speech acts such as apologising, complimenting, refusing, and complaining, is probably the most frequently studied speech act in both L1 speakers and L2

Chapter 1. Introduction

learners. It is a speech act that people perform in social contexts in order to direct the hearer to provide goods and services, and attracts particular attention in politeness theory and language acquisition/pedagogy research. ILP studies have shown that L2learners often doubt whether their requests sound appropriate to native speakers. For example, Cohen and Olshtain (1993) examined ESL learners' production of speech acts in several communicative scenarios, and asked the learners to report what they were thinking when they produced the speech acts. In one of the scenarios the learners needed to ask their professor for a ride home after class. A female respondent revealed in the post-test interview that she had wanted to say Do you ha.ve any mom in the ca.r? at first, but had then shifted to other utterances: It [Do you have any room in the car?] has a lot of meanings and I wasn't sure that it was correct, so I changed my tactic, and decided she would understand better if I said, I want to drive with you. I thought of lift, but I didn't know how to use it in a sentence so I left it out. (Cohen & Olshtain 1993:40)

The learner's first utterance, Do you have any room in the car?, is an indirect request that sounds tentative and non-coercive. However, she was so worried about clarity of meaning that she shifted to a direct request - I want to dri11e with you. The learner probably did not realise that I want to drive with you sounds much more direct and imposing than Do you have any mom in the cen·? She therefore lacked the competence to control her level of politeness in the given context. In addition, she sought to use the idiomatic expression "lift': which can be a good strategy for performing the request effectively. Unfortunately, she was unable to use an expression such as Can you give me a lijilbecause it was not part of her repertoire of formulae. This example shows that the learner attempted to construct an appropriate request and sought to observe "the rules of use" - the norms and conventions of the target speech community. However, she was not very successful because she had insufficient collocational expertise or sociopragmatic competence to formulate the request politely in this context. Other learners in Cohen and Olshtain's (1993) study also reported instances in which they felt uncertain whether their request utterances were appropriate in the particular social context. This shows that 12 learners need to develop the pragmatic competence to perform social interactions more effectively. Previous studies have provided evidence that 12 learners tend to use different request strategies from those used by native speakers, resulting in different levels of indirectness in requesting (Blum-Kulka 1989). This can further indicate different levels of politeness from native norms and conventions, affecting the interpersonal rapport between the speaker and the hearer. Learners may produce non-native-like request behaviours because of their unfamiliarity with

3

4


native speakers' request behaviour in specific contexts, as revealed in Cohen and Olshtain's (1993) study. Learners may also use non-native-like requests because they are influenced by their L1 request patterns - a phenomenon known as L1 pragmatic transfer. There have been many ILP research studies on the learning of major European languages and Japanese, as well as studies of speakers of these languages who learn another language. There are a small number of studies of requests in Chinese speakers in the second language environment (e.g., Yu 1999a, 1999b) and in Chinese speakers' L1 (e.g., Lee-Wong 1994; Rue & Zhang 2008). However, for a number of reasons, there is a pressing need for research on request behaviour in Chinese speakers in the foreign language environment. Above all, the population of Chinese EFL learners is extremely large - China, as a nation, is devoting considerable energy and resources to learning English. It is also intellectually intriguing to study Chinese speakers, whose cultural tradition and social practices differ vastly from western norms and conventions. Chinese speakers' experience of learning English inevitably involves cross-cultural reorientation and adaptation, which is likely to be manifested in their pragmatic behaviour. Our sample will focus on Chinese EFL learners.

The context-based and formulae-based approach A critical literature review (Chapter 2) identifies two problems with existing ILP studies: the lumping together of scenarios obscures important information, and the formulaic expressions used to formulate speech acts have seldom been explicitly examined. In light of recent research on formulae in L1 and L2 (Aijmer 1996; Kecskes 2003; Nattinger & Decarrico 1992; Schmitt 2004; Wray 2002) and on socially-situated language acquisition and use (Block 2003; Gee 2004), we believe that a context-based and formulae-based examination is essential to provide a more fine-grained analysis of distinct situation types and to formulate more specific statements on learners' pragmatic competence (cf. 2.3). For example, Marquez Reiter (2000) contrasted the request behaviours of Uruguayan Spanish and British English speakers, finding that the two groups favour different levels of directness in their request strategies. The present study will compare directness in the strategies of Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers not only for the scenarios as a whole, but also in individual scenarios. In other words, we will test whether the learners are able to vary their request behaviours across the scenarios in the way that native speakers do. A context-based approach is indispensable in achieving an in-depth examination of variational pragmatics competence when we consider Achiba's (2003) observation that her 7 year-old Japanese-speaking


daughter became more sophisticated in differentiating her requests and more sensitive to social and contextual factors during the course of her stay in Australia. Our context-based examination will be strengthened by methodological innovations. Ten scenarios have been specifically designed for our instrument- the discourse completion tasks - and are further enhanced by elaborate situational prompts (cf. 3.3). The central aim is to probe learners' request behaviours more effectively in a range of common social situations - e.g., the 'Post office: 'Police: 'Restaurant' and 'Money-borrowing' scenarios (see Appendix 1). In addition, a formulae-based approach allows us to gather information on request formulae that is not found in previous studies. Barron (2003) looked at only a small number of conversational routines in her examination of learners of German in a study abroad programme - e.g .• "Bist Du/Sind Sie sicher" /"Are you sure?" and "Es geht schon"t'I'm all righ~ She left unexplored the full repertoire of routines her respondents use to formulate requests. Rose and Kasper's (2001) collection contains a few studies of certain pragmatic routines- e.g., sumimasen in Japanese - but these studies mainly compared different teaching methods in terms of their effectiveness in teaching the target routines, rather than examining the full range of learners' formulae. Achiba (2003) meticulously studied request formulae in her daughter in terms of types and tokens, which showed conspicuous developmental patterns. Our study will elicit new information about adult Chinese EFL learners' repertoires of request formulae in comparison with those of native speakers, in a way that complements Achiba's very revealing findings on an L2 child's formulae.

Questions for this study The present investigation attempts to answer the following questions: 1.

To what extent do the two groups of Chinese EFLlearners (cf. 3.1) achieve native-like pragmatic behaviours in the foreign language environment in terms of strategy use, formulaic expressions, internal and external modifications, and utterance length? Previous studies have revealed little about how Chinese learners of English develop their L2 pragmatic competence in a foreign language environment, although there have been a few ILP studies of Chinese speakers using English in a second language environment (e.g., Yu 1999b). We will contrast the features of the native speakers' and the learners' patterns of requests in terms of strategy types, formulaic expressions, internal and external modifications, and utterance length. This will reveal whether the learners are able to draw a

5

6


series of pragmatic features together in a native-like manner when responding to particular social contexts. We will also examine how the learner and native speaker groups vary their pragmatic features in the difterent social contexts presented by the scenarios, and explore possible reasons why the learners are unable to conform to native norms in terms of pragmatic behaviour. 2. Does the language group outperform the business group in approximating native norms? Interlanguage pragmatics research has been criticised for being predominantly descriptive - focusing on depicting L2learners' pragmatic behaviour rather than acquisitional or developmental (Bardovi-Harlig 1999; Kasper & Schmidt 1996; Kasper & Rose 2002). IfiLP explains little about how L2learners acquire pragmatic competence - e.g .• by showing developmental paths or stages - it will tend to be marginalised in the discipline of SLA, which is concerned essentially with how an L2 is acquired (Bardovi-Harlig 1999). The present study will throw some light on ILP development by comparing two groups of Chinese EFL learners with different proficiency levels - a language group and a business group. The language group consists of advanced learners, who were in their third year of the Chinese-English translation and interpretation programme at a tertiary institution in Macao. They had undergone extensive training in English language and interpreting and translation skills. The business group comprises intermediate EFL learners, who were sophomores or freshmen in the business programme at the same tertiary institution as the language group, but whose training was not focused on language. Comparing and contrasting these two learner groups of diftering proficiency allows us to detect what pragmatic behaviours tend to be acquired at an intermediate proficiency level and which pragmatic behaviours are acquired at a more advanced level. 3. Which of the elements of request behaviours are developed in the learner groups, and which are underdeveloped? We will investigate which features are developed in the two learner groups, and which remain underdeveloped, in terms of a number of pragmatic features- strategy types, formulaic expressions, internal (syntactic and lexical) and external (supportive moves and information sequencing) modifications, and utterance length. This will give us an understanding of which pragmatic features are more readily developed in the foreign language learning environment, and which are more difficult to develop. This information is also crucial for understanding the construct of interlanguage pragmatic competence. 4. Does the scenario-based approach have any advantages for an examination of interlanguage pragmatics?


By a scenario-based approach, we mean that the learners' and native speakers' request behaviours will be compared based on individual scenarios (cf. 2.3.1). We will examine whether there are pragmatic features linked to particular scenarios, and test whether the learner groups differ from the native speaker group in varying their pragmatic behaviour according to the scenario. In the particular scenarios where the learners' and native speakers' pragmatic features differ markedly, we will explore the causes in relation to particular contextual factors, which may be perceived differently between the learner and native speaker groups. 5. Does the formulae-based approach offer any advantages for an examination of interlanguage pragmatics? The relevant literature shows that formulaic expressions play a central role in speech-act realisation (cf. 2.3.2). Using the formulaic expressions that we have elicited in our sample, we will be able to examine whether the learner groups and the native speaker group use a similar repertoire of formulaic expressions, or whether the learner groups are missing some formulae that the native speakers tend to favour. We will also investigate how the formulaic expressions are distributed in the scenarios, which formulae are closely associated with specific scenarios in the native speaker group, and whether the learners are able to produce formulae specific to particular scenarios.

Organisation of the book Chapter 1 introduces the aim and focus of our investigation, addresses the importance of the context-based and formulae-based approaches, and elaborates on our research questions. Chapter 2 develops a critical review of the literature on crosslingual and interlanguage pragmatics, contextualising our study in relation to the relevant disciplines and existing research. It will further discuss issues surrounding the context-based and formulae-based approaches to ILP, drawing on new research insights in support of the two approaches. Chapter 3 explains the design of our experiment, while Chapters 4 to 7 present our main findings on strategy types, formulae, and internal and external modifications. The learner groups' overall request patterns are outlined in Chapter 8, which also further relates our results to the findings of similar ILP studies, suggesting implications for 12 pedagogy. It will also evaluate the usefulness of the context-based and formulae-based approaches taken in our investigation. Chapter 9 recapitulates the main findings of our investigation and suggests possibilities for further research.

7

CHAPTER 2

Interlanguage pragmatics A critical review

The fieldofinterlanguage pragmatics spans multiple disciplines. In this chapter we first review some of the essential notions and concepts that relate to pragmatics, language use, and linguistic behaviour, and survey important empirical evidence on cross-linguistic and interlingual pragmatics. We will identify two problems in cross-linguistic and interlingual pragmatic studies. and propose a context-based and formulae-based approach to investigate interlanguage pragmatics.

2.1

Essential notions in relation to pragmatics

Let us first examine the concept of linguistic pragmatics and how the idea of communicative competence relates to interlanguage pragmatics. We will also address the notion of the speech act, and revisit the key ideas in Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory of politeness.

2.1.1

What pragmatics studies

Crystal's (1997) definition of pragmatics is one of the most frequently used by interlanguage pragmatics researchers (e.g., Kasper & Rose 2001; Kasper & Rose 2002: Chapter 1). It begins with language users and their perspective: [... ] the study oflanguage from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication. (Crystall997:301)

According to Crystal pragmatics studies language use in the overarching context of social interactions. The aim of pragmatics is to examine language users' linguistic and non -linguistic choices, the constraints they encounter in making their choices, and the effects of the language they use upon their hearers. 1 We can apply a pragmatics perspective to Cohen and Olshtain's (1993) example, in which a female ESL learner asks her teacher to give her a lift home (cf. ILP

10


and requesting in Chapter 1). To achieve her goal in this social interaction, the female respondent needs to take into consideration a number of social and contextual factors, such as whether people in the target-speech community commonly give others a lift, whether the hearer travels in the direction the speaker wants to go, and whether it is appropriate for a student to make a request of this kind of her teacher. Consideration of these factors is necessary for the speaker to produce the appropriate utterance.

2.1.2

Communicative competence

Interlanguage pragmatics is concerned with learners' use of the target language in social contexts, and in this sense is closely related to the theoretical concept of communicative competence. Hymes (1971, 1972) proposes a broader view of language than that put forward by Chomsky.2 He seeks to construct a linguistic theory that is able to account for individual interlocutors' language use in their social contexts. He further points out that there are rules of use that members of particular speech communities observe when they speak, and that these rules of use are so important that "[t]here are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless" (Hymes 1971:10).3 Hymes (1971) poses four questions to elaborate on his notion of communicative competence -whether something is formally possible, whether something is feasible, whether something is appropriate, and whether something is done. 4 Attempts have been made to identify the construct of communicative competence in the context of language pedagogy. Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) subdivide communicative competence into four types of competence: grammar, discourse, strategic and sociolinguistic. 5 Kasper (2001) considers that sociolinguistic competence is the component that is most closely linked to interlanguage pragmatics, because appropriate language use in social contexts is the central concern of interlanguage pragmatics (cf. 2.2.2). The idea of communicative competence has influenced language pedagogy (e.g., Angelis & Henderson 1989; Savignon 1997; Widdowson 1989). For example, Widdowson's (1989) view of competence, following Hymes, is that "competence is the ability to do something: to use language" (p. 129). Both the communicative approach to language pedagogy and interlanguage pragmatics therefore focus on learners' ability to do things with the language, and in particular to do them appropriately in terms of social and cultural norms.

Chapter 2. Interlanguage pragmatics

2.1.3

Speech acts and requesting

One of the major topics in interlanguage pragmatics addresses L2learners' performance of speech acts. The notion of the speech act is proposed by Austin (1962), who points out that people use language not only to describe the world, for example to state facts, but also to do things -to perform social acts, an activity that Austin calls speech acts. Through the performance of speech acts, social interactions are carried out and the world is atrected or changed.6 Requesting has been the subject of investigation in several disciplines, and is the specific speech act investigated in the present study: A request is an illocutionary act whereby a speaker (requester) conveys to a hearer (requestee) that he/she wants the requestee to perform an act which is for the (Trosborg 1995: 186) benefit of the speaker.

In essence, by making a request, the speaker directs the hearer to perform an act that the speaker wants to be done. Goods or services are normally involved in requests - e.g., in the example It's cold in here, the hearer can either provide the service of closing the door or provide goods such as extra clothes. Requesting is an essential speech act that is frequently used in social interactions, known as directives in Searle's (1969) taxonomy. Requesting is one of the most commonly studied speech acts, both theoretically and empirically. General pragmatics introduced the notion of the indirect speech act, and constructed a theoretical model to explain how requests can be performed indirectly (Searle 1975). Cross-cultural pragmatics studies compare and contrast request behaviours empirically between languages, language varieties and cultures, in order to test whether there are universal factors that determine linguistic politeness across cultures, and to discover culture-specific pragmatic norms and conventions.

2.1.4

Indirect request realisations, politeness and cultural relativity

Speech acts are often performed indirectly (Searle 1975). Here we review Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness in relation to indirect request realisations, and address the issue of cultural relativity in politeness behaviour.

Indirect request realisations for politeness Politeness is one of the major reasons that speakers make requests indirectly. Brown and Levinson (1987) point out that requesting is a face-threatening act (FTA), which threatens the hearer's negative face in the sense of what Brown and

u

12


Levinson call negative politeness (p. 62, p. 70). The notion of face was originally proposed by Goffman (1967) in his studies of human interactions. Brown and Levinson (1987) define face as "the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself" (p. 61). According to their framework, members of particular speech communities have two basic face-wants: (a) to protect their negative face - that is, the desire to prevent their freedom of action from being impeded; and (b) to enhance their positive face - that is, the desire to be approved of or appreciated by other members. As we have seen, indirect speech acts are performed mainly to protect the hearer's negative face - in other words, to avoid coercing or imposing on the hearer. To take requesting as an example, the utterance Can you close the door? has two meanings: the literal and the implicated meanings (Grice 1975). The literal meaning of the utterance entails a question about whether the hearer has the ability to close the door, while the implicated meaning is that the speaker is performing the act of requesting the hearer to close the door. The hearer can therefore interpret Can you close the door? in two ways, recovering either the literal meaning or the implied meaning. This means that the hearer is offered an exit from the request: the hearer can take the literal meaning- i.e., a question about the hearer's ability to perform the act - and respond to it - e.g., by saying I'm sorry, but the door is too heavy for me. The hearer is then free of the obligation to perform the requested action. In other words, the advantage of indirect requests such as Can you close the door? is that they give the hearer a way out. In this way; the speaker preserves the hearer's negative face (the desire not to be impeded) by avoiding making a direct request. Utterances such as Can you close the doof"? are considered indirect realisations of requests, in contrast to direct realisations - e.g., Close the door! or I ask you to close the door - that show obvious coerciveness and imposing force and cannot be interpreted other than as requests (Searle 1975). There are certain expressions that are conventionally used to make indirect requests - e.g., Can you [... ]? Would you mind [... ] ?, and It would be a good idea ifyou [... ]. The conventionally indirect realisations tend to be both polite and effective for communication, because they are non-coercive by virtue of offering the hearer a way out, and transparent in meaning so that they do not require much processing effurt for the hearer to understand them as a request. They are conventionally used in and therefore associated with requests (LoCastro 2003: Chapter 6; Searle 1975). Empirical evidence shows that interlocutors rely heavily on conventionally indirect formulations to make polite requests (Blum-Kulka 1989; Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a; Yu 1999b).


Politeness- determining factors and cultural relativity Some key factors determine polite situations in which deferential requests are required. Brown and Levinson (1987) propose three sociological factors that determine politeness: the relative power (P) of the hearer over the speaker, the social distance (D) between the speaker and the hearer, and the ranking of imposition (R) involved in performing the face-threatening act (FTA) (p. 15). The combined effects of the three factors determine the weightiness (Wx) of face-threatening acts (p. 76). When the weightiness is high. the speakers tend to use a large number of politeness strategies to redress, elaborate and mitigate the FTA; on the other hand, less weightiness demands fewer redressing strategies. For example, a student's request to his/her professor is normally more elaborate and deferential than a student's request of another student, because the professor holds greater power over the student. One tends to be polite when requesting something of a stranger, but is usually less polite with a close friend, because the greater social distance requires a higher level of politeness. In addition, requesting a larger service or good is a weightier FTA than requesting a small one - e.g., borrowing a considerable sum of money is weightier than using someone's pen. Brown and Levinson (1987) propose that, in different cultures, these three factors - relative power, social distance, and the ranking of imposition - are at work in the performance of face-threatening acts, and that the three factors determine politeness levels in more or less similar ways across cultures. In their view, protecting one's negative face and enhancing one's positive face are fundamental concepts in politeness behaviours across cultures, although some cultures show more specific manifestations of negative or positive face. However, some researchers hold a stronger culture-relative view and attach less importance to Brown and Levinson's concept of face as universal across cultures, criticising Brown and Levinson's framework as Anglo-centric in that it tails to take account of the norms and practices of other cultures (Gu 1990; Ide 1982; Wierzbicka 1985, 1991). Although these researchers do not dismiss the role of face in politeness, they emphasise the importance of salient social and cultural parameters pertaining to specific cultures. For example, negative face receives relatively lower weighing in cultures that attach great value to frankness and solidarity such as Polish culture (Wierzbicka 1985, 1991). In addition, Gu (1990) points out that the concept of negative face is not central to the Chinese concept of politeness, and that solidarity and group identity play a more prominent role.

New perspectives ott politeness Following Brown and Levinson's (1978, 1987) seminal work on politeness universals, politeness research has grown into an important field of inquiry. both theoretically and empirically. However, many researchers have criticized Brown and

13

14


Levinson's conceptualisation of politeness. Brown and Levinson developed their politeness model based on a fictive persona- namely, a model person (MD) -and the psychological and sociological viability of such a construct has been challenged by some scholars (see Watts 2005). It has also been suggested that Brown and Levinson's politeness theory is in fact a theory of face -and, in particular, the linguistic mitigation of coerciveness on the hearer's negative face - and that Brown and Levinson interpreted face in individualistic terms, which differs from Goffman's original concept of face as a social and interpersonal concept (Locher & Watts 2005; Watts 2005). Watts, Ide and Ehlich (1992) further argued that the notion of politeness used by theorists to construct culture-universal models (e.g., Brown & Levinson 1987; Leech 1983) differs from the notion of politeness used by lay people. Watts et al. termed the former first-order (im)politeness and the latter second-order (im)politeness. The distinction between (im)politeness 1 and (im)politeness2 was also picked up by Eelen (2001), who supported this line of argument. This school of researchers contends that (im)politeness 1 -lay people's interpretation of polite or impolite behaviour - is critically important in politeness research, and that (im)politeness2 has the disadvantage ofbeing uncoupled from "praxis and being" (ibid:xviii). Recent strands of (im)politeness research owe a great deal to social theories (e.g., Bousfield & Locher 2008; Eelen 2001; Watts 2003; Xie & House 2009). Watts's (1989, 2003) model of politeness, which was constructed on the basis of the key notion of "politic verbal behaviour", is one of the most influential developments. Politic verbal behaviour is unmarked and socio-culturally determined, and refers to behaviour conventionally produced by members of a speech community to establish or maintain perceived interpersonal relationships- i.e., "a state of equilibrium" in Watts's words- through verbal interactions. By contrast, polite behaviour in this model is explicitly marked, because Watts holds that politeness occurs when a speaker makes an eftort to provide more than that which is required to reach equilibrium- i.e., in excess of what politic behaviour determines. For Watts, politic behaviour is not necessarily polite, because politic behaviour tends to be imposed by social constraints or conventions, rather than being the product of the speaker's genuine volition (see Ide 1989 for the concepts of volition and discernment). Other scholars, however, tend to find the notion of politic behaviour problematic: for instance, Leech (2007: 203) considers that "it is difficult if not impossible to draw this line [between "polite" and "politic" behaviour]"; Terkourafi (2008) uses unmarked politeness and marked politeness to replace Watts's concepts of politic and polite behaviour; and Eelen (2001:74) points out that routinised respectful behaviour is normally perceived to be polite by lay people and should thus be considered to be polite and classified as firstorder politeness in Watts's terms. Watts (2005), on the other hand, insists that


politeness is not about appropriate social behaviour that individuals internalise through socialisation. Rather, politeness arises at the juncture at which the individual perceives the tension between socially required appropriate behaviour and individual volition (p. xli). For Watts, socially appropriate behaviour is politic, and is therefore a theoretical construct, that should be considered as second-order politeness; although he also acknowledges that "'politic' is too close to 'polite' for comfort" (p. xli). Watts further argues that no linguistic structures are inherently polite, at least in English -because politeness arises only from specific contexts - and that routinised linguistic structures that the literature treats as polite are in fact politic behaviours. He argues against research on politeness universals across cultures- exemplified by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987)- and proposes instead a rather ernie and postmodernist approach to politeness. However, he notes elsewhere that there are certainly some universal factors in politeness, stating that "[i]t would amount to throwing the baby out with the bath-water to deny that there is something universal about politeness" (2005:xviii). He also considers that Brown and Levinson's (1978, 1987) work on politeness universals, which has received considerable criticism over the years from scholars, including himself, "will undoubtedly continue to exert as much influence on research into the subject in the coming years as it has in the past" (Watts 2003: 10). This seems to suggest that Watts's approach to politeness is not entirely contrary to that of Brown and Levinson, but is at times complementary. Watts (2003) proposes a social model of politeness, based on Bourdieu's theory of practice, his own theory of emergent network, and Werkhoter's analogy between money and linguistic politeness. This model aims to reveal how lay people assess social behaviour discursively as polite or impolite. Watts (2003) borrows Bourdieu's concept of the habitus to refer to a set of" dispositions to act in certain ways, which generates cognitive and bodily practices in the individual" (p. 149). Politic behaviour, according to Watts's terminology, can be considered to be an instance of habitus in the members of a given speech community. Individuals' habitus, which is internalised through their socialisation, shapes the way they perceive and respond to on-going social interactions. Watts finds that individuals assess on-going social interactions in terms of (im)politeness with reference to their habitus - which they have acquired through previous experiences of verbal interactions- and that their assessment tends to be discursive, constantly readjusted and dynamically oscillatory. His model uses a rather ernie or "processual" (ibid: 160) approach to reveal the process through which lay participants discursively assess (im)polite behaviour and strategically conduct relational (interpersonal) work in verbal interactions, in the context of an emergent social and interpersonal network. Watts (2005) borrows Werkhofer's terminology to

15

16


define politeness1 as "payment in excess of[italics in original] what is ordinarily required by the politic behaviour of the social interaction" (p. 152), and observes that interlocutors' linguistic capital is manifested in terms of their ability to express linguistic politeness in a form of extra "linguistic payment" Watts's social model of politeness has potential application to examining L2 users' habitus in relation to their assessment of (im)polite behaviour. We will come back to this issue in the Conclusion chapter (cf. Future research).

2.2

Cross-cultural speech-act realisation

We now survey the literature on cross-cultural pragmatics by addressing three types of variation in pragmatic behaviour: (a) cross-linguistic variation, (b) interlanguage variation, and (c) situational variation. These three types of variation are considered to be the goals of the project of investigating cross-cultural speech act realisation patterns (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper 1989a: 12-13). First, in cross-linguistic variation, one investigates whether universal features play a role in speech-act performance across languages, or whether there is evidence of language-specific pragmatic behaviours. Second, interlanguage variation in pragmatics concentrates on how L2learners differ from native speakers in their production and comprehension of speech acts. Third, situational variation is concerned with the ability of interlocutors, either L2 learners or native speakers, to vary their speech-act behaviours in different social and situational contexts. The present study will adopt the terminology used in the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realisation Patterns (CCSARP) project, such as cross-linguistic and interlanguage variation. Before surveying the literature on contrastive pragmatics and interlanguage pragmatics, we first outline the data collection method and coding scheme used in the CCSARP project, one of the largest and most influential research projects on cross-cultural pragmatics, in order to establish an understanding of how strategy types in speech-act utterances are determined, how directness levels in strategy use are measured, and what formulaic expressions and internal and external modifications occur in request utterances.

The CCSARP project: Data collection and coding scheme The CCSARP project uses a standard approach to data collection and data analysis to investigate the realisation patterns of the speech acts of requesting and apologising in seven languages and language varieties - Hebrew, Danish, German, British English, American English, Canadian English and Australian


English. The speech-act realisation patterns of requests are examined mainly in terms of strategy types, language forms, and internal and external modifications. This large cross-cultural project reveals similarities (universals) and difterences (specificities) in speech-act realisation patterns both across languages and between L2learners and native speakers. The results of the project were published in a book edited by Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989b) and in important journal articles (e.g., Blum-Kulka 1987; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984, 1986).

Data collection The data collection method of the CCSARP project entails "discourse completion tasks/tests" (DCTs). In each DCT, a written description outlines a conversation scenario, followed by a conversation between interlocutors, in which one of the speakers' turns is left open. The respondents' task is to understand the situation and fill gaps in the conversation with utterances they consider to be appropriate: (1) Scenario: at the restaurant Dan: What would you like to eat? Ruth: I don't know, let's have a look at the menu. Dan (to the waiter): Waiter _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _? (Blum- Kulka 1982: 56) Blum-Kulka (1982) uses this DCT scenario to study requests made by native Hebrew speakers and English learners of Hebrew. In (1), Dan and Ruth need to place an order in a restaurant. Dan has attracted the waiter's attention and is about to request a menu. The respondents need to understand the situation and complete Dan's utterance with a request in the blank slot. In this way, researchers are able to design DCT scenarios to investigate speech acts such as apologies, compliments, refusals, and leave-taking. Discourse completion tasks have frequently been used as an effective method of eliciting data from a large population. In large cross-cultural pragmatic projects such as the CCSARP project, DCT scenarios tend to be designed in terms of the key factors in Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory - social distance, imposition, and the relation between the speaker and the hearer in terms of social status (i.e., "dominance" in BlumKulka & Olshtain 1986). Although widely used, DCTs have some limitations, because the data are elicited in an experimental setting, and may not be as natural as data obtained from naturally-occurring speech (cf. 3.3).

Coding scheme After utterances relating to the speech act in question were collected, the data were analysed using the standardised coding scheme for the CCSARP project.

17

18


Table 2.1 Strategy types in requests Strategies types

Examples

01

Moon DERIVABLE

02 03 04 05

ExPLICIT PERPORMATIVE

Clean up the kitchen. Move your car. I'm asking you to move your car. I would like to ask you to move your car. You'll have to move the car. I would like you to dean the kitchen. I want you to move your car. How about dea11ing up? Why don't you come and clean up the mess you made last night? Could you dean up the mess in the kitchen? Would you mind moving your car? You\re left the kitchen in a right mess. We don't want any crowding. [a request for the hearer to move the car]

HEDGED PERPORMATIVE OBLIGATION STATEMENT WANT STATEMENT

06

SUGGESTORY FoRMULAE

07

QUERY PREPARATORY

08 09

STRONG HINTS MILD HINTS

(A) (B)

Adapted from Blwn-Kulka(1987) and Blwn-Kulka etal. (1989b:Appendix).

This scheme provides the means to meticulously code strategy types, internal modifications, and external modifications. The CCSARP scheme classifies strategies into nine types (see Table 2.1). The request coding scheme was first devised by Edmondson (1981), who originally developed the ideas of main act and supportive moves (later called "external modifications) and created the categories disarmer, grounder, downgrader, preparatory, cajoler and so on, in a project on Communicative Competence as a Learning Objective in Foreign Language Teaching between 1976 and 1981 (cf. Edmondson 1984). This coding scheme was used and modified in later projects such as BlumKulka (1982), Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) and the CCSARP project (BlumKulka et al. 1989b). Examining request utterances using a coding scheme such as that in Table 2.1 reveals the patterns of strategy-type use in specific languages or specific respondent groups. In cross-linguistic pragmatics research, for instance, the systematic coding of strategy types enables comparisons between English speakers and Hebrew speakers (e.g., Blum-Kulka 1982). In terms of interlanguage pragmatics, L2 learners' use of strategy types can be contrasted with that of native speakers to determine differences (e.g., Yu 1999b). In addition, the level of (in)directness in requests, an important factor in linguistic behaviour that Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989a) emphasise, can be determined from the strategies used- in strategy types 01 to 09 in Table 2.1 the level of directness decreases and indirectness increases. Blum-Kulka et al.


(1989b) use the strategy-typology scheme to investigate the level of indirectness in requests: they consider strategy types 01-05 to be direct, 06 and 07 to be conventionally indirect, and 08 and 09 to be non-conventionally indirect. The distribution pattern of the three strategy categories reveals the preferred directness level of a particular language or a particular L2learner group. Blum-Kulka (1989) draws on insights from general pragmatics, particularly Searle (1975), to explain why some request strategies are more direct than others. She considers that the degree of illocutionary transparency contributes to the indirectness of requests. The most direct strategy type- the 01 Moon DERIVABLEis the most transparent in conveying the requesting force. For example, Clean up the kitchen indicates the force baldly in Brown and Levinson's terms (1987) -in other words, it is un-hedged and direct (cf. 2.1.4). By contrast, the least direct strategy types- the 08 and 09 STRONG HINT and MILD HINT- tend to obscure the illocutionary force. The hearer thus needs to exert considerable effurt to recover the illocutionary intention in, for example, We dont want any crowding, which the speaker intends as a request for the hearer to move his/her car. Lower illocutionary transparency therefore tends to lead to higher indirectness in requests. This said, we should point out that not all indirect request strategies entail obscured illocutionary force. In tact, some request expressions are so commonly used for making requests that, despite being strategically indirect, they are still highly transparent in illocutionary force, and are therefore as easy to understand as direct request strategies. For example, Can you pass me the salt? contains a conventionally indirect strategy, but is as clear as direct strategies such as Pass me the salt in showing the intention of requesting, although it has the advantage of not being as coercive as more direct requests. Conventionally indirect strategies are widely used in situations in which the speaker needs to be both polite and efficient in communication, mainly because of their advantages in being indirect, intelligible, and less coercive. Methodologically; the coding scheme of the CCSARP project distinguishes between the head act and supportive moves. The strategy types and directness levels in request utterances refer to the head act. The head act is the core of the request sequence, and is the minimal unit in which a request is realised (BlumKulka et al. 1989b): (2) John, get me a beer, please. I'm terribly thirsty. (Blum- Kulka et al. 1989b: 27 5)

In (2), get me a beer is the core of the request sequence - the head act; whereas I'm terribly thirsty is the supportive move, which gives additional information to support or justify the request. The supportive move I'm terribly thirsty is peripheral

19

20


to the request because it can be omitted from the utterance without invalidating the request: get me a beer· stands as a clear request by itself. In (2), the head act get me a beer belongs to the Moon DERIVABLE strategy type, and (2) is coded as a direct request. In addition to strategy types and directness levels, there are a number of useful parameters for capturing the features of speech-act realisation - formulaic expressions, internal modifications, and external modifications (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b). The use of such a range of parameters gives us a more comprehensive view of the pattern of pragmatic behaviour in a given population. For example, (3) a. b.

Danny, could you lend me $100 for a week? I've run into problems with the rent for my apartment. I'd like to audit your class. [Chinese EFL learner, ':Audit' scenario] (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984:200; Yu 1999b)

In (3a) and (3b), the formulaic expressions in the requests are Could you VP and I'd like to VP respectively. The term "formulaic expressions" refers here to the fixed stretches of language used in recurring situations. These expressions may contain open slots (Krashen & Scarcella 1978). For example, Would you mind _ _ _ is a lexical pattern that has a fixed structure: Would you mind and an open slot " " to be filled with situational information such as giving me another bag or showing me how it works (cf. 2.3.2 Formulae-based approach). However, formulaic expressions were not a central focus of investigation in the CCSARP project. Internal modifications refer to syntactic or lexical devices that modify the head act of a request by mitigating or intensifying the illocutionary force. For example, in (3a) and (3b), conditionals are employed in the head act of the requests- e.g., could and would (in I'd) are syntactic modifications that soften or mitigate the illocutionary intention (cf. 3.4.4). Finally; external modifications are the part of the utterance outside the head act and refer mainly to supportive moves - e.g., fve run into problems with the rent for my apartment in (3a). The types and position of supportive moves in relation to the head act are important features of external modifications and are known as information sequencing (cf. 3.4.5). The CCSARP coding scheme has been widely employed in contrastive pragmatics studies to compare speech-act behaviour between languages, and in interlanguage pragmatics to compare 12 learners with native speakers. The key elements in the coding scheme - strategy types, directness levels, and internal and external modifications - are useful tools for examining request behaviour in empirical studies. We will consider their use in 2.2.1 Cross-linguistic variation and 2.2.2 Interlanguage variation.


2.2.1

Cross-linguistic variation

Let us now look at cross-linguistic variation, the first of the three types of pragmatic variation that Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a: 12) set out to investigate in the CCSARP project. We will survey the main findings of the relevant studies and the reasons identified by these studies for cross-linguistic variation. Information gathered in cross-linguistic pragmatics casts light on interlanguage pragmatics research (which we will survey in 2.2.2), because the former reveals L2learners' usual pragmatic behaviour in their mother tongue, which can be an important source of interference with their 12 pragmatic behaviour. Findings on cross-linguistic variation Empirical studies of cross-linguistic variation in speech-actrealisation reveal both similarities (universal features) and differences (language-specific features) across languages and language varieties. The CCSARP project shows that, when the same speech act is performed in different languages, its realisation shows certain language-specific features. According to the CCSARP project, language-specific pragmatic behaviours in requests are manifested at different levels: directness in strategy and strategy-type distribution, the use of formulaic expressions, internal and external modifications, and utterance length.

Strategy types All three strategy categories - direct, conventionally indirect, and non-conventionally indirect - have been found to be used in a number of languages: for example, Australian English, French, Hebrew, and Argentinian Spanish (Blum-Kulka 1989), Danish and German (House & Kasper 1981, 1987), Japanese (Achiba 2003; Fukushima 1996, 2000; Rinnert & Kobayashi 1999; Takahashi 1996), Korean (Byon 2004; Kim 1995), and Chinese (Yu 1999b; Zhang 1995a, 1995b). Based on the notions of conventionality and indirectness, Blum-Kulka (1989) holds that conventionally indirect strategies (CIDs) tend to be commonly used across languages for making requests. This is supported by her empirical data, which show that CID strategies are the most frequently used of the three strategy categories for requests in the four languages investigated- Australian English, French. Hebrew, and Argentinian Spanish - ranging from 59% in Hebrew to 82% in Australian English. Studies on Chinese by Yu (1999b) and Zhang (1995b) also lend support to Blum-Kulka's (1989) findings on CIDs, which we will discuss further below. There were, however, cross-linguistic differences in indirectness level observed across the four languages studied in the CCSARP project. For example,

21

22


requests are relatively more direct in Hebrew than in English (Blum-Kulka 1989). Evidence of cross-linguistic variation is also found in terms of strategy-type use across languages, which can be captured by strategy distribution patterns. For example, (HEDGED) PERFORMATIVES are more frequently used in Hebrew than in English (Blum-Kulka 1989:49). The CCSARP project confirms the existence of variation in strategy-type distribution across languages (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper 1989b). Cross-linguistic pragmatic studies of major Asian languages such as Korean and Japanese are of particular relevance to the present investigation, because these languages are close to Chinese in the sense of sharing common sociolinguistic values such as solidarity and in-group identity (Byon 2004; Fukushima 2000; Rinnert & Kobayashi 1999; Takahashi 1996; Tanaka & Kawade 1982; Yum 1988). Request strategies have been found to be more direct in Japanese than in English (Fukushima 1996), particularly when the request situation entails a low level of imposition and invokes solidarity between interlocutors- e.g., asking one's friend for some cooking salt. Similarly, requests by Korean speakers have been found to be more direct than requests by English speakers (Kim 1995). There have been few studies to date of the realisation of requests in Chinese, but we will focus on the three most relevant studies. Yu (1999b) conducted a contrastive pragmatics study in which request behaviours are compared between Taiwanese Chinese and American English speakers; while Zhang (1995b) studied requests in Chinese monolinguals. Both Yu (1999b) and Zhang (1995b) follow the coding scheme used in the CCSARP project. Lee-Wong (1994), like Zhang (1995b), is a study of Chinese monolingual requests, in which the respondents are from the People's Republic of China. The findings of these studies on strategy-type distribution -direct, conventionally indirect, and non-conventionally indirect- are presented in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 Studies of request strategy use in Chinese speakers Studies Lee-Wong (1994) Chinese speakers in their Ll Zhang (1995b) Chinese students in U.S. universities in their L1 Yu (1999b) Chinese speakers in L1 Native Americans in L1

Direct

Conventionally indirect

74.4%

19.4%

1.1%

26.4%

59.2%

9.5%

33% 1%

63% 87%

Non-conventionally indirect

5% 13%


The studies by Yu (1999b) and Zhang (1995b) show that conventionally indirect strategies comprise 63% and 59% respectively of Chinese requests. By contrast, the same strategy category, which Lee-Wong (1994) terms impositi11es, accounts for only 19% of Lee-Wong's sample. To a large extent this sharp inconsistency results from differences in design of the scenario sets used for data collection. Zhang's (1995b) nine scenarios and Yu's (1999b) eight scenarios contain situations of favour asking that involve considerable imposition and in which the hearer's compliance is not guaranteed. For example, Zhang's scenarios include asking a neighbour for a ride home, and borrowing $100 from a fellow student; while Yu's include asking a professor for permission to audit his/her course, and asking a neighbour to move the speaker's oak desk with him/her. The scenario sets used by Zhang and Yu invoke considerable levels of politeness and deference, in which indirect requests tend to be suitable -conventionallyindirect strategies are indeed the most frequently used. Unlike Yu (1999b) and Zhang (1995b), Lee-Wong uses 30 scenarios that mainly involve minimal imposition, and in which the speakers and hearers are in dose relationships, or the hearer's compliance is normally automatic- e.g., asking a shop assistant to show a garment, or a wife asking her husband to buy some sugar on his way home. As shown in Table 2.2, the strategy-type distribution in Yu's (1999b) study is close to that in Zhang (1995b), while both are significantly different from that in Lee-Wong (1994). Situational variation that occurs because of scenario design is therefore a major factor that leads to different strategy use. There are some important differences in the respondent samples across the three studies. Zhang's (1995b) respondents are distinct from those of Yu (1999b) and Lee-Wong (1994) in terms of their experience ofL2 use. Zhang's respondents are native speakers of Mandarin originally from the People's Republic of China, who are studying at universities in the U.S. (p. 30), whereas Lee-Wong's and Yu's respondents are Chinese speakers recruited in their Ll environments - i.e., the People's Republic of China and Taiwan respectively - who have had little experience using English on a day-to-day basis. Zhang's respondents have lived in the U.S. for a number of years and have sufficient English proficiency to study at American universities. We can further infer that, through daily participation in social interactions, they have been exposed to a wide range of English request situations. Such extensive exposure can eventually affect the way they use Chinese, which tends to exhibit some English pragmatic features - the phenomenon of L2 feedback into learners' L1 (Clyne et al. 1991; Gumperz 1982). In terms of request behaviour, Chinese speakers who have extensive experience using English tend to be more indirect than Chinese speakers with less experience - e.g., Yu (1999b), to be discussed later in this section. In Table 2.2, Zhang's respondents employ conventionally indirect strategies (59%) slightly less frequently than Yu's

23

24


(63%), which suggests that L2 feedback into their L1 does not occur for Zhang's ESL learners. Furthermore, Yu (1999b) and Zhang (1995b) employ scenarios of both high and low imposition to illustrate that Chinese speakers predominantly use conventionally-indirect requests in their Ll. Such empirical evidence lends no support to Gao (1999), who speculates that Chinese does not share the pragmatic universal characteristic of preferring conventional indirectness. Like English speakers (Blum-Kulka 1989), Chinese ESL learners use conventionally-indirect requests most frequently, although not as frequently as English speakers do -e.g., Yu (1999b) in Table 2.2.

Formulaic expressions All languages have preferred and conventionally-used forms for formulating requests- formulaic expressions. Searle (1975) notes that certain language forms are conventionally used in indirect speech acts, becoming idiomatic, and that these forms vary from one language to another (p. 77). Empirical evidence lends support to Searle's claim, showing language-specific forms that are frequently used in requests in di:ffurent languages. Aijmer (1996) examines spoken English in the British National Corpus, finding that requests by native speakers of English are predominantly formulaic - e.g., Can/Could you, Will/Would you, You can, and I would be grateful if you could. Request formulae are also found in Hebrew -e.g., ejsa1· + infinitive 'can you' and 'possibility' and muxan + infinitive 'willingness/readiness' (BlumKulka 1989); and in Chinese ~m wo xiang 'I think [that I want]' and ;fit:$~ wo xiwang'I hope' (Lee-Wong 1994; Yu 1999b). However, the Chinese formulaic expressions are mainly derived from the researchers' discrete observations, rather than from systematically collected data. More thorough investigation is needed in this respect.

Internal modifications Internal modifications are commonly used devices that express politeness. For example, English speakers often use hi-clausal structures- e.g., I wonder ifyou are able to, which contains a main clause I wonder and a subordinate clause if you are able to - and conditionals of verbs such as Could you and Would it be. These devices have greater politeness than plain forms such as Can you [do ... ]. However, in languages such as Chinese and Japanese, such internal modifications are not used as commonly as in English (Fukushima 1996, 2000; Yu 1999b). The most conspicuous linguistic reason for this is that the Chinese and Japanese languages do not have conditionals with inflectional forms of verbs, and the hiclausal structure is not a preferred device for expressing politeness. Chinese and


Japanese speakers (Takahashi 1996; Tanaka 1988) tend to relyheavilyon external modifications rather than internal modifications to modify and soften the tone of their requests.

External modifications Chinese speakers prefer to use external modifications to justify requests and show deference, for example by using supportive moves and small talk to pave the way for their core request (Yu 1999b; Zhang 1995a: 82). Extensive use of such external modifications leads to longer utterances (Kasper & Zhang 1995). Unlike Chinese speakers, English speakers tend to mark politeness with internal modifications such as hi-clausal structures and verbal conditionals, often perceiving external modifications as unnecessary (Faerch & Kasper 1989). Another difference in the use of external modifications between Chinese and English speakers relates to information sequencing. Kirkpatrick (1991, 1992) points out that Chinese speakers prefer to present the reasons or justifications for their request before the request itself (the because-therefore pattern), while native speakers of English tend to first convey the request and then justify it with supportive moves (the therefore-because pattern). Information sequencing in which supportive moves precede the request tends to be more indirect (and less straightforward) than that beginning with the request, because the former prepares the way for the request and thus puts off the request to the latter part of the utterance. Kirkpatrick believes that the because-therefore pattern of requests is typical of the Chinese style, and that its aim is to show indirectness and non-abruptness, whereas English speakers prefer the therefore-because pattern because it begins by clearly outlining the topic and thus gives the hearer an unambiguous indication of the speaker's intention. From this perspective, information sequencing is a politeness device that Chinese speakers use differently from English speakers. For example, to ask a superior for a day off, Chinese speakers prefer Because my daughter is sick, f d like to ask for a day off to f d like to ask for a day off because my daughter is sick. The former employs the supportive move because my daughter is sick before the explicit statement of the request r d like to ask for a day off, and therefore sounds more polite to the Chinese ear. We should note here that the information sequencing studied by Kaplan (1966) and Kirkpatrick (1991, 1992) was in written texts; whereas Zhang's (1995a) case study of oral conversations shows that Chinese speakers prefer to use external modifiers rather than internal modifiers in polite spoken requests.

Situational variation Situational variation refers to the way in which speakers vary their linguistic behaviour in different social contexts. The CCSARP project shows that speakers of

25

26


different languages and language varieties adapt their request and apology behaviours in response to different contexts (e.g., House & Vollmer 1988). Request behaviours are subject to situational variation. In communication events in which the level of imposition is high and the speaker is in an inferior social position to the hearer, the speaker tends to use elaborate and/or polite request behaviours. By contrast, direct, plain requests are frequently used in low imposition and close relationship situations. A wide range of social factors may cause situational variation: for example, Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989a) suggest that differences in the directness of requests in Israeli society correlate with request goals, the age of the hearer, and relative power relations. Situational variation was observed to be a universal phenomenon across languages in the CCSARP project. However, cross-language relativity is observed in terms of sensitivity to situational change. For example, Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989a) find that Hebrew and Argentinian Spanish speakers demonstrate a high degree of sensitivity to situational constraints, whereas Australian English speakers show less sensitivity. Similarly, Fukushima (1996, 2000) observes more noticeable situational variance in directness level in British English speakers than in Japanese speakers.

Reasons for cross-linguistic variation Some plausible reasons why request behaviour differs across languages lie in interlocutors' perceptions of strategy use, and their perceptions of social and cultural factors relating to communicative events.

Perceptions of directness itt relation to strategy types It is plausible that if interlocutors perceive strategy types differently; they will tend to use them differently. One of the reasons for cross-linguistic pragmatic variation is that difterent strategy types are not perceived as having the same directness level across languages. Blum-Kulka (1987) investigates how Hebrew and English speakers perceive directness levels in different types of request strategies. Based on the typology of requests used in the CCSARP project, Blum-Kulka produced nine utterances to represent the nine strategy types (see Table 2.3). Every utterance is presented in a communication scenario -e.g., a student asking a room-mate to clean up the kitchen, or a policeman asking a driver to move his or her car. BlumKulka's respondents rated the utterances presented to them in terms of directness levels (on a scale from 1 to 9). Table 2.3 presents the overall results of these ratings by native speakers of Hebrew and English, revealing their perceptions of the degree of directness of the nine request strategy types. The results show that there are clear similarities in perceptions of nine strategy types between Hebrew and


Table 2.3 Directness scales in Hebrew and English: Mean directness ratings for nine request types in five situations

English

Order Hebrew

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Strategy type

Mean

Strategy type

Mean

Moon DERIVABLE WANT STATEMENTS OBLIGATION STATEMENTS PERFORMATIVE SUGGESTORY FoRMULAE HEDGE PERFORMATIVE QUERY PREPARATORY STRONG HINTS (A) MILD HINTS (B)

1.5 1.6 1.8 2.17 2.5 2.8 3.01 5.6 7.1

MooD DERIVABLE OBLIGATION STATEMENTS PERPORMATIVE WANT STATEMENTS HEDGED PERFORMATIVE QUERY PREPARATORY SUGGESTORY FoRMULAE STRONG HINTS (A) MILD HINTS (B)

1.6 1.9 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 5.12 6.40

Direct

Indirect

Adapted from Blum-Kulka (1987: 137).

English: both groups consider Moon DERIVABLE the most direct and the STRONG HINTS and MILD HINTS the least direct. However, cross-linguistic difference between the two groups can also be observed. For example, WANT STATEMENT and SuGGESTORY FoRMULAE are perceived as more direct in Hebrew than in English. Such differences can result in different use of these request strategies. Blum-Kulka (1987) further suggests that this cross-linguistic variation in perceptions relates to the formulaic expressions that correspond to the strategy types. For example, Hebrew speakers frequently use formulaic expressions of the SuGGESTORY FoRMULAE strategy type, such as ulay + future (perhaps+ future). Such formulae are conventionally used in Hebrew requests (but not in English requests), creating an unambiguous illocutionary intention of requesting, and directness, leading SuGGESTORY FoRMULAE to be perceived as more direct in Hebrew than in English. We have seen that cross-linguistic variation exists in the perception of the directness levels of different strategy types across languages, and this can be one of the deciding factors in the different use of strategy types in different languages. In addition, there is evidence that the politeness levels of the different strategy types show variation across languages, and this is examined in the following section.

Perceptions of politeness in strategy types Not all nine strategy types identified by Blum-Kulka et al. ( 1989b) evince the same level of politeness across languages. This is another reason why different strategy types tend to be used in different languages when a particular politeness level is required. Blum-Kulka (1987) uses empirical data to demonstrate that Hebrew speakers and English speakers do not assign the same politeness levels to the nine

27

28


strategies. She finds that, although there are certain similarities in perceptions of politeness - e.g., QuERY PREPARATORY and Moon DERIVABLE are respectively the most and least polite strategies in both Hebrew and English - differences are clearly evident. For example, Hebrew native speakers perceived HEDGE PERFORMATIVES and PERFORMATIVES as the second and third most polite strategies, while native English speakers rated them fourth and sixth. In addition, Hebrew speakers perceived WANT STATEMENTS to be less polite than OBLIGATORY STATEMENTS, whereas English speakers considered that WANT STATEMENTS were clearly more polite than OBLIGATORY STATEMENTS. In relation to the issue ofindirectness and politeness, Blum-Kulka (1987) further challenges Leech's claim that politeness in speech acts increases when more indirect wording is used (Leech 1983: 108). Her empirical data on the rating of politeness and the rating of directness clearly show that indirectness and politeness do not have a linear relationship, because the order of politeness of the nine strategy types does not coincide with the order of indirectness in Hebrew or English. For example, STRONG HINTS and MILD HINTS are rated as the most indirect strategy types in the two languages, but not as the most polite (QuERY PREPARATORY is considered more polite). Blum-Kulka (1987) argues that non -conventional indirectness - STRONG HINTS and MILD HINTS - presents lower transparency of illocutionary force and requires the hearer to devote considerable inferential effort to recover the intended meaning, which in a sense reduces politeness. This is why conventional indirectness is frequently used -it creates negative politeness by requesting information about the speaker's intentions, as well as showing a reduced inferential path (Blum-Kulka 1987). Blum-Kulka (1987) shows that perceived directness and politeness in strategy use are interrelated but ditrerent Her findings hold for Hebrew and English speakers; however, there is still no study of this type for Chinese speakers.

Perceptions of sociocultural factors in context Perceptions of social and cultural factors also ditrer across languages. Blum-Kulka (1987) explores the underlying cultural reasons why Hebrew speakers prefer certain types of request. For example, Hebrew speakers perceived HEDGE PERFORMATIVES (e.g., 1 would like to ask you to clean up the kitchen) and PERFORMATIVES (e.g., I'm asking you to clean up the kitchen) to be more polite than HINTS (e.g., We don't ·want any crowding, as a request for someone to move their car), while the perception of English speakers was the reverse. Blum-Kulka (1987: 145) proposes that this is because Israeli people attach significant importance to dugri 'direct, straight talk' (Katriel 1986) and frankness, sincerity; and solidarity, which promotes the use of direct strategies such as (HEDGED) PERFORMATIVES. By contrast, English speakers are more concerned with non-coerciveness, and this encourages


the use of off-record request strategies such as HINTS to protect the hearer's negative face. There is evidence that speakers of several Asian languages tend to use a greater degree of directness in requests than do English speakers, e.g., Fukushima (1996, 2000:686) on Japanese, Byon (2004) on Korean, and Lee-Wong (1994), Yu (1999b) and Zhang (1995b) on Chinese. The reasons for this may lie in culture-specific norms and conventions as well as in different perceptions of social factors such as in-groupness, solidarity, and power. For example, Lee-Wong observes that negative politeness is a non-determining factor in Chinese when (a) the request is deemed to be easily carried out, (b) the interactants are familiar or socially close, and (c) the speaker is in a position of power or authority. Moon DERIVABLE strategies (such as imperatives) are conventionally used on these occasions in Chinese, according to Lee-Wong (1994:509) and Gao (1999). For example, in ~-l!iJt.iii@J* Dai yidianr tang hui lai 'bring a little sugar back' or Ml!lt~@llll~ Di wo jige tuding 'pass me a few thumbtacks: imperatives are used to make bald on-record requests (Lee-Wong 1994: 509). Studies of cross-linguistic variation in speech acts show that, although there are similarities in request realisations across languages, there are also languagespecific features. Adult L2learners tend to rely on their L1 pragmatic practice, and are not completely familiar with L2 pragmatic norms. Their L2learning process should therefore reflect a gradual alignment with L2 pragmatic behaviours and a gradually reduced reliance on L1 pragmatic norms. This leads us to a discussion of the research on interlanguage pragmatics.

2.2.2

Interlanguage variation

Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) uncovers the similarities and di:trerences between L2 learners and native speakers in speech-act behaviour. These differences are termed "interlanguage variation" in the CCSARP project. There are two main strands of ILP studies - the single-moment and the developmental (Bardovi-Hartig 1999; Rose 2000). The first describes the features of pragmatic behaviours in learners' interlanguage at a particular time - i.e., a single moment or one shot - often in comparison with native speakers. A large number of cross-cultural contrastive pragmatic studies belong to this category. The second strand is developmental or acquisitional and investigates a population over time in order to understand how their pragmatic competence develops towards a closer approximation to native norms. Such developmental studies are not as numerous as single-moment studies, and consist of longitudinal and cross-sectional studies (Soler & Martinez-Flor 2005).

29

30


Requesting is one of the most studied speech acts in interlanguage pragmatics, in both single-moment and developmental studies. English is the most frequently investigated target language, and learners from a number of first languages have been studied: e.g., Chinese (Johnston, Kasper & Ross 1998; Li 1998, 2000; Rose 2000; Yu 1999b), Danish (Faerch & Kasper 1989; Trosborg 1995), German (House & Kasper 1987), Japanese (Achiba 2003; Beebe & Takahashi 1989; Fukushima 1996; Kobayashi & Rinnert 2003; Takahashi 1996, 2001), Korean (Kim 1995; Suh 1999), Portuguese (Ellis 1992), Polish (Wierzbicka 1991), Spanish (Felix-Brasdefer 2005; Garcia 1992), and a number of unspecified first languages (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford 1996; Billmyer &Varghese 2000; Bouton 1994; Cohen & Olshtain 1993; Cook & Liddicoat 2002; Scotton & Bernsten 1988). In addition, a number of other European and Asian languages have been examined as target languages in interlanguage pragmatics research into requesting: e.g., Chinese (Kasper & Zhang 1995), French (Phillips 1993), Hebrew with L1 speakers of English (Blum-Kulka 1991), Indonesian (DuFon 1999; Hassall 2001, 2003), Japanese with L1 speakers of English (Nakahama 1999), Korean with L1 speakers of English (Byon 2004), and Spanish (Koi k.e 1989). We now review some important developmental studies in interlanguage pragmatics, to provide an overview of the stages of pragmatics development. We then survey cross-sectional studies in relation to the main aspects of pragmatic competence - strategy types, formulaic expressions, and internal and external modifications. Overview of 12 pragmatic development Developmental interlanguage pragmatics studies show that learners develop sophistication in their 12 requests in stages. Learners begin with highly contextdependent and minimal realisation - e.g., Me no blue or Pencil please (Achiba 2003; Ellis 1992; Kasper & Rose 2002)- and later come to rely heavily on unanalysed routines and imperatives such as Let's play the game or Don't look. At the next stage, they make progress by gradually making creative use of routine formulae and increasing their use of conventionally indirect strategies such as Can you pass the pencil please? or Can you do another one for me? The later stages involve adding new formulae to their repertoire, increasing the use of mitigation, and finetuning request utterances to suit an expanded repertoire of social contexts - e.g., Could I have another chocolate because my children - I have five children, or Shall we maybe go out for coffee now, or you ·want later?, in which elaborate requests are formulated and supportive moves are employed. The learners examined in the studies by Achiba (2003), Ellis (1992) and Schmidt (1983) were of beginning to intermediate English proficiency when the


research commenced, and their learning environments were in the target-language speech communities, either at school (Ellis 1992) or through social interactions (Achiba 2003; Schmidt 1983). At the end of the observation periods in the three studies, the learners had made substantial progress in requesting. However, they still displayed some limitations in request strategies when responding to different social factors, and tended to be more verbose than native speakers. This lends support to a general observation (Ellis 1994) that even advanced learners tend to tall short of native-speaker competence. Schmidt (1983) is one of the most influential longitudinal studies: it documents how Wes, a Japanese learner of English, develops communicative competence by living in the target-speech community. Wes, aged 33, migrated to Hawaii and became a successful freelance painter. His language learning environment has a naturalistic context. whereby Wes speaks English for social interactions in the target-speech community. He has not received formal English instruction and has limited reading and writing competence. Schmidt assesses Wes's English ability in relation to the four components of communicative competence- grammatical discourse, strategic, and sociolinguistic competence (Canale & Swain 1980). Wes's grammatical competence is the least developed of the four components. He shows poor mastery of grammatical rules that are acquired slowly. Schmidt finds that formulaic expressions play a crucial role in Wes's language use, compensating for his lack of grammatical competence and improving his fluency. This shows that his learning strategy of imitation - i.e., copying what native speakers say in communicative contexts- is effective. By contrast, he was found to make minimal use of the strategy of using productive grammatical rules during the three years of observation. To investigate sociopragmatic competence - the component of communicative competence that deals with appropriate language use in social contexts (Kasper 2001) -Schmidt (1983) focuses on a particular aspect, namely, directive utterances through which the speaker attempts to have the hearer do something (p. 151). Wes's formulations of directives rely heavily on a few remembered formulaic expressions- e.g., shall (we), maybe, please[ ... ], and Can I. However, he fails to utilise some native-like formulaic expressions such as I'll have[ ... ] to order food and Its stuffy in here to ask the hearer to open the window, and has invented his own expressions sue h as I have [food iterns] and Are you chilly? We ss discourse competence and strategic competence are well developed. The former is one of the main strengths of his command of the language, while the latter comprises various useful communication strategies -paraphrasing, or using native speakers to suggest unknown words and paying attention to their feedback. This case study suggests that the four components of communicative competence do not necessarily develop at the same rate: Wes's grammatical competence

31

32


is clearly underdeveloped, whereas his discourse competence is highly sophisticated, demonstrating Wess strengths in social interactions. Schmidt also shows that formulaic expressions play a crucial role in Wess fluency, although he has not effectively broken down formulaic language chunks into smaller units to extract grammatical rules. Formulaic expressions play a vital part in Wes's use of directives. He relies on a few memorised formulae- e.g., Shall we, Let's- so heavily that he even uses them in inappropriate contexts. Further, although situational variation (Blum-Kulka & House 1989) was not an explicit research target of this case study, Schmidt does show that Wes's communicative competence is more developed in some contexts than in others. For example, Wes shows superior discourse competence in the context of ordering food in a restaurant, demonstrating a high degree of accuracy in uttering the items to be ordered in a sequence that precisely follows the routine sequence for restaurant ordering (p. 156). This suggests that frequently-occurring contexts (Ellis 2002), such as ordering in a restaurant, can facilitate the development of communicative competence. Ellis (1992) is a frequently-referenced longitudinal study of request behaviours in two adolescent learners of English (aged 10 and 11) who speak Portuguese and Urdu as their Ll. Ellis examines the effectiveness of classroom study over 15 to 21 months by focusing on the learners' development of pragmatic competence. The two learners do not demonstrate the full range of strategy types or a native-like repertoire of formulaic expressions in requests, particularly in situations in which they need to make polite requests of people other than family members and friends. In addition, like Wes, the two learners have developed the ability to use a small number offormulae to realise a range of requests in the classroom setting- e.g., Can I have, Ca.n I+ verb, Can/Could you. Ellis (1992) argues that the classroom environment provides only limited opportunities for learners to produce elaborate request utterances and to develop native-like sociopragmatic competence. In research that complements Ellis's (1992) study of the classroom learning environment, Li (1998, 2000) investigates how a female Chinese adult develops request competence in her workplace in the target speech community. Li's 18month investigation ofMing, a 29 year-old mainland-Chinese new immigrant to the U.S., depicts a socialisation journey in conjunction with linguistic advancement. Li examines Ming's request behaviours, based on her verbal reports about her interactions with her American workplace colleagues and friends, and her thoughts and reflections on these social interactions. The ethnographic data show that Ming's development of request behaviours is not just a matter of linguistics, but is rather a part of her socialisation process. Ming gradually acquired "tacit knowledge of principles of social order, systems of belief. and sociolinguistic


conventions through exposure to and participation in language-mediated interactions" (Li 2000:77), which is a crucial condition for adopting native-like request behaviours in particular workplace contexts. At the end of the study, Ming's requests had become more direct, particularly in contexts in which directness is conventional for her American colleagues. They had also become native-like in strategy use and language form. Li's study suggests that engagement in social interaction, such as in the workplace, can offer 12 learners valuable opportunities for pragmatic development that the classroom learning environment cannot provide.

Different aspects of 12 pragmatics Let us now look at some important findings from single-moment studies into interlanguage pragmatics. The results of the studies are presented according to the framework for describing pragmatic behaviours proposed by the CCSARP project - strategy use, formulaic expressions, internal and external modifications, utterance length, and situational variation. We devote special attention here to Chinese EFL/ESL learners' request behaviours.

Strategy types Interlanguage pragmatics research has a major focus on L2learners' strategy use (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989; Rose & Kasper 2001). A systematic survey of the literature by Kasper and Rose (1999) reveals that L2learners from beginning through to intermediate and advanced levels have access to all three categories of request strategy- direct, conventionally indirect, and non-conventionally indirect- and to the nine strategy types (see Table 2.1). L2learners are able to make use of the QuERY PREPARATORY strategy type from the early stages of their L2 proficiency- e.g., Danish learners of English (Faerch & Kasper 1989; Trosborg 1995), Chinese speakers of English (Rose 2000), and English learners oflndonesian (Hassall 1997, 2003). This is an important finding, because QuERY PREPARATORY is one of the most frequently-used request strategies across languages - e.g., English, Hebrew, German, and Argentinean Spanish (Blum-Kulka 1989) and Chinese (Yu 1999b; Zhang 1995a, 1995b). On the other hand, interlanguage variation between learners and native speakers is noticeable in terms of the frequency of occurrence of particular request strategies, clearly captured in strategy-type distribution patterns. The requests made by learners tend to be either consistently more direct than those by native speakers or consistently more indirect (e.g., Billmyer & Varghese 2000; Dufon 1999; Hassall2001, 2003; Suh 1999; Trosborg 1995), according to a survey of the literature (Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993). For example, English learners of Hebrew

33

34


are found to be more indirect in their requests than native speakers of Hebrew across the different scenarios in discourse completion tasks (Blum-Kulka 1982; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1986). Blum-Kulka (1989) attributes this finding to 12 learners' transfer of11 social norms. In other words, the learners tend to adhere to some characteristics inherent in their L1 use -e.g., English speakers tend to attach importance to non-coercive strategies both in both their L1 and 12 use, while Hebrew speakers tend to favour frankness and directness. In addition to differences in terms of directness level, 12 learners differ from native speakers in their use of particular strategy types. Chinese learners of English not only use more direct request strategies than native speakers of English, but also use the strategy type WANT STATEMENT relatively more frequently (e.g., Yu 1999b below). In addition to a considerable number of interlanguage pragmatics studies into Japanese, I1P research has investigated other Asian languages such as Chinese (Yu 1999b) and Korean (Byon 2004). Yu (1999b) follows the data collection and analysis methods of the CCSARP project, quantitatively examining request realisation behaviours in adult Chinese learners of English. Yu's respondents, Chinese learners of English of intermediate to advanced proficiency, are found to use all three categories of request strategies- direct, conventionally indirect, and nonconventionally indirect. However, Yu finds that Chinese speakers from Taiwan tend to be more direct in their requests in both 11 and 12 than do native speakers of American English. Table 2.4 reveals that direct strategies are used significantly more frequently by the Chinese EF1 learners (14%) than by the native speakers (1 %), and that the Chinese speaker group (33%) employs direct strategies in Chinese more than twice as frequently as the Chinese EF1 learners do in English. The EF1 learner group achieves highly native-like use of conventionally-indirect strategies (84% compared to 87% for native English speakers). As a whole, the Chinese EF1 learners in Yu's (1999b) study use strategy types in a manner that clearly departs from their L1 norms but is still not entirely native-like. Chinese speakers frequently use one of the direct strategy types - WANT STATEMENT - in both their L1 and 12, leading to greater directness in their requests than is exhibited by native English speakers:

Table 2.4 Yu's (1999b) study of requests in Chinese EFL learners

Chinese speakers in Ll Chinese EFL learners In 12 English speakers in Ll

Non-conventionally indirect

Direct


33%

6396

5%

14%

8496

2%

1%

8796

13%


(4) a. b.

I hope you can let me take the exam some other time. [Chinese EFL learner, 'Exam'] I'd like to audit your class. [Chinese EFL learner, ':Audit']

In (a) and (b), the speakers plainly reveal the illocutionary force of requesting by explicating what they want to be done- WANT STATEMENT strategies. Yu (1999b) proposes two reasons why Chinese speakers use direct strategies more frequently than native English speakers. First, Yu notes that Chinese EFL speakers' formulations of direct request strategies often contain an indirect element. For example, I hope in (a) expresses the speaker's desire more tentatively than I'd like or I wa.nt, which lexically mitigates the effect of coerciveness and brusqueness. Second, researchers find that Chinese speakers do not rely on indirect strategies to express politeness as much as English speakers do (Yu 1999b; Zhang 1995a:82). Chinese speakers tend to rely more on external modifications such as small talk or supportive moves to make polite and deferential requests. In addition to Yu's examination of adult EFL learners (1999b), Rose (2000) studied primary-school children in Hong Kong who are Cantonese speakers learning English as their 12. Rose's study is cross-sectional and involved three respondent groups: grades Primary Two (P-2), Primary Four (P-4), and Primary Six (P-6). He finds that all three groups frequently use conventionally indirect (CID) strategies in their requests, and their use of CID requests increases with their school grade -while P-2 students use CID strategies frequently, the P-4 and P-6 students use CID strategies predominantly. Since no native-speaker group is employed in Rose's study, we do not know how close the EFL children are in their strategy use to English-speaking students of similar ages.

Formulaic expressions As researchers have pointed out (Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993; Weinert 1995), unlike strategy types, formulaic expressions have not been a central concern of mainstream interlanguage pragmatics studies, although it has been argued that formulae are an important factor in interlanguage pragmatics that deserve attention in their own right (Kasper & Schmidt 1996). L2learners are found to have a restricted and slowly-expanding repertoire of formulaic expressions for making requests compared with native speakers (Ellis 1994; Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993). Learners tend to overuse a few formulaic expressions in difterent contexts, while native speakers employ more differentiated and fine-tuned formulae in different social contexts (Billmyer & Varghese 2000; Ellis 1992; Rose 2000; Schmidt 1983; Wildner-Bassett 1994).

35

36


For example, Scotton and Bernsten (1988) study requests by focusing on naturally occurring conversations in which speakers ask for directions and various services. They find that a large proportion of native speakers' utterances are very predicable, rather than original or creative. They classify the request utterances into groups such as elliptical (e.g., five stamps), bald imperatives (e.g., give me ... ), permissions (e.g., Can I...), need (e.g., I need ... ), embedded (e.g., I would like [that] ... ), and hints. A predominant proportion of the request utterances were found to be conventional, expected, and thus unmarked. Scotton and Bernsten suggest that native speakers have knowledge of unmarked formulations of requests in association with recurrent social contexts. They also compare the utterances produced by native speakers with those of international students in American universities for whom English is their 12. They find that, although international students use a large number of fixed expressions, as do native speakers, they produce fewer elaborate utterances than native speakers. More importantly, international students are less able to fine-tune their utterances to suit difterent social contexts. For example, native speakers of American English tend to use elliptical requests - e.g., a big Mac, which consists only of a noun phrase - in McDonald's, a fast food restaurant; and more elaborate requests- e.g., I want, or I would like -in Waffle House, a restaurant where clients sit down to eat. International students show comparatively less sensitivity to context in differentiating their request formulations than native speakers do. Interlanguage pragmatics studies focusing on specific learner groups yield similar findings. Chinese EFL learners are found to possess a repertoire of formulaic expressions neither as rich in range nor as scenario-specific in type as that of native speakers (e.g., Yu 1999b; Rose 2000). Rose (2000) reveals that simple formulations Can [youll] and May lvoull] are used frequently (71 %) by Chinese EFL learners in primary schools, and that the formulations vary little in different scenarios, although request formulae are not the central focus of his investigation. Further, interlanguage pragmatics studies have also investigated Asian languages. For example, research shows that Australian learners of Indonesian tend to make requests using modal verbs that differ from the modals employed by native Indonesian speakers (Hassall1997, 2003). Given the fact that modal verbs are the essential constituents of commonly-used formulaic expressions, the learners' formulaic expressions were not found to be native-like.

Internal modifications The coding scheme for the CCSARP project identifies two main types of internal modification - syntactic and lexical. Japanese EFL learners seldom use syntactic devices such as hi-clausal structures in requests, while native English speakers rely heavily on such devices to make polite requests (Takahashi 1996). Takahashi


argues that this is probably because Japanese speakers are accustomed to using honorifics as a morphological device to express politeness in Japanese, and do not really understand that syntactically complex structures are conventionally-used English politeness devices. Like Japanese EFL learners, Chinese learners of English employ fewer internal modifiers than do native speakers of English (Yu 1999b). In particular, Chinese EFL learners seldom use syntactic modifications such as conditionals (e.g., Could I [... ]) to mitigate the imposing force of a request, whereas native speakers of American English use them frequently. Yu attributes this to L1 interference- Chinese is not an inflectional language that marks tense, case, and person with different verb forms, and Chinese speakers are less familiar with inflectional forms of verbs such as conditionals and therefore seldom use them.

External modifications L2 learners' use of external modifiers tends to differ from that of native speakers in terms of occurrence frequency and type, and in the positioning of supportive moves. Billmyer and Varghese (2000) show that intermediate ESL learners use 1.5 to 1.9 times more supportive moves per request than native speakers of English. Kim (1995) studied Korean EFL learners' request behaviours in comparison to those of native American English speakers and native Korean speakers. He finds that, in some oral discourse tasks, negative transfer occurs in learners' use of external modifiers that are non-native-like in both type and position. Kim attributes this finding to sociopragmatic transfer. Similarly, Byon (2004) conducted a contrastive pragmatics study of requests by English learners of Korean as a foreign language, and observed L1 transfer effucts in terms of sociopragmatic features, in particular supportive moves. For example, the learners in the study do not use supportive moves of apology and self-introduction as frequently as native Korean speakers do. Byon believes that the American learners do not see the need to apologise or to introduce themselves to interlocutors of higher social status, partly because they retain an egalitarian and individualist view rather than adapting to Korean hierarchical and collectivist norms. Variation in external modifications is also found between Chinese learners of English and native English speakers. Yu (1999b) shows that Chinese EFL learners use external modifications slightly more frequently than English speakers, and use internal modifiers substantially less frequently than the latter. This can be attributed to Ll transfer, because Chinese speakers are documented as preferring external modifiers in requests in their Ll. Rose (2000) finds that from Primary Two to Primary Six, Chinese students increase their use of supportive moves significantly, suggesting that the use of external modifiers correlates with age and language proficiency.

37

38


Frequent use of supportive moves contributes to verbosity in the request utterances of Chinese ESL/EFL learners in comparison to native speakers of English (e.g., Kasper & Zhang 1995). L2 learners are generally more verbose in speech-act performance than native speakers (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1986; Hoffman-Hicks 1999; Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993:9), a feature known as the "Waffle Phenomenon" (Edmondson & House 1991). The Waffle Phenomenon is the result of over-production of politeness markers, syntactic downgraders and, in particular, supportive moves (Ellis 1994: 172), and the extent of L2 learners' verbose behaviour varies across scenarios (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a: 26). Furthermore, Chinese EFL learners are found to differ from native speakers of American English in terms of information sequencing - the former demonstrate a stronger tendency than the latter to place supportive moves before their requests (Yu 1999b: 299). This finding demonstrates probable L1 transfer at the discourse level - i.e., in information sequencing - given that Chinese speakers tend to place supportive moves before requests in their L1 (Kirkpatrick 1991, 1992; Zhang 1995a).

Situational variation L2learners' behaviours in making requests are not as sensitive to situational contexts as those of native speakers (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b). In addition, L2learners do not vary their use of strategy types, directness levels, formulaic expressions, and internal and external modifications in response to situational contexts in the same manner as native speakers. We will elaborate further on this in 2.3.1 below.

Reasons for interlanguage variation We have seen from empirical evidence that the request behaviour of L2 learners differs from that of native speakers in terms of strategy types and directness levels, formulaic expressions, and internal and external modifications. There are two main reasons for such interlanguage pragmatic variation - L1 interference and L2 learning. First of all there are times when L2learners transfer their L1 pragmatic behaviours to their L2 communication situations (Beebe et al. 1990; Hassall2003; Kasper 1992). 1his can occur because of the learners' unfamiliarity with native pragmatic norms and conventions in the given context, or because of their desire to preserve L1 identity. Limitations of the L2 learning environment are a second source of interlanguage variation - the L2learning environment may not provide sufficient opportunities for learners to observe and internalise commonly-used L2 pragmatic behaviour.


Pragmatic transfer: Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics Pragmatic transfer can occur at two distinct levels - the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic levels (Leech 1983; Thomas 1983). Pragmalinguistic transfer is concerned with the influence of learners' L1 features on their L2 form-function mapping; whereas sociopragmatic transfer refers to the influence of learners' L1 social perceptions on their L2 linguistic actions. When L1 influence results in target-language-like behaviours, positive transfer takes place; on the other hand, negative transfer occurs when L1 influence causes non-native-like behaviours. Negative transfer is the focus of many ILP studies because it results in non-nativelike features and can ultimately hinder communication (e.g., Hassall2003; House & Kasper 1987; Kasper 1992; Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993). Studies of Chinese learners of English show that they do in fact transfer their L1 pragmatic properties in terms of strategies and directness, internal (lexical form and syntactic structures) and external modifications (supportive moves and information sequencing) to their L2 learning. The learners maintain their L1 strategy-use tendencies by favouring direct strategies, resulting in higher levels of directness than the native norms (Lee-Wong 1994; Yu 1999b; Zhang 1995b). They also tend to rely on particular strategy types that they commonly use in their L1- e.g., MooD DERIVABLES and WANT STATEMENTS (Yu 1999b). In addition, the learners' lexical formulations of requests reflect some of their L1 request forms - e.g., I wa.nt, I hope (Yu 1999b). Other studies have produced parallel findings concerning transfers in strategies, directness, and lexical and syntactic structures- for example, with English learners of Hebrew (Blum-Kulka 1982), English learners of Korean (Byon 2004), French learners of English (Beal1994), and English learners oflndonesian (Hassall2001, 2003). One of the potential causes of sociopragmatic transfer is that L2 learners do not perceive social and contextual factors in a native-like manner. L2 learners are often unfamiliar with the conventional manner and behaviours employed by native speakers to perform social interactions. For example, in the case of requesting a lift home (Cohen & Olshtain 1993), learners are probably not sure of how politely native speakers tend to behave in such situations. There is evidence that L2 learners differ from native speakers in which pragmatic behaviours they perceive to be conventional and desirable in institutional settings. For example, Beal (1994) observes that French learners of English tend to think it is acceptable to use plain directives to request routine tasks in institutional settings - e.g., asking a subordinate staff member in the office to fetch a dossier - and that, in so doing, the speaker asserts his/her authority and confidence at work. By contrast, their English colleagues consider more indirect and elaborate requests appropriate. In order to communicate with native speakers in a conventional, expected or

39

40


unmarked way, L2learners need to achieve native-like perceptions of social factors in contexts and adjust their pragmatic behaviours accordingly. L2 learners' approximations to target-language norms and conventions in social interactions interact with their own cultural identity, which they are not always ready or willing to change. L2learners may prefer to assert their L1 pragmatic norms and maintain their sociolinguistic "foreign accent~ rather than fully converging on target norms and cultural identity (Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993). For example, in "It's good to be a bit Chinese': Kasper and Zhang (1995) document that American English learners of Chinese reported that they felt uncomfortable adapting to all Chinese sociolinguistic behaviours - e.g., being self-effacing in response to compliments.

Limitations ofL2 learning environment Another important reason for interlanguage variation in pragmatics lies in L2 learning. Learners' inadequate command ofL2linguistic devices can hinder them from formulating sophisticated native-like speech acts. Koike (1989) finds that his beginning English learners of Spanish possess rich L1 social experiences, prompting them to attempt polite and elaborate formulations of speech acts in their L2 communication. However, their poorly developed syntactic and lexical ability do not allow them to formulate syntactically complex utterances, and their request utterances therefore remain simple and direct. L2learners' learning environment can be responsible to some extent for their non-native-like pragmatic behaviours. The classroom is a common L2 learning environment, but the classroom setting provides only a narrow range of opportunities for developing sociopragmatic competence and fostering the use of elaborate requests (e.g., Ellis 1992; Widdowson 1989). The classroom context invokes requests for a small set of classroom goods or some predictable actions such as sitting, starting, or helping one another. Those hearing the requests are normally familiar people such as classmates and teachers. This is not an optimal learning environment if we consider the variety of social contexts - such as service environments, professional and institutional settings - that learners will face when they are immersed in a target speech community (Ervin -Tripp 1976; Widdowson 1984). If the learners are unable to expand their experience to observe native pragmatic behaviours and practise their pragmatic performance in broader social interactions, it is unlikely that they will be able to make substantial progress in their pragmatic competence. In this respect, studying abroad appears to have an advantage over studying at home in terms of the opportunities it affords L2learners to use the target language in socially-situated contexts. However, a survey of the research into the study-abroad environment provides no strong evidence that studying abroad is


necessarily more effective than staying at home in terms of pragmatic development (Collen tine & Freed 2004). At this juncture, a key issue arises concerning how to measure learning effects in terms of linguistic gains or language proficiency profiles (LCPs). Collentine and Freed criticise studies that use a single test score or oral proficiency rating to represent learning outcomes. Pragmatic competence is captured more effectively when several linguistic behaviours are measured together. Hoffman-Hicks (1999), for example, investigates the effect of studying abroad by looldng at the performance of the speech acts of greeting, leave-taldng and complimenting by English learners of French. She used a number of situational contexts to elicit data at several stages during the learners' six-month stay in France. Hoffman-Hicks finds that pragmatic development is significantly greater in the study-abroad group than in the control group who stayed in the U.S., although the development of both groups is relatively slow and restricted in scope. In the same vein, research into 12 learners of Hebrew shows that their development of pragmatic competence in requests and apologies correlates with their length of stay in Israel (Olshtain & Blum-Kulk.a 1985). However, there is counter evidence that indicates that studying abroad does not provide a better learning environment for pragmatic development than staying at home. Bouton observes slow and gradual progress in ESL learners' ability to comprehend implicatures in English conversations (Bouton 1994, 1999). He suggests that learners' exposure to target speech communities alone is not sufficient for them to develop pragmatic competence effectively, and that instructional intervention is needed. Moreover, in terms of morpho syntactic ability. Collentine and Freed (2004) contend that study at home is not necessarily inferior to study abroad. In the face of such conflicting results, some researchers propose that length of stay is only a crude measure for predicting pragmatic development, and that "intensity of interaction" - the types and frequency of interactions that learners experience with the target language - has a stronger claim to becoming the key factor in L2learning (Klein et al. 1995). The importance of intensity of interaction is supported by empirical studies (Kim 2000; Siegal1996). Like Klein, Dietrich and Noyau (1995), Matsumura draws on his investigation of Japanese EFL learners, contending that length of stay may not correlate with acquisition of pragmatic competence (Matsumura 2001, 2003). He proposes that more studies need to be conducted to understand the effect of quality of exposure on learners' development of pragmatic competence. Kasper and Rose (2002) take a similar position, proposing that the quality and quantity of input available to learners is the key to pragmatic acquisition in target-speech communities, based on their substantial review of the relevant literature on acquisitional pragmatics. In sum, researchers on interlanguage pragmatics tend to reach a consensus that the opportunities available for 12 learning - e.g., types and frequency of input, interactions, and

41

42


exposure to target norms - are critical factors in pragmatic competence development. From this perspective, without the factors that create an optimal learning environment, 12learners' pragmatic development can be substantially hindered.

2.3

Two problems with previous ILP studies

Two problems emerge from a closer review of interlanguage pragmatic (I1P) studies. First, the findings on 12 pragmatic behaviours are often presented with minimal information on context. For example, the CCSARP project surveys several languages and language varieties with meticulously devised methods for data collection and analysis, aiming to uncover the language-specific features of speech-act realisations from cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Although this line of investigation reveals cross-linguistic tendencies in pragmatic behaviour - e.g., Hebrew tends to be more direct than English in requesting - the drawback of such studies is that lumping together pragmatic behaviours across contexts tends to obscure the information associated with specific contexts. Yu (1999b), for example, finds that Chinese speakers generally use more direct strategies and fewer conventional indirect strategies than English speakers. However, he does not specify whether this finding holds across all the scenarios in his discourse completion tasks, or only for some scenarios. If the latter is true, it is important to know in which scenarios Chinese learners of English are native-like in their strategy use. This requires a context-based perspective. Secondly, the use of formulaic expressions in requests is often not systematically examined in interlanguage pragmatics studies. The importance of formulaic expressions is recognised in frame theory, corpus-based linguistic studies, and second language learning research (Coulmas 1981). Formulaic expressions are therefore an element of interlanguage pragmatics that deserves examination in its own right, particularly in 12 speech-act studies. It is important to know to what extent 12learners have acquired a native-like repertoire of formulaic expressions, and whether learners are able to vary their formulae use in difterent speech-act situations. We now survey the literature on the context-based and formulae-based approaches to interlanguage pragmatics.

2.3.1

Context-based approach to I1P

Context is fundamental to pragmatics. Pragmatics is about language use in context, which involves social, cultural, interpersonal, and situational factors (Ervin-Tripp 1987, 1996; Forgas 1985). Mey (2001) coins the term "instantiated pragmatic act"


(ipract) to denote the highly contextual nature of speech-act behaviour- speech acts are meaningful when they are situated in particular temporal and situational contexts (p. 219). In more recent reflections on intercultural pragmatics, Mey (2004) again emphasises that "we cannot isolate a speech act from its context" (p. 39). Social contexts impose "situational constraints" and evoke conventional speech-act behaviours.

Empirical evidence of contextual variation in pragmatic behaviour Native speakers vary their pragmatic behaviours according to the situational context (cf. Situational variation in 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). English speakers, for example, tend to use direct requests with the cashier in the post office, but shift to indirect strategies and more elaborate formulations when they ask for favours (Carter & McCarthy 1997; Ervin-Tripp 1976; Goldschmidt 1998). American English speakers tend to use direct requests in fast food restaurants, but more elaborate requests in restaurants where customers sit down to eat (Scotton & Bernsten 1988). Hebrew speakers, in data from spontaneous situations, difterentiate their request behaviours in accordance with the request goals, the relative power of the speaker and the hearer, and the age of the hearer (Blum-Kulka et al. 1985). Like those of Israelis, Chinese speakers' pragmatic behaviours are subject to significant situational variation. For example, Cantonese speakers employ direct requests in the marketplace but shift to indirect requests when addressing public servants, who are perceived to hold greater power in this social context (Kong 1998). Mandarin speakers produce their pragmatic behaviours in close relation to contextual factors such as power and distance between interlocutors. They make requests in private stores in a more polite and deferential manner than in state-run shops, because the two types of stores entail different customer-client relationships (Pan 2000). In private stores customers and shop owners are interested in nurturing a close and lasting relationship that benefits both sides, whereas in state-run stores the prices of goods are fixed and developing customer-shop assistant relationships is therefore not generally of interest to either party. Research reveals that social contexts not only influence interlocutors' choice of linguistic behaviours, but also contribute to language acquisition (Forgas 1985; Gee 2005; Tarone & Liu 1995). Forgas clearly indicates that L1 children's understanding of situational rules is linked to their language skills development: Once the child is able to use language as a means of effective social communication, his or her implicit understanding and representation of situational rules develops in mutual interdependence with his or her language skills. (Forgas 1985: 17)

43

44


In view of the fact that situational contexts play a critical role in native speakers' acquisition of language and in the way they use that language, it is important to investigate whether 12 learners develop native-like patterns of variation in language use across various social contexts (Bayley & Regan 2004; Preston 2002). Variation in learners' language use is observed to be highly constrained by and systematically related to various contextual factors (Bayley & Langman 2004). There is empirical evidence to show that 12 learners are not as sensitive or responsive to situational variables as native speakers. Cantonese-speaking primary-school children vary little in their request behaviours in English across different scenarios in terms of strategy use and formulaic expressions (Rose 2000). The findings are similar for adult 12 learners of English - they do not vary their request behaviours as much as native English speakers do across social settings - e.g., between fast food restaurants and more formal restaurants (Scotton & Bernsten 1988). By contrast, Hassall (2003) observes remarkable similarities between adult English intermediate learners oflndonesian and native Bahasa Indonesian speakers in terms of strategy use across requesting situations. Both groups employ IMPERATIVES to hearers of relatively lower status, and shift to QuERY PREPARATORY when they perceive that the threat to face is high- e.g., to ask a stranger to move over in a crowded eating booth. Situational variation is one of the three research objectives that the CCSARP project setout to investigate (Blum-Kulka & House 1989; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984). However, situational variation is not a major research interest in studies of cross-linguistic pragmatics and interlanguage pragmatics, which compare pragmatic behaviours between different population groups - either speakers of distinct languages, or 12 learners and native speakers. Although situational contexts are often established to obtain data for such studies - e.g., discourse completion tasks, role-plays, or oral interviews- the findings in relation to inter-group variance are usually presented across the contexts as a whole, concealing information about context-based variations in pragmatic behaviour. For example, by lumping learners' request behaviours in the post office, in expensive restaurants, and when asking favours together, we discover little about how they difterentiate their pragmatic behaviours in these distinct contexts. A context-based approach allows us to collect important information about situational variation in 12 learners' pragmatic behaviours. Such an approach reveals whether the learners' pragmatic behaviour is native-like in individual scenarios, and depicts the specific pragmatic features that are closely associated with particular scenarios. Adult 12 learners, as native speakers of their Ll, should be familiar with the intrinsic interplay between pragmatic behaviours and contextual factors. However, learners may not be able to perceive social and contextual factors in a


native-like manner, leading to pragmatically non-native-like behaviour. In addition, learners tend to lack a native-like range of linguistic means of dealing with different social and contextual factors, which also results in non-native-like pragmatic behaviour. 2.3.2

Formulae-based approach to ILP

We have focused on indirectness in request strategies and how it reveals important information about pragmatic behaviour across languages (cf. 2.2.1). However, there is another crucial element pertaining to pragmatic behaviour -formulaic language - that also deserves our attention. In communicative events interlocutors may produce utterances that aim to achieve what they consider an adequate level of indirectness. Alternatively, however, they may simply retrieve and use formulaic expressions that people conventionally employ in similar situations. In the latter case, interlocutors mainly focus on formulaic expressions and when/how they are used, and this determines the indirectness of strategies. If a large proportion of speech-act realisation utterances come from prefabricated language chunks, we need to pay close attention to such formulaic language, which emerges as an essential element of linguistic behaviour.

Formulaic language and its functions We first examine what formulae are, and their functions and characteristics, and then look in more detail at formulae use in performing speech acts. Formulaic language has been called many things, including conversational routines, conventionalised language forms, fixed expressions, formulaic sequences, lexical bundles, lexical phrases, set phrases, lexicalised sentence stems, prefabricated chunks/patterns/sequences, routines, and ready-made chunks. Wray (2000) gives a comprehensive list of the labels that have been used, using the term formulaic sequence in her own study: A sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other meaning elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated, that is, stored and retrieved whole from memory at the time of use, rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the language grammar. 0/llray 2000:465)

Wray's definition emphasises that interlocutors store and produce the chunks holistically, rather than applying syntactic rules to compose sentences word by word. Let us now consider why formulaic language is important and how it relates to pragmatic competence.

45

46


Researchers have noted that language use in social interactions often consists not of new constructions but of prefabricated lexical chunks. Fillmore (1976) observes that "an enormously large amount of natural language is formulaic, automatic and rehearsed, rather than propositional, creative or freely generated" (1976: 9). Formulaic language comes to the minds of interlocutors automatically when they are faced with recurrent communicative situations -e.g., "Good morning" and "How are you" in greeting situations; "Can I have ... ?" and "Would you mind . . :• to make requests. People also use conversational gambits such as "you knoW, "look" or "you name it" in their spontaneous speech. Sinclair (1991) proposes that the "idiom principle" operates upon interlocutors' use of prefabricated language, while the "open choice principle" governs their creative formulations of language. Formulaic language is particularly useful for routine communication, in which both the speaker and the hearer are able to access the common connotations of the formulaic language (Davies 2003). Composing sentences using larger language stretches takes less time than formulating utterances word byword from scratch (Pawley & Syder 1983). It also takes little effurt to recover the meaning of utterances that use familiar formulaic language. Wray (2000) states that formulaic expressions provide a shortcut for interpreting and producing utterances, while Fillmore (1979) notes that formulae improve fluency. Researchers have also found that formulaic language serves as a conventional means of realising speech acts such as requests and compliments (Hoffman-Hicks 1999; Manes & Wolfson 1981). For example, I love your is a common expression to pay a compliment, and I'd be happy/glad to is often used to comply with a request (Nattinger & DeCarrico 1992:62-63). Formulaic language often occurs in indirect realisations of speech acts (cf. 2.1.4). For instance, Can you, Would you and Could you are frequently-used expressions that convey indirect illocutionary force by means of implicature, and have become conventional devices for making indirect requests (Coulmas 1981:7). Aijmer (1996) studies the London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English and shows that formulae frequently occur in spoken English requests. Like requests, compliments are found to be formulated using a limited number of fixed expressions in English (Manes & Wolfson 1981; Wolfson 1981). Generally speaking, formulaic language serves various pragmatic functions. In a more recent account, Schmitt and Carter (2004) reiterate the point made earlier by Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) that formulaic language is widely used for functional purposes. Schmitt and Carter (2004) note that particular formulaic expressions are often tied to special language functions and information - e.g., special terms are used for realising specific speech acts - and that members of a speech community know these expressions. expect them, and use them to achieve


quick and reliable communication. Schmitt and Carter further claim that there has been insuffi.cien t research in to formulae and that sub sequent investigations need to explore the extent to which formulaic language is used for pragmatic functions. Closely related to the formulae used in speech acts are the formulae tied to recurrent social contexts. Kecskes (2000a, 2003) uses the term "situation-bound utterances" (SBUs) to refer to this type of formulaic language. Members of speech communities have access to a repertoire of SBUs to perform various social interactions. The use ofSBUs reveals that language and context relate to each other in a 1·ejlexive manner- both influence each other (Gee 2005). Kecskes (2003:57) uses the metaphor of a two-way street to express the same idea: particular social contexts require the use of specific SBUs, while the use ofSBUs invokes and projects the social contexts in which these SBUs are commonly used. For Kecskes, SBUs are lexicalised units that contain "built-in contexts" (2003: 62). For example, meeting one's colleagues in the morning prompts greeting expressions such as How are you?, and hearing How are you? signals to members of the speech community that this is a greeting situation, probably at people's first meeting of the day. It is important to note that a large number of SBUs are culture-specific. For example, Please help you1-selj is a conventional expression to encourage guests to take whatever food they would like (Coulmas 1981:8), which sounds hospitable, polite, and acceptable in English. However, this expression sounds unpleasant to Japanese speakers, who perceive it as implying that nobody wants to help the hearer. Kecsk.es (2000b) finds that non-native speakers tend to focus on the literal meaning ofSBUs, while native speakers recover the conventional meanings offormulaic expressions in context. There are many examples of this kind in Chinese. 't.IJ:E manzou 'walk slowly' is a polite leaving-taking ritual and fttl~ manman chi 'eat slowly' is a meal-time phrase that expresses care and consideration, close to the French expression "bon appetit" in terms of politeness. However, these expressions sound strange and meaningless to hearers who are not familiar with Chinese social rituals. The ability to understand and use SBUs is an important step in developing native-like fluency for L2learners.

Formulae in L2 Since formulaic language is frequently used in communication and closely involved in speech-act realisations, L2learners' use of formulaic language deserves systematic attention in interlanguage pragmatics. In this section we review the literature on formulaic language and 12 learning. Gleason (1982) noted the importance of formulaic language in L2learning. She claims, based on evidence from L1 and L2 acquisition, that people do not rely entirely on their generative faculty to produce utterances: in fact, they make extensive use of memorised units.

47

48


The importance of routines in language acquisition, in second language learning, and in everyday use of nonexceptional speakers has yet to be recognised It is probably safe to say that we are not as endlessly creative as we are wont to think, that we rely heavily on memory and routinized phrases in our ordinary production of speech. (Gleason 1982: 355)

Researchers who recognize the role of formulaic language in communication tend to share the view that formulaic language is important to native speakers as well as to L2learners (Edmondson 1989, 1999:Lecture 11; House 1996, 2003b). Like Gleason, Widdowson (1984: 225) attaches great importance to formulaic language in the development ofL2 communicative competence, because formulae tend to be predictable and are often preferable for communication purposes. Notwithstanding the importance of this line of study, research on 12 formulaic language still occupies a marginalised position in second language acquisition. As Weinert (1995) observes, mainstream SLA focuses on cognitive processes in relation to acquisition of grammatical rules, particularly morpho syntactic rules, rather than on the internalisation and use of conventionalised language chunks. Research into formulaic language has gradually attracted more attention in 12 learning in recent years (Coulmas 1979, 1981; Gleason 1982; Kecskes 2003; Widdowson 1989; Wray 2002, 2008), as well as in interlanguage pragmatics (Achiba 2003; Kasper & Rose2002; Kasper & Schmidt 1996). Formulaic language can serve as a learning strategy for 12 learners (WongFillmore 1976; Yorio 1989). When L2learners make use of formulaic expressions in communication, they save time and mental capacity, which they can then use to handle other communicative tasks that require more processing effort. In addition, the mental capacity that L2learners free up by using formulae in communication can be used to analyse on-going language material so that syntactic rules can be noted and internalised. For example, Weinert (1995) suggests that making use of formulaic language helps 12 learners to relieve pressure on their memory, which may benefit their 12 acquisition: Given the observed cognitive deficit in terms of the processing capacity and production efficiency of L2learners (Cook 1977, 1988; Wiese 1984), we may expect formulaic language, which is assumed to reduce processing, to be important in SLA. (Weinert 1995: 186)

In the sense that using formulaic language promotes more optimal memory use, it is considered to be a learning strategy that benefits 12 acquisition (Weiner 1995; Wray2002). The literature has shown that 12 learners differ from native speakers in both their perception and production of formulaic language (e.g., Coulmas 1981;


Kecskes 2003; Pawley & Syder 1983; Yorio 1989). The L2learners' repertoire of formulaic expressions has been found to be more restricted and less complex than that of native speakers. For example, Granger (1998) studies EFL learners' writing and reveals that they rely heavily on a small number of formulae, and that there is considerable variation between individual learners in their use of formulaic Ianguage. Like Granger, Yorio (1989) observes that advanced ESL learners frequently use formulae in their writing, although they do not exhibit native-like control over these formulae. He finds that learners make grammatical and lexical errors, and at times display an incorrect understanding of the meanings of formulae. Yorio, among others, suggests that adult L2 learners develop their repertoire of formulae slowly, and holds that the use of formulaic language is a critical indicator ofL2 proficiency. In relation to requesting, L2 learners, with only a small range of formulaic request expressions, are not as able as native speakers to differentiate linguistic formulations of requests across different situations (cf Formulaic expressions in 2.2.2). One remarkable case in which an L2 learner has achieved relatively native-like use of formulaic language for requesting is Wes, a Japanese artist living and working in Hawaii, who was discussed in Schmidt's (1983) longitudinal study ( cf. Overview of L2 pragmatic development in 2.2.2). Wes makes extensive use of formulaic request expressions, especially in familiar contexts, such as restaurants and shops. This relates to Wes's daily use of English in the target speech community, where he has been exposed to and eventually internalised a large number of formulaic expressions for various forms of social interaction. Wes has not received formal classroom instruction, and a considerable number of morphosyntactic errors persist in his speech. This suggests that L2 learners' grammatical (particularly morpho syntactic) competence and their ability to use formulaic language probably relate to two distinct language faculties that do not necessarily develop in tandem. Previous studies also show that learners' use of formulaic language often exhibits morpho syntactic errors and uncommon collocations, and that learners often misunderstand native use offormulae in given contexts (Ellis 1994). Learners also exhibit considerable individual variation in their ability to use formulaic language (e.g., Wray 2008). Researchers with an interest in L2 learning argue that formulaic language is worth further investigation in its own right (Coulmas 1979, 1981; Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993).

SBUs itt L2 Studies that focus on L2 learners' use of formulaic language reveal that even advanced L2 adult learners who have lived in the target speech community for many years still use SBUs in a rather non-native-like manner. For example,

49

so


Kecskes (2000b) is an empirical investigation examining ESL learners from ten di:ffurent countries living in the U.S. He finds that the learners differ from native speakers in their use of SBUs in four respects- overuse, oversimplification, verbosity, and ignoring. Overuse refers to the learners' apparently indiscriminate use of identical utterances in di:trerent situations -e.g., using Sure, no problem as a reply to Can I bon·ow you pen?, Would you like some candy?, and Can I talk to you after class?. Kecskess results also show that learners' utterances tend to be simpler than those of native speakers' - e.g., in response to I ha11e to go naw. fll call you tomorrow, they simply say OK, whereas native speakers prefer more elaborate utterances such as Okay, see you soon or Okay, talk to you late1·. In some cases, learners appear to be more verbose than native speakers, uttering many words to achieve a particular communicative goal, without using the SBUs that native speakers would tend to use. Kecsk.es draws on empirical evidence to propose three stages of SBU development- namely, strong L1 culture transfer, false generalisations (e.g., overuse), and native-likeness. In the early stage, learners rely on their L1 culture to deal with L2 contexts. After around two years in the U.S., learners generally develop native-like control of SBUs. However, Kecsk.es points out that individual learning strategies and the distance between the learner's first culture and target culture affect their SBU development. For example, Kecskes (2000b) finds significant individual variation in formulae use. He also indicates that some L2 learners whose culture is distant from the target culture report that they are reluctant to make use of some formulae that native English speakers favour -e.g., get out of here. He points out that, in many cases, advanced Asian learners who produce grammatically correct and socially appropriate utterances do not make native-like choices of SBUs. Similar findings have been obtained for other languages or other genres of text. For example, adult learners of French use formulaic expressions difterently from native speakers in terms of type, frequency and function (De Cock et al. 1998). Like De Cock, Warga (2005) finds that intermediate L2learners of French use formulaic expressions significantly less frequently than native speakers, and do not use formulae often used by native speakers in particular contexts - e.g., the expressions for closing requests of high imposition. Investigations of the essay-writing corpora of EFL learners and those of native speakers demonstrate that learners underuse formulae that are commonly used by native speakers (Granger 1998). L2 learners are also found to have non-native-like perceptions of SBUs. Kecskes (2000b, 2003), for instance, investigates ESL learners' interpretation of SBUs with and without context. His results show that learners have particular difficulty in processing a speaker's intended meaning of SBUs, either in or out of context, when the figurative meaning of the SBUs is what is intended but cannot


be derived from the literal meaning of the words in the SBU. He observes that, unlike native speakers, who tend to process the conventional meaning of the SBUs according to the context, L2learners rely largely on literal meaning to interpret SBUs. Kecskes (2000a, 2003) argues that learners' command of SBUs develops slowly, because they need repeated exposure in order to master individual SBUs; it therefore takes learners a long time to learn those SBUs that occur infrequently in their social contacts.

2.4

Summary

This chapter has surveyed the key notions in pragmatics and communicative competence theory as they relate to interlanguage pragmatics, and has considered the main findings of cross-cultural pragmatics studies. We have found that pragmatic behaviours in speech-act realisation vary across languages and cultures, and that L2learners' speech-act behaviour differs from that of native speakers in terms of strategy types, directness levels, formulaic expressions, and the use of internal and external modifications. L2learners' non-native-like speech-act behaviour results from their L1 interference, insufficient 12 sociopragmatic knowledge, and lack of experience ofL2 use in context. In addition, the context-based approach and the formulae-based approach can be employed to investigate interlanguage pragmatics, and these areas both merit further attention.

51

CHAPTER3

Method

In this chapter, we will describe our respondents and our sample of request utterances, and explain the design of the instruments and our data analysis methods.

3.1

Respondents

Our sample includes two groups of Chinese EFL learners and a native speaker group. The two learner groups comprise a group oflanguage students and a group of business students (cf. Table 3.1). The language group consists of advanced learners, who are third-year students in a Chinese-English translation and interpretation programme at a tertiary institution in Macao, where they have undergone extensive training in English language and interpreting and translation skills over a number of years (Lim 2007, in press). Pragmatic competence is crucial for the language group. because they will need to show idiomatic and native-like language use in their future translation and interpreting work. The business group comprises intermediate EFL learners - sophomores and freshmen in a business programme at the same tertiary institution as the language group, who have had much less language-related training than the language learners. The native speaker group investigated in this study consists of native speakers of Australian English. They are students with various majors at a tertiary institution in Queensland, Australia. The native speaker group provides baseline data to contrast with the two learner groups. We therefore selected native speakers with little experience of living in Asian countries. Previous studies in the CCSARP volume found that Australian English speakers tend to be slightly more indirect when making requests than speakers of other English varieties such as American, British and Canadian speakers (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b). We used a survey questionnaire to collect information about the respondents' demographic features and their experience of language learning and use. The mother tongue of the learners is either Cantonese or Mandarin. The language and business learners have studied English for an average of 16.8 and 12.6 years respectively, but have limited experience of living in English-speaking countries (less than a month) or using English in various social contexts. Since the learners

54


Table3.1 Basic information on the three respondent groups

male % female % total % age range years of English study

Business

Language

Native speaker

18 44% 23 56% 41 100% 17-39 12.6 (sd 4.0)

3 9% 29 91% 32 100% 17-39 16.8 (sd 3.7)

16 50% 16 50% 32 100% 17-39

were selected based on the classes they were enrolled in, and language learners are predominantly female, it was not possible to achieve a gender balance in the language group. The business group has relatively closer numbers of male and female learners (see Table 3.1).

3.2

Issues around the native-speaker model

This study uses data on native speakers as a baseline to compare and contrast with Chinese EFL learners' pragmatic behaviour. This gives rise to an important question: should native speakers' pragmatic behaviour be used as a model for L2learners? Our position is that native norms and conventions -which had been targeted in classroom instruction for the learners in our sample and are also widely used for EFL learners in China- provide valuable baseline data for describing learners' pragmatic behaviour; although we certainly need to guard against the quick and undiscriminating conclusion that all differences from native-speaker norms are evidence of some deficiency in the learners. It is likely that native-speaker norms will continue to play a central role in classroom teaching in the EFL context in China at least in the near future. We will elaborate our position by examining a few key factors that have particular relevance to Chinese EFL learners later this section. First, let us look at some arguments raised in recent research on World Englishes (WEs) and English as a lingua franca (ELF). The recent rise of research on WEs and ELF has challenged the place of native-speaker norms as a model for L2leamers (see e.g .• Clyne & Sharifian 2008; Firth 2009; House 2009; Jenkins 2006a; Kirkpatrick 2010). One of the main challenges derives from the fact that L2learners are bilingual or multilingual speakers, who acquire the target language via a different path from monolingual native speakers, use the language with other non-native-speakers to a greater extent, and tend to reach ditrerent levels of linguistic achievement It is theoretically unfair to

Chapter 3. Method

benchmark L2learners' language performance against monolingual native-speaker norms, and to claim that any divergence from native speaker norms- e.g., in terms of pronunciation and grammatical features (Kirkpatrick 2007) -constitutes a deficiency in learners. ELF scholars consider it more plausible to view L2 users' non-native-like linguistic features in lingua franca situations as norms rather than as errors, in cases where such features are frequently used by L2 users in their communication with other L2 users with different L1 s across various settings in their daily social interactions (Jenkins 2006b ). ELF researchers also note that lingua franca speakers rely on certain communicative strategies, which are often effective in reducing misunderstandings, although such strategies are not typically found in native versus non-native interactions (Firth 2009; House 2003a). This leads to a central argument of ELF scholars: that speakers of ELF do not really resemble the usual model of deficient L2 learners who possess an interlanguage and are progressing towards native-likeness in the language. They believe that ELF is a legitimate variety of language sui generis in a "third space" (House 2003a), and that speakers of ELF command a variety of English, which difters from standard native varieties but is not necessarily inferior or deficient. Challenges to the concept of native-speaker norms for EFL also come from researchers into WEs. One of their main tenets is that English is now pluricentric, especially in view of the vast number of Asian speakers who learn and use English to communicate with other L2 users outside the Kachruvian inner circle (Kirkpatrick 2010). This suggests the possibility that the centrality of conventional standard varieties of British and American English will decline, while regional varieties of English will become more prominent Some researchers consider the spread of English to be a threat to the linguistic rights of world languages and different varieties of English, and associate the world-wide teaching ofEFL with political motivations such as British and American hegemony and neo-imperialism (Niu & Wolff 2005; Phillipson 1992, 2008). Other scholars propose alternative models for L2 testing and teaching to replace the native-speaker model if an analysis oflearners' needs suggests that the local variety of English is more suitable for learners (Kirkpatrick 2007: 377). Such alternative approaches use proficient bilingual or multilingual speakers as their models. For example, Kirkpatrick (2007) proposes that the Hong Kong variety of English, which is exemplified by"highlyproficient users of English who are mother-tongue speakers of Cantonese" (p. 387), can serve as an alternative classroom model for teaching and testing local students. For Kirkpatrick, this model would be more attainable for students, give Hong Kong people a sense of pride, and help to legitimise this variety of English. Kirkpatrick notes that to implement the local model would first require a codified description of this Hong Kong variety of English to be systematically produced. However, there are divergent views in the discourses of ELF researchers regarding any proposal to teach and test based on

55

56


non-standard varieties of English in the classroom (Elder & Harding 2008; Jenkins 2006a, 2006b), which at a practical level is certainly controversial and contrary to convention in the South-East Asian context. In fact, scholars are still divided on whether Chinese English (CE) is a legitimate variety of English. Wang (2008) is inclined to take a negative view, stating that "few people would accept a Chinese variety of English being appropriate" (p. 32.2). By contrast, Xu (2010) acknowledges that the issue is open to debate, but subscribes to an affirmative view himself by looking to the future, claiming that "CE will become a variety of English, and a powerful one at that" (p. 295). He cites two important factors to support his view -there are estimated to be a staggering 350 million Chinese learning English; and China, as an emerging world power, will rely on English to conduct its rapidly increasing volume of socio-cultural, political and economic exchanges with the rest of the world (Chen 1999; Sun 2006). It is, however, beyond the scope of this book to examine whether CE will become a variety of World Englishes. Although native-speaker norms as a whole have been challenged in recent WEs and ELF literature, in the context of the present investigation, we need to emphasise that norms and conventions of native pragmatic behaviours are still crucially important in studying Chinese EFL learners' pragmatic competence. First of all, the majority of Chinese EFL learners are willing to conform to native norms in terms of linguistic behaviours. This tendency is seen in those learners who intend to continue their study in English-speaking countries, who are attracted by Anglo culture and literary tradition, or who strive to master the language as a key to their career advancement. Chinese English, or Chinglish, is still not well received in China and continues to have rather pejorative connotations. Wang (2008) observed that "[f]or them [Chinese users of English], it is a question of how to approximate to standard English rather than to deviate from such norms in order to flaunt their own variety of English" (p. 32.2). Wang's statement is confirmed by the disposition of the Chinese EFL learners in our sample, who express a genuine interest in becoming familiar with native linguistic behaviours and utilising them (cf. 8.4). Comparing and contrasting the learners' request behaviours with the native-speaker data casts light on learners' pragmatic development. Secondly, the learners in our sample conform more closely to an EFL situation than an ELF one, according to Jenkins's (2006b) distinction. The learners are university students learning English as a foreign language, rather than lingua franca speakers using the language "in their daily lives for a range of purposes and in a variety of social settings" (p. 145). Even Jenkins (2006b ), a prominent ELF researcher, perceives it as plausible for EFL learners who aim to be able to interact with native speakers to set their ultimate goal as near-native competence (p. 139). Indeed, sound knowledge and an effective command of native pragmatic norms is likely to be an essential element of the linguistic repertoires of learners who need

Chapter 3. Method

to communicate effectively with native speakers in the speech communities of the Kachruvian inner circle. It is therefore more reasonable to retain native-speaker norms as a core element of the classroom model for these learners, rather than shifting to any alternative model, in view of the fact that local varieties of English and ELF have not yet been codified to the extent that they can serve as a reliable classroom model. The use of a classroom model based on native norms will by no means prevent learners from being exposed to and experiencing other varieties of English both inside and outside the classroom; in tact, the intercultural awareness they gain from interacting with native English norms is likely to serve as a useful base for them to further their intercultural experiences. We will return to the issues surrounding the native-speaker model in the Discussion chapter, and discuss the learners' perceptions of native-speaker norms and their negotiation of meaning with such norms (cf. 8.4).

3·3

Design of scenarios

We employ enhanced discourse completion tasks (DCTs) as the instruments for eliciting request utterances from the respondent groups (cf Data collection in 2.2). DCTs are one of the most widely-used data elicitation techniques for researching speech-act realisations (e.g., Billmyer & Varghese 2000; Blum-Kulka et al.1989a; Boxer 2004; Johnston et al. 1998; Kasper & Dahl1991; Kasper & Rose 1999). Although DCTs have been subject to the criticism that the data they collect are not as authentic as spontaneous speech recorded through ethnographic observations (Manes & Wolfson 1981), DCT instruments have certain advantages - they are both easy to administer and efficient for gathering a large corpus of data. Furthermore, the contextual factors needed for the investigation can be explicitly designed and controlled (Beebe & Cummings 1996; Billmyer & Varghese 2000; Boxer 2004). Boxer (2004) pointed out that DCT instruments can be effectively employed to confirm the patterns of speech-act behaviours that have been observed in ethnographic studies (e.g., Beebe 1995; Beebe & Cummings 1996; Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig 1992), and claimed that DCT instruments "have a place in applying findings on spoken interaction to language learning contexts" (p. 17). Kasper and Rose also confirmed that: [W]hen carefully designed, DCTs provide useful information about speakers' pragmalinguistic knowledge of the strategies and linguistic forms by which communicative acts can be implemented, and about their sociopragmatic knowledge of the context factors under which particular strategic and linguistic choices (Kasper & Rose 2002: 95-96) are appropriate. [italics in original]

57

s8


Our enhanced DCT instruments allow respondents to produce request utterances in writing in a relatively unpressured manner. This creates an environment that enables 12 learners to effectively retrieve linguistic forms and plan strategic moves to a greater extent than they tend to in spontaneous conversation. In spontaneous communication, L2learners' pragmatic competence can be under-represented because of the pressure of online multitasking- e.g., the need to comprehend their interlocutors, assess contextual factors, plan communicative strategies, and produce utterances and articulate them. In terms of revealing learners' repertoire of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge. as Kasper and Rose (2002: Ch. 3) pointed out. the enhanced DCTs are still an effective instrument Our DCT instruments contain ten scenarios, each comprising a written prompt that describes the situational context. an image. and blank lines for respondents to write their utterances. The instructions that accompany the DCTs explain to the respondents that all the scenarios occur in an English-speaking country; and that they are expected to produce request utterances as theywould in real life situations (d. Appendix 1): Scenario: You're checking out in a supermarket The cashier has put all your goods into a plastic bag which turns out to be very heavy. You would prefer to have an extra bag, because otherwise the bag handles will gradually become very thin and hurt your fingers. What will you say to the cashier to ask for another bag?

We aim to construct realistic social contexts in the ten scenarios by employing detailed situational prompts and images. The written prompts that describe the situations are long and elaborate. and provide the respondents with detailed contextual information. Past research has shown that more detailed situational prompts

Chapter 3. Method

in DCTs encourage longer and more elaborate responses than shorter and simpler situational prompts, because the former provide contextual factors in a more detailed manner and invite the respondents to be more deeply engaged in the social context, whereas the latter often leave respondents to invent situational factors, or to address anonymous and characterless interlocutors (Beebe & Cummings 1996; Billmyer & Varghese 2000). We also include an image with each scenario to reinforce the contextual cues, so that the respondents can visualise the scene, which promotes a sense of immediacy. For example, the image in the 'Bag' scenario presents the setting of a common supermarket, and depicts a female cashier, tables with bar-code scanning devices and computer facilities, goods on the shelves, and customers moving around. The elaborate situational prompts and images are employed to simulate real-life contexts, and to encourage the respondents to produce responses by drawing on their social experiences. The ten DCT scenarios in our sample include prescribed and common services, and favour-asking situations (cf Table 3.2).1he aim is to tease out the competence of the learner groups and the native speaker group in making requests in a number of socially situated contexts. The ten scenarios belong to four major groups based on the nature of the request. In the scenarios in Groups A and B, the speaker has the right to solicit the goods and services, and the hearer's compliance involves either a routine task or a strongly preferred action -e.g., a postoffice cashier handles a customer's mail ('Post'), or a shop assistant explains the features of a product ('TV'). By contrast, in Groups C and D, the speaker asks for favours - goods or services that are not automatically delivered - and the hearer Table 3.2 The ten scenarios for the discourse completion tasks Scenario

Abbr.

A. Prescribed service Post office Post Restaurant Restau B. Common service Bag Bag Bank Bank TV TV c. Small favour Door Door Actress Actress D. Medium-large favour Reference Ref Money Money Police Police

Description buy stamps for an overweight mall item at the post office place an order in an expensive restaurant request an extra bag in a supermarket request an account statement in a bank ask a shop assistant about the TV caption feature request a technid.an to put a screw in your door request a retired actress to enact a short scene request a reference letter from your professor borrow money from a lecturer for an emergency ask a police officer not to issue a parking ticket

S9

6o


is at liberty to decline the request, based on the negotiation between the speaker and the hearer and other contextual factors (Goldschmidt 1998). As we move from Group A to Group D, the scenarios invoke a decreasing level of certainty that the goods or services will be delivered, and require the speaker to use an increasing level of politeness (cf. Appendix 1). To use House's (1989) distinction between standard versus non-standard situations, Groups A and Bare instances of standard situations, while Groups C and D mainly exemplify non-standard situations (p. 107). In designing the scenarios we have drawn on the findings of ethnographic studies of spontaneous speech of requests (Carter & McCarthy 1997; Kong 1998; Ventola 1987). For example, by recording conversations at a post office, Carter and McCarthy (1997) were able to determine that British English speakers prefer direct speech. We designed the 'Post' scenario accordingly, and found it also elicited direct and less mitigated requests. In addition, Myers-Scotton and Bernsten (1988) observed that English speakers tend to use more elaborate speeches to place an order in a restaurant where customers sit down to eat than in a fast food restaurant such as McDonald's - a big Mac please. We include the 'Restaurant' scenario in our sample to solicit respondents' utterances when placing order in an expensive restaurant. The prescribed and common service scenarios in Groups A and B involve situations that are likely to occur in daily interactions- e.g., requesting an extra bag from a supermarket cashier ('Bag'), or asking a shop assistant how to use the caption feature on a TV ('TV'). These common services require relatively more elaborate requests than the prescribed services, because in the case of prescribed services the delivery of the goods or services is so routine and automatic that even minimal lexical formulations can convey the meaning of the request- e.g., to New York (when handing over a letter) in 'Post' and a beefsteak in 'Restaurant' can be clearly understood as requests in the respective contexts. In the scenarios in Groups C and D we examine the respondents' ability to ask for favours on an ascending scale, including highly face- threatening situations such as the 'Money' and 'Police' scenarios, where the hearers are quite likely to decline the requests (Appendix 1). Our rationale is that, in these scenarios, the native speakers will draw on sophisticated linguistic and pragmatic features to express a high level of politeness, deference and indirectness. This will provide a critical test ofwhether the two learner groups are able to produce native-like behaviour in these situations.

Chapter 3. Method

3·4

Data analysis methods

The request utterances produced by the language and business groups and by the native speaker group in our sample are analysed in terms of a number of pragmatic features, including utterance length, strategy types, formulaic expressions, syntactic downgraders (conditionals and hi-clausal structures), lexical modifiers, and external modifiers (supportive moves and information sequencing).

3-4-1

Utterance length

We compare the utterance length of requests between the learner groups and the native speaker group in each scenario and for the scenarios as a whole. We test whether Blum-Kulka and Olshtain's (1986) observation- that L2learners tend to be more verbose than native speakers - holds for our sample. We also investigate whether the learners and native speakers vary their utterance length in different scenarios.

3.4.2

Strategy types

In our study we adopt Blum-Kulka et al:s (1989b) coding scheme for the analysis of strategy types, which has been widely used in cross-cultural pragmatics studies (e.g., Fukushima 1996, 2000; Hoffman-Hicks 1999; Le Pair 1996; Rose 2000; Rinnert & Kobayashi 1999; van Mulken 1996; Wang 2009; Yu 1999b; Zhang 1995b). Table 3.3 includes the main elements of the CCSARP Coding Scheme, to which we have added examples. Table 3.3 Coding scheme for the ten strategy types Strategy types

Explanations

Examples

Direct 00 DIRECT QuESTIONS

01 MooD DERIVABLE

02 ExPLICIT PERFORMATIYE

The speaker poses direct questions to the hearer Haw much does it cost to post concerning information needed or actions to be this letter to New York? taken. The illocutionaryforce is expressed through Haw do you display tire captions direct questioning. on the TV? The grammatical mood of the locution conven- Tell me how I can get to the tionaUy determines its illocutionary force as a library. request. The prototypical form is the imperative. No smoking in the lavatories. Functional equivalents such as infinite forms, el- The menu. liptical sentence structures, and so on that express A hamburger. the same directness level are also included. You wait a minute. The illorutionary intent is explicitly named by the I am asking you to move your car. speaker using a relevant illorutionary verb.

61

62


Table 3.3

(continued)

Strategy types

Explanations

Examples

OJ HEDGE PBRFORMATIYE

The illorutionary verb denoting the request intent is modified- e.g~ by modal verbs or verbs that express intention.

041oCUTION DERIVABLE (OBLIGATORY)

The illocutionary intent is directly derivable from the semantic meaning of the locution, including stating the obligation of the hearer. This strategy type was termed obligatory (of the hearer) in Blum- Kulka's earlier coding scheme. The utterance expresses the speaker's desire or need for the event denoted in the proposition to occur.

I must ask you to move your car. I have to ask you to clean the kitchen right now. It's your responsibility to keep the kitchen tidy. You 71 have to move the car.

OS WANT STATEMENT

I want to have a list ofthe units for rent. I'd like to see your performance. I need another bag. I71 hawl a beefsteak.


How about cleaning the kitchen? What about cleaning the kitchen? Why not clean the kitchen? It would be lovely if [ ... ] It would be a special treat for us

06 SuGGBSTORY FoRMULA

The illocutionary intent is phrased as a suggestion by means of framing routine formula.

07QUBRY

The utterance contains reference to a preparatory Can I have a Big Mac burger? condition for the feasibility of the request. typically Could you tellmehowi can get to one of ability, willingness, or possibility, as con- the library? ventionalised in English. Very often, but not nec- MIJy I ask for some information? essarily, the speaker questions rather than states Is it possible for me to use your the presence of the chosen preparatory condition laptop? (query preparatory). Would you mind letting me use your laptop?

if[ ... ] PREPARATORY

Non-conventionally indirect 08 STRONG HINT The illocutionary intent is not immediately dllrivable from the locution; however, the locution refers to relevant elements of the intended iUocutionary and/or prepositional act. Such elements often relate to preconditions for the feasibility of the request. Unlike the preparatory strategy; hints are not conventionalised and thus require more inferencing activity on the part of the hearer. 09 MILD HINT The locution contains no elements that are of immediate relevance to the intended illocution or proposition, thus plttting increased demand for context analysis and knowledge activation on the interlocutor.

The kitchen is dirty. [intent: to get the hearer to clean the kitchen] Are you going to use your car tonight? [intent: to borrow it]

You've been busy here, haven't you? [intent: getting the hearer to clean the kitchen]

Chapter 3. Method

The ten strategy types are coded according to the head act of the request utterance. For example, in (2) get me a beer is the head act, and fm te1Tibly thirsty is a supportive move. The strategy type of this utterance is 01 Moon DERIVABLE, which belongs to the category of direct strategies (cf. 2.2.1): (2) John, get me a beer, please. I'm terribly thirsty. (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b: 27 5) We include a new strategy type -the 00 DIRECT QuESTION- in our list of strategy types. Direct questions represent important instances of strategy use in our sample, and are not included in any of the nine strategy types in the CCSARP scheme. Direct questions have been considered as one strategy type in some previous studies (e.g., Ervin-Tripp 1976; Myers-Scotton & Bernsten 1988), and we include this strategy type - the DIRECT QuESTION - in the direct strategy category. Further, as Table 3.3 indicates, the ten strategy types belong to three macro strategy categories- direct, conventionally indirect, and non-conventionally indirect (cf. Table 2.1)- based on the coding scheme used by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989b). In our study, we investigate the distribution patterns of both the ten strategy types and the three strategy categories in the learner groups and the native speaker group, and examine inter-group differences using Chi-square tests. We also use examples of request utterances to illustrate the qualitative features of the respondent groups' use of the ten strategy types, as well as analysing the lexical realisations of the major strategy types. When our statistical results are discussed in the text, we round up percentage figures to two digits (omitting the decimal) for ease of presentation.

343

Formulaic expressions

We employ a bottom-up approach in our investigation to identify formulaic expressions. We examine the head act of each request utterance to extract its lexical chunk- e.g., in Could I grab another bag? we identify the lexical chunk Could I VP, in which VP replaces the verb grab. Similar lexical formulations are joined together to establish a common pattern: e.g., I wonder if! [... ],I wonder ifyou [... ] and I wonder if it [... ] are grouped into the general formulaic expression I wonder if, similarly, It is AD! to and It is AD! if are combined in the general expression It isADJ to/if. This gives us distinct expressions such as Can I VP, Could I VP, Could you VP, and Do you mind. In addition, VP, NP and AD! represent general word classes - e.g., VP is a generalisation oflexical verbs such as ask, order, and gra.b. However, if certain words occur frequently in formulaic expressions, thereby becoming part of the lexical chunk, we then spell out those words - e.g., Would you

63

64


mind instead of Would you VP; and Do you think rather than Do you VP. Around 40 formulaic expressions have been identified for the three respondent groups (see Appendix 3). The formulaic expressions used frequently by the learner groups are compared with those used by the native speaker group, for the scenarios as a whole and for individual scenarios. We also investigate whether the native speakers favour certain formulae in specific scenarios, and whether the learner groups are able to reproduce these formulae in the same contexts (cf. Question no. 5 in Chapter 1). 3-4-4

Internal modifications

Based on the data collected in our sample, we investigate internal modifications, which include both syntactic modifiers- conditionals and hi-clausal structuresand lexical modifiers -lexical downgraders and address terms.

Syntactic modifiers

Conditionals are syntactic features that modify requests. They are used to express indirectness and non-coerciveness, and to mitigate the illocutionary force of requests. For example, could and would are conditionals in Could I ask [... ], Do you think I could [... ], Would it be possible [... ], Would you mind [... ], and I wonder

if it would [... ]. Bi-clausal structures contain a main clause and at least one subordinate clause. For example, in I was wondering ifyou would be able to write me a reference letter [female, native speaker, 'Reference'], the main clause is I was wondering and the subordinate clause is if you would be able to ·write me a reference letter. Similarly, I was hoping you might be willing to [... ], and Do you think that I could [... ] are frequently used hi-clausal structures (cf. Internal modifications in 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). We examine the frequency of occurrence of conditionals and hi-clausal structures across the ten scenarios and in the individual scenarios. We also investigate whether the learners and/or the native speakers tend to use syntactic modifications in particular scenarios, and whether their use of syntactic modifiers correlates with the formulaic expressions they use. Lexical modifiers

Lexical downgraders are words and phrases added to request utterances to mitigate the illocutionary force or to engage the hearer. Based on the CCSARP coding scheme and our sample, we examine a number oflexical downgraders -possibly, maybe, just, at all, look, and you know.

Chapter 3. Method

Address Terms are identified based on our sample and the CCSARP coding scheme. We focus on the address terms that respondent groups use frequently such as sir, madam, officer, technician, waiter, professor, and doctor - and examine to whom they are used. We investigate how frequently lexical downgraders and address terms are used, and their distributions in the scenarios. We are also interested in whether the learners and the native speakers tend to use the same types oflexical downgraders and address terms in the same contexts. 3-4-5

External modifications

We compare and contrast external modifications used by the learner and native speaker groups in terms of the supportive moves they use and the positions in which they place those supportive moves. Supportive moves Supportive moves are employed to justify a request or to engage the hearer (cf. 2.2.1). For example, in (2), I'm terribly thirsty is a supportive move for the request head act get me a beer, which provides the hearer with the reason the speaker wants the beer. Supportive moves can also engage the hearer before the request has been made- Can I ask you a favour?- or promise a reward or compensation to the hearer -I'll pay you back first thing tomorrow morning. We investigate the frequency of use of supportive moves in the three respondent groups, their distribution in the scenarios, whether the native speakers employ certain supportive moves that the learner groups rarely use, and whether the learners employ any non-native-like supportive moves. We also analyse typical examples to show the qualitative features of the learners' and the native speakers' use of supportive moves in context. Information sequencing Information sequencing refers to the position in which supportive moves are placed in relation to the head act of the request. Following the CCSARP coding scheme (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b), we distinguish four positions- the pre-posed, the post-posed, the hi-position, and the null. For example, the pre-posed position refers to supportive moves that occur before the head act - I have a long way to walk [supportive move], May I have another bag? [head act]. The post-posed position refers to cases where the supportive move follows the head act - I'd like to have another bag [head act], because I have a long way to walk [supportive move].

65

66


When supportive moves occur both before and after the head act we have the hi-position- I ha.ve a long way to walk [supportive move], a.nd would like to have another bag [head act]. You knaM;, the handles of the bag will get sharp and hurt my fingers [supportive move]. Finally, we use the term "null" to indicate cases where no supportive move is used. We investigate which of the four positions the learner groups and the native speaker group favour, and in which scenarios, and consider whether therespondent groups shift their preferred positions according to the scenario. We also examine qualitative data to illustrate how the learners and the native speakers employ different types of information sequencing in particular scenarios.

3·5

Valid request utterances

The discourse completion tasks using the ten scenarios elicited 1016 valid instances of request utterances - 401 for the business group, 306 for the language group, and 309 for the native speaker group. We exclude utterances that were incomprehensible, incomplete, or that showed the respondent misunderstood the description of the scenario. Table 3.4 shows the distribution of the valid utterances across the ten scenarios. Based on these valid request utterances, we will examine request behaviour in the learner and native speaker groups in Chapters 4 to 7. Table 3.4 Valid utterances by scenario A. Prescribed service Business

Language Native Total

B. Common service

Post Restau Bag Bank

TV

41 29 32 102

41 32 31 104

41 32 32 105

41 32 32 105

35 29 31 95

C. Small favour

D. Medium-Jarge favour

Door Actress

Ref Money Police

41 32 31 104

40 31 31 102

40 31 32 103

41 29 28 98

40 29 29 98

Total

401 306 309 1016

CHAPTER4

Strategy use

Strategy use in speech-act realisation has long been a central concern of studies of cross-cultural pragmatics. We will see that, in our sample, the learners differ only moderately from the native speakers in terms of strategy use when we consider all of the scenarios together. However, in some of the individual scenarios the learners display marked non-native-like use of strategies. In this chapter we will compare the strategy types and strategy categories favoured by the learners and native speakers, and look at the patterns of distribution of these strategies in individual scenarios.

4.1

Strategy types and strategy categories: An overview

We will first attempt to sketch an overview of the strategies favoured by the learners and native speakers respectively, and compare the occurrence frequencies of the strategy types and strategy categories between the learner groups and the native speakers. Of the ten strategy types, three occur frequently in both learners and native speakers (Table 4.1); these are the 01 Mooo DERIVABLE, the 05 WANT STATEMENT, and the 07 QuERY PREPARATORY. Other strategy types occur at low frequencies ( < 5%), and make only minor contributions to inter-group differences between learners and native speakers (< 2%). The learner groups mainly differ from the native speakers in their use of the two most-favoured strategy typesthe 05 WANT STATEMENT and the 07 QUERY PREPARATORY. If we consider the ten scenarios as a whole, the business and language learners utilise the 05 WANT STATEMENT more frequently than the native speakers (by 6.2% and 5.7% respectively) and the 07 QuERY PREPARATORY less frequently than the native speakers (by4.7% and6.5%). In other words, the learners tend to use more direct strategies than the native speakers. For the ten scenarios as a whole, the two groups oflearners do not differ statistically from the native speakers in the distributions of the strategies they use. The inter-group variance between the business learners and the native speakers is i' (7, N = 710) = 12.484, p = .086; whereas the inter-group variance between the language learners and the native speakers is t (6, N = 615) = 8.585, p = .198.

68


Table 4.1 The distribution of ten types and three categories of strategy Strategy type/ category

Business 31.7% (127)

Direct

Language 30.4% (93)

Native 24.3% (75)

00 DIREcT QuBSTION

2.2% (9)

2.6% (8)

3.6% (11)

01 Moon DBRIVABLB

7.2% (29)

5.9% (18)

5.5% (17)

0.7% (3)

1.0% (3)

02 ExPLICIT Pl!RPORMATIVJ! 03 Hl!DGJ! Pl!RPORMATIVJ! 04 LocuTioN DBRIVABLB 05 WANT STATJ!Ml!NT

21.4% (86)

20.9% (64)

15.2% (47)


66.8% (268)

68.0% (208)

73.1% (226)

06 SUGGl!STORY FORMULA 07 QUJ!RY PRl!PARATORY

2.0% (8)

4.9% (15)

3.6% (11)

64.8% (260)

63.1% (193)

69.6% (215)

Non-convent. indirect

1.5% (6)

1.6% (5)

2.6% (8)

08 STRONG HINT

1.2% (5)

1.6% (5)

2.6% (8)

09 MILD HINT

0.2% (1) 100% (306)

100% (309)

100% (410)

Total

The language learners are thus slightly more native-like than the business learners, but the two learner groups are very similar to one another: J( (7, N = 707) = 6.247,p =.511. The ten strategy types can be classified into three macro-strategy categories: the direct (strategy types 00 to 05), the conventionally indirect (06, 07) and the non-conventionally indirect (08, 09) (see Table 4.1): (5) Direct strategy a. Please give me another bag. [female, business learner, 'Bag'] b. I want to have a statement of my account balance. [male, business learner, 'Bank']

Conventionally indirect strategy c. Would you mind giving me an extra plastic bag? [female, language learner, 'Bag'] Non -conventionally indirect strategy d. I am looking for a job and I have finished a letter to the company, but they want another one, probably it is a letter of recommending from my professor. [female, language learner, 'Reference'] Utterance (a) is a direct strategy of the 01 MooD DERIVABLE type (cf. 3.4.2). The imperative give me another bag expresses the request explicitly. The request in (b) is another example of a direct strategy. where the speaker makes the request by plainly revealing what he wants, using the OS WANT STATEMENT strategy.

Chapter 4. Strategy use

Utterance (c) belongs to the 07 QuERY PREPARATORY strategy type, in which the speaker uses Would you mind to query the hearer's willingness to comply with the request, utilising an indirect approach to the request. The request in (c) is also conventional, because Would you mind is a commonly used request form. In (d), the speaker opts not to make the request explicit, but to allow the hearer (the professor) to work out the speaker's intention. The speaker's request intention is conveyed implicitly through her explanation of the situation, especially through probably it is a letter ofrecommendingfrom my professor. The hearer can determine the intention to make a request based on these cues and their context. The strategy in (d) is considered a non-conventionally indirect request of the 08 STRONG HINT type. When we compare strategy-category use by native speakers and learners, the results are similar to those for strategy-type use. The occurrence frequencies of the three strategy categories by the two groups oflearners are native-like when all ten scenarios are considered together. The language learners are relatively more native-like [i (2, N = 615) =3.353,p = .187] than the business learners [i (2, N = 710) = 5.412, p = .067]. Both learner groups and the native speakers employ conventionally indirect strategies most frequently, direct strategies to some extent, and non-conventionally indirect strategies least frequently. The learners employ only slightly more direct strategies and fewer conventionally-indirect strategies than the native speakers (Table 4.1). In sum, when we consider all of the scenarios together, the learners are found to be native-like in their use of strategy types and strategy categories.

4.2

Individual strategy types and categories

We now focus on each of the ten strategy types and the three strategy categories (see Table 4.2) to compare how the learners and native speakers utilise them to make requests. 4.2.1

Direct strategies

In general, the two groups of learners tend to employ direct strategies slightly more frequently than the native speakers over the scenarios as a whole. A context-based examination shows that in all but two scenarios ('TV' and 'Police') more learners than native speakers use direct strategies. In four scenarios ('Bani{, 'ActresS, 'Reference' and 'Money') - which are mostly about asking a favour - a large number of the learners opt for direct strategies but very few native speakers

69

70


Table 4.2 The distribution of the three strategy categories for each scenario A. Prescribed service Post Direct Business Language Native

Restau

B. Common service Bag

Bank

TV

68.3% (28) 82.8% (24) 68.8% (22)

80.5% (33) 87.5% (28) 62.5% (20)

2.4% (1)

51.4% (18) 51.7% (15) 12.9% (4)

7.3% (3) 15.6% (5) 25.8% (8)

Conventionally indirect 31.7% (13) Business 17.2% (5) Language 28.1% (9) Native

19.5% (8) 12.5% (4) 37.5% (12)

92.7% (38) 100.0% (32) 100.0% (32)

48.6% (17) 48.3% (14) 87.1% (27)

92.7% (38) 81.3% (26) 71.0% (22)

3.2% (1) 6.3% (2)

3.4% (1)

Non-conventionally indirect 4.9% (2) Business Language Native

5.0% (2) 3.2% (1)

C. Small favour Door Direct Business Language Native

4.9% (2) 3.1% (1)

Conventionally indirect 90.2% (37) Business 96.9% (31) Language 100.0% (31) Native Non-conventionally indirect 4.9% (2) Business Language Native

Actress

3.4% (1) 13.8% (4)

D. Medium-large favour Ref

Money

Police

10.0% (4) 9.7% (3)

30.0% (12) 9.7% (3) 6.3% (2)

24.4% (10) 6.9% (2) 3.6% (1)

40.0% (16) 41.4% (12) 62.1% (18)

85.0% (34) 87.1% (27) 100.0% (31)

70.0% (28) 87.1% (27) 87.5% (28)

75.6% (31) 89.7% (26) 96.4% (27)

60.0% (24) 55.2% (16) 24.1% (7)

3.2% (1) 6.3% (2)

3.4% (1)

5.0% (2) 3.2% (1)

3.4% (1) 13.8% (4)

do so (Table 4.2). However, it is misleading to examine all ten scenarios together, because the learners' infrequent use of direct strategies in two of the scenarios ('TV' and 'Police') reduces their overall directness level bringing it closer to that of the native speakers. This clearly shows that only a context-based examination can effectively reveal the learners' non-native-like directness in making requests. In a context-based investigation, the learners are found to be native-like mainly in the two prescribed service scenarios ('Post' and 'Restaurant'), where they predominantly employ direct strategies. By contrast, in two other scenarios - 'Bank' and 'Police' - the two groups of learners differ noticeably from the


native speakers in their use of direct strategies. In the 'Bank' scenario, the learners employ direct strategies more than four times as frequently as the native speakers do. The native speakers, on the other hand, prefer to use conventionally indirect strategies that are more indirect and deferential. This suggests that native speakers perceive the need for a higher level of politeness in the banking environment than do the learners. However, in the 'Police' scenario, where a more substantial favour is at stake, the native speakers shift to direct strategies (62%), while the business (60%) and language learners (55%) still prefer conventionally-indirect strategies. In this situation, the learners make indirect and deferential requests of the police officer, whereas the native speakers tend to be more direct. The findings from these scenarios suggest that there are underlying sociocultural factors that contribute to the different responses of the learners and native speakers in these two scenarios, an issue that will be explored further in 8.2 B. Sociopragmatic interference. Statistically, the business learners differ significantly from the native speakers in the distribution of direct strategies across the ten scenarios [,f (9, N = 202) = 24.984, p = .003], whereas the language learners do not [,f (8, N = 168) = 12.428, p = .133]. Let us now examine in turn each of the six strategy types in the direct strategy category.

00 DIRECT QUESTION This is a new strategy type included for the purposes of the present study, in addition to the nine strategy types proposed by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989b ). The reason for including this additional strategy type is that the 00 DIRECT QuESTION represents a unique strategy type that occurs in this data sample and does not belong to any of the nine strategy types in Blum-Kulka et aes (1989) coding scheme. Direct questions are used to request information or a desired action from the hearer. Direct requests demonstrate a straightforward manner of communication - e.g., How much postage do I need to pay? is dear and eftective in arranging to have a letter posted. Based on its direct nature, the DIRECT QuESTION is classified in the direct strategy category in the present study, under the code 00 (cf. 3.4.2). The 00 DIRECT QuESTION occurs mainly in the 'Post' and 'TV' scenarios: (6) a.

How much do I need to pay for my letter? [female, business learner, 'Post'] b. Where is the function of captions? How to use? [female, language learner, 'Post'] c. So how do ya get it to show captions? [male, native speaker, 'TV'] d. Hey, how does the "captions" function work? [male, native speaker, 'TV']

71

72


The speakers in (a) to (d) pose direct questions to solicit information or action from the hearer: weighing the letter and working out the postage in the case of the post-office clerk, and giving an explanation of the captioning function in the case of the TV sales representative. Of the direct strategy types, the 00 DIRECT QuESTION is the third most commonly used in the scenarios overall: the native speakers (3.6%) employ it only marginally more frequently than the business (2.2%) and language learners (2.6%). However, a context-based examination reveals more noticeable differences between the learners and the native speakers. In the two scenarios in which the 00 DIRECT QuESTION occurs most frequently - 'TV' and 'Post' - the learners employ it at either markedly lower or higher frequencies than the native speakers (Table 4.2). The native speakers (26%) utilise the 00 DIRECT QuESTION most frequently in the 'TV' scenario, at a substantially higher rate than the language (9.4%) and business learners (nil). In the 'Post' scenario, however, more business (17%) and language learners (17%) than native speakers (6.3%) favour the 00 DIRECT QUESTION. The distributions of the use of the 00 DIRECT QUESTION in the ten scenarios show that the business learners are significantly non-nativelike [,f (3, N = 20) = 11.695, p = .009], while the language learners are native-like li (2, N = 19) = 4.189,p = .123]. The two learner groups are found to be similar to each other in their distribution patterns for using 00 DIRECT QuESTIONS in the scenarios.

01 MOOD DERIVABLE This is the second most frequently used of the direct strategies. The business learners (7.2%) employ it slightly more frequently than the language learners (5.9%) and native speakers (5.5%). The 01 Mooo DERIVABLE is used by the two groups of learners in three scenarios- 'Po sf, 'Restaurant, and 'Police' -whereas the native speakers utilise it in 'Police' but only infrequently in the other two scenarios. 'Police' is the scenario in which the 01 MooD DERIVABLE occurs most frequently in all respondent groups. It is also the only scenario in which native speakers employ imperatives more than the two groups of learners. When asking a police officer not to issue a ticket to their car, more native speakers (55%) employ the 01 MooD DERIVABLE than business (35%) or language (41 %) learners. (7) a. b. c. d. e.

Please don't give me a ticket. [female, native speaker, 'Police'] Please give me a break. [male, native speaker, 'Police') Please give me a chance. [male, business learner, 'Police'] You don't give me a ticket. [male, business learner, 'Police'] Please don't give me a ticket. [female, language learner, 'Police')


Utterances (a) to (e) are all imperatives and belong to the 01 MooD DERIVABLE strategy type. In (d), you don't give is considered to be imperative, following Ervin-Tripp (1976) and Lee-Wong (2002). Lee-Wong pointed out that adding you to imperatives is a common feature in Singapore English, rendering the imperative so direct that native English speakers often perceive it as warning-like and confrontational. In (d) You don't give me a ticket sounds quite brusque. Don't give me is used in (a), (c) and (e), and although grammatically it belongs to the imperative mood, it is not as direct as (b), give me a break. The negation in Don't give me conveys a sense of pleading that is not contained in give me a. break or let me off[without a. ticket]. Additionally, although utterances (a) to (e) all belong to strategy type 01 MooD DERIVABLE, their lexical formulations differ markedly. A fixed expression -give me a chance - occurs frequently in the two groups oflearners, but is not found in the native speakers, who favour other formulae - Don't and Give me a break (cf. 5.3.2). In the 'Post' scenario, a few business (7.3%) and language (6.9%) learners use the 01 MooD DERIVABLE strategies, but no native speakers do so. (8) a. b.

Please weigh this mail for me. [male, business learner, 'Post') Please help me to weigh and stamp for me. [female, language learner, 'Post']

In (a) and (b) the learners employ the imperative mood, which belongs to the 01 MooD DERIVABLE strategy type, to ask for the letter to be posted. Similarly, to place an order in an expensive restaurant. several business (12%) and language (6.3%) learners employ 01 MooD DERIVABLE forms with imperatives: Please give me a beefsteak, medium rare [female, language learner, 'Restaurant'], whereas the native speakers rarely use imperatives. Only one native speaker (male) uses a noun phrase that has a function close to an implicit imperative: beef steak, medium rare. Researchers treat noun phrases used in such situations as elliptical structures, classifying them as strategy type 01 MooD DERIVABLE (BlumKulka et al. 1989: 279; Hassall 2003; Trosborg 1995: 204). This is because such elliptical structures are concise and up-front, and therefore have similar characteristics to imperatives. The contextual cues in a restaurant are so strong that the hearer (the waiter) can immediately recover the illocutionary force of a beef steak - a straightforward request to order a beef steak. Given the fact that native speakers rarely employ 01 MooD DERIVABLE forms in the 'Post' and 'Restaurant' scenarios, the learners who use imperatives when addressing the post-office clerk or the waiter probably sound rather too direct to native ears. In sum, the distribution of the 01 MooD DERIVABLE in the three scenarios in which it occurs most frequently ('Post: 'Restaurant' and 'Police') reveals that the two groups oflearners are not native-like in two respects. First, the frequency

73

74


of use of such strategies in the two learner groups is higher than in the native speakers in all scenarios except 'Police'. Second, in terms of in which situation the 01 Moon DERIVABLE occurs, the native speakers tend to employ the 01 Moon DERIVABLE only in the 'Police' scenario, whereas the learners also use it in the 'Post' and 'Restaurant' contexts. Statistically, the two learner groups do not differ significantly from the native speakers in the distributions of 01 Moon DERIVABLE usage in the scenarios:)( (8, N = 46) = 10.376, p = .240 for the business learners, and)( (4, N = 35) = 4.880, p = .300 for the language learners.

02 EXPLICIT PBRFORMATIVB and 03 HEDGED PBRPORMATIVB These two strategy types are seldom used by either learners or native speakers. The 02 EXPLICIT PERFORMATIVE does not occur in this sample, and the 03 HEDGED PERFORMATIVE occurs only very infrequently in all groups: in the business learners (0.7%, 3 tokens), the language learners (1.0%, 3 tokens), and the native speakers (nil). The 03 HEDGED PERFORMATIVE is a modified performative in which the illocutionary verb denoting the request intent is mitigated. (9) a. b.

d.

I want to trouble you give me the letter. [male, business learner, 'Reference'] I want to ask you to write a reference letters [sic]. [female, language learner, 'Reference'] I would like you perform a short segment of the scene for us. [female, business learner, ~ctress'] l would like to take this opportunity to ask you perform a short segment of the most perfect scene of this movie for us. [fe~nale, language learner, ~ctress']

In (a), by saying I want to trouble you, the speaker performs the act of requesting the hearer to write a reference letter. The verb trouble is hedged by want to, and the strategy type is the 03 HEDGED PERFORMATIVE. The request (b) is also a HEDGED PERFORMATIVE: adding the hedge wa.nt to softens the bluntness of I ask you to write. In (c), the hedge would tones down the coerciveness of I like you perform. Utterance (d) is produced by a language learner, who uses the elaborate hedge would like to take this opportunity to. This hedge eftectively softens the directness

oflm asking you to perform. The native speakers in this sample do not use any 03 HEDGED PERFORMATIVE forms, while the business and language learners employ only a tew 03 HEDGED PERFORMATIVE expressions in 'Reference' (2.5% and 3.2% respectively), 'Door' (2.4% and 0%), and ~ctress' (2.5% and 3.2%).


04 LOCUTION DERIVABLE According to the coding scheme used in the CCSARP project, LocuTION DERIVABLE strategies denote an illocutionary intent that is directly derivable from the semantic meaning of the locution. This strategy type was originally termed the OBLIGATION STATEMENT by Blum-Kulka (1987: 133). In other words, the speaker reminds the hearer of his or her responsibility or obligation to comply with the request - e.g., it's your responsibility to keep the kitchen clean and you'll have to move your car. The 04 LoCUTION DERIVABLE was not used by any of the respondent groups. In this sample, pointing out the hearer's obligations in relation to the request - e.g., it's you1· responsibility to give me a.n extm bag- was often seen as too confrontational to be used by either the learners or the native speakers.

05 "'W4.NT STATEMENT This is the most frequently used direct strategy type, and the second most commonly used type of strategy overall. This strategy type denotes the speaker's desire, will, or plans in relation to the request - e.g., fd like a cup of coffee states the speaker's desire for a cup of coffee. In the ten scenarios as a whole, 05 WANT STATEMENT strategies account for more than one fifth of the request utterances by the business (21 %) and the language learners (21 %), who use such strategies much more frequently than the native speakers (15%). The native speakers mainly employ the 05 WANT STATEMENT forms in the two prescribed service scenarios 'Post' (63%) and 'Restaurant' (59%), where the business and language learners also utilise them predominantly- 44% and 59% respectively in 'Po sf. and 68% and 81% in 'Restaurant'. (10) a. b. c. d. e.

I want to post this letter to New York. [male, business learner, 'Po sf] I would like to mail this letter to New York. [female, language learner, 'Post'] I need to send this to New York. [male, native speaker, 'Post'] I want to order a beef steak, medium rare. [female, business learner, 'Restaurant'] I'll have a beefsteak., medium rare. [male, native speaker, 'Restaurant']

Utterances (a) to (e) convey the meaning of requests by denoting the speaker's want, need, or plan to have something done. (a), (b), and (d) use request formulae I want and I would like that explicitly reveal the speaker's want or desire, while (c) contains the expression I need to, which explicates the speaker's need. In (d), by saying fll have the speaker reveals his/her plan regarding what to eat. The native speakers concentrate their use of 05 WANT STATEMENT strategies in the two prescribed services ('Post' and 'Restaurant'), rarely using them in other scenarios. It appears to be both conventional and acceptable for native speakers to

75

76


state their wants in relation to goods or services that are automatically delivered (food or postage), and a high level of indirectness seems to be unnecessary in such cases. Unlike the native speakers, the two groups oflearners extend their use of the 05 WANT STATEMENT to common services and even favour-asking scenarios- 'Bank: 'Reference: and 'MoneY: In 'Ban:K the business (46%) and language learners (52%) favour WANT STATEMENTS to address the bank cashier -e.g., I want to have a statement of my account balance [female, business learner]. Only a few native speakers (13%) employ WANT STATEMENTS in this situation, and most native speakers (87%) prefer the 07 QuERY PREPARATORY strategies- e.g., Would you mind printing out a copy of my account balance please? [male, native speaker]. A substantial portion of the business learners employ the 05 WANT STATEMENT in 'Reference' (28%) and 'Money' (22%) scenarios, whereas the language learners and native speakers rarely use it in these situations ( < 7%). For example, only two native speakers (6.5%) use the 05 WANT STATEMENT in 'Reference: and their utterances are elaborated with polite mitigations - e.g., (lla). Here are some examples of the 05 WANT STATEMENT in the 'Reference' and 'Money' scenarios: (11) a. b.

c.

d. e.

I was hoping you would be willing to write one for me. [female, native speaker, 'Reference'] I would like to have a reference letter that could show out how good I am [sic] done in your class for the company I am looking for. [female, business learner, 'Reference'] I hope that you would be please to [sic] write me a reference letters tor my employment. That would be very kind of you. [female, language learner, 'Reference'] I hope you can lend my [sic] 50 dollars to solve this problem. [male, business learner, 'Money'] I want to borrow 50 dollars because my parents were [sic] sick. [male, language learner, 'Money']

The learners' requests (b) to (e) explicitly state the speakers' want, desire, or hope to receive the reference letter or money. Similarly; in (a), the native speaker expresses her hope for a reference letter, but her utterance is elaborated by syntactic means - the past continuous I was hoping, a longer word cluster would be willing to, and the hi-clausal structure of subordination I was hoping [that] you would. These syntactic mitigating devices soften the illocutionary force, making the request sound much more tentative and deferential than I hope you can. Unlike the native speakers, very few business or language learners show the ability to employ syntactic mitigations: they tend to say I hope you can rather than I was hoping you would be willing to (cf. Chapter 6 Internal modifications).


In sum, there are three direct strategy types favoured by the learners and native speakers: the 00 DIRECT QUESTION, the 01 MooD DERIVABLE, and particularly the 05 WANT STATEMENT. Both groups of learners employ 05 WANT STATEMENT strategies more frequently than the native speakers in the scenarios as a whole. In particular, the business learners utilise the WANT STATEMENT in scenarios other than the prescribed service situations in which the native speakers concentrate their use of such strategies. As a result, the business learners differ significantly from the native speakers in the distributions of this strategy type over the ten scenarios [t (7, N = 133) = 14.467, p = .043]; whereas the language learners do not Li (7, N = 111) = 8.633, p = .280]. In addition, the two learner groups are found to use syntactic mitigating devices to soften their requests less frequently than the native speakers. 4.2.2

Conventionally-indirect strategies

This is the most commonly used category of strategies by both learners and native speakers. The native speakers employ conventionally indirect (CID) strategies predominantly in all but the two prescribed service scenarios ('Post' and 'Restaurant') and one favour-asking scenario ('Police'). The two groups oflearners prefer CID strategies in all scenarios apart from the two prescribed services and one common service ('Bank'). Not only are the learners able to make requests using the CID strategies; they tend to rely heavily on such strategies (Table 4.2). However, the business and language learners still employ CID strategies slightly less frequently than the native speakers do, particularly when asking favours. One exception to this trend is the 'Police' scenario- in which most business (60%) and language learners (55%) employ the CID strategies, while most native speakers utilise direct strategies (62%) to ask a favour of the police officer. The distributions of CID strategies in the ten scenarios do not show significant variance between the two groups oflearners and the native speakers: for the business learners [t (9, N = 494) = 15.388, p = .081], and for the language learners Lf (9, N = 434) = 12.708, p = .176]. There are two strategy types in the CID category: the 06 SUGGESTORY FORMULA and 07 QUERY PREPARATORY.

06 SuGGESTORY FORMULA In this strategy type the speaker makes requests by employing stored phrases that are commonly used for making suggestions - e.g., How about eating out?, It'll

be great ifyou can enact a segment of the scene, Maybe you can have a look of my door?, or We11 love it if you can enact a segment of the scene. This strategy type occurs at low frequency in the scenarios as a whole: 2.4% for business learners,

77

78


4.9% for language learners, and 3.6% for native speakers. The native speakers and the learner groups mainly use the 06 SuGGESTORY FoRMULA in the 'Actress' scenario - asking a retired actress to perform a short segment of a scene - native speakers (23%), business (7.5%) and language learners (23%). ( 12) a. b. c. d. e.

How about to perform [sic] a short segment of the scene to everybody here? [female, language learner, ':Actress'] It would be my pleasure if you could accept my invitation. [female, business learner, ':Actress'] It will be great if we can see that expression again [male, language learner, 'Actress'] It would be fantastic if you would perform some of your scene for us! [female, native speaker, 'Actress'] Maybe you could act that out for us all? [male, native speaker, 'Actress']

A variety of SuGGBSTORY FoRMULAE are employed here, including How about, It will/would be AD! ifyou, and Maybe you could. These utterances are formed using common suggestion-giving expressions, and the strategies are conventional as well as indirect in nature. For example, by using How about in (a), the speaker proposes that the hearer's (the retired actress's) enactment of a segment of her play would be something desirable. The request utterance sounds suggestive and inviting. However, the utterance - How about to perform instead of How about pe1jorming- is an uncommon collocation that shows that the learner's use of the formula How about doing is still not entirely native-like. Several learners and native speakers also employ the 06 SuGGESTORY FoRMULA in scenarios other than 'ActresS, including 'Money' and 'Door: (13) a.

b. c. d. e.

It is pleasure [sic] that you can help me. [male, business learner, 'Reference] It would be great if you could lend me $50. [female, language learner, 'Money'] It would be nice if you could fix a screw of this door. [female, language learner, 'Door'] May be [sic] we can look tor it [the door] together? [temale, language learner, 'Door'] I don't suppose you could help me replace a screw on my front door. [temale, native speaker, 'Door']

Across all scenarios the business learners employ only the formula It is be AD! to/that/if to make suggestions, whereas the language learners use more varied structures - It is be AD! to/that/if, Maybe 1ove can, and How about VP-ing. In this respect the language learners are more native-like than the business learners in


varying in their suggestory forms. However, both groups of learners make errors and use non-idiomatic expressions in their suggestory forms. For example, in (a), the speaker uses It is pleasure that rather than the more appropriate It would be my/our pleasure that or it would bean honour. This shows that although the learner was able to use the suggestory formula It is NP that, he was unable to use the appropriate lexical formulation. In (d), the language learner confuses may be with maybe. The native speaker in (e) uses an interesting suggestory formula -I don't suppose you could, in which the negative form Don't and the non-assertive verb suppose are employed. By saying I don't suppose you could, the speaker shows non -coerciveness and deference, and explicitly offers the hearer a way out. This is an instance that demonstrates the superior ability of native speakers to vary their suggestory formulations to express fine-tuned deference. The learner groups do not differ significantly from the native speakers in the distribution of their use of the 06 SuGGESTORY FoRMULA in the scenarios: for the business learners, i' (4, N = 19) = 3.411, p = .491; for the language learners, i (4, N = 26) = 3.467, p = .483.

07 QUERY PREPARATORY This is the strategy type that is used most frequently by both learners and native speakers for the ten scenarios as a whole: 65% for business learners, 63% for language learners, and 70% for native speakers. The native speakers employ such strategies predominantly in seven scenarios - three common service scenarios ('Bag, 'Bank: and 'TV') and four favour-asking scenarios ('Door: 'ActresS, 'Reference: and 'Money'). Like the native speakers, the business and language learners utilise 07 QuERY PREPARATORY forms predominantly in seven scenarios - six of these are also those favoured by the native speakers, while one scenario is different ('Police': Table 4.2). 07 QuERY PREPARATORY requests offer typical examples of indirect and conventional strategies. For example, Can you clea.n up the kitchen? is indirect because its literal meaning is a query about the hearer's ability to clean up the kitchen; it is also conventional because this utterance is commonly used for requests. That is, by inquiring about a condition needed for the hearer to comply, the speaker makes the request indirect to show consideration for the hearer's willingness or inclination. Indirectness and conventionality make Can you clean up the kitchen? preferable to direct strategies such as Clean up the kitchen (01 Moon DERIVABLE) or I ask you to clean up the kitchen (02 EXPLICIT PERFORMATIVE). In our native speaker sample, the 07 QuERY PREPARATORY strategies take various forms. The literal meaning of such expressions can be an inquiry about the hearer's ability (e.g., Do you think you are able to) or willingness to comply (e.g., If you would be willing to, Do you mind), the possibility of compliance (e.g., Will it be

79

so Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners

possible if), or the hearer's opinion or permission (e.g., Do you think I could, Could I). The native speakers demonstrate the ability to vary their lexical formulations in response to difterent situations- ranging from highly deferential to moderately polite. Unlike the native speakers, the learner groups use only a restricted number of simple formulae to make requests in the different scenarios. (14) a.

b. c. d. e. f.

g.

Can you give me an extra bag? [male, business learner, 'Bag'] Can you help me to write a reference letters [sic]? [female, language learner, 'Reference'] Can you borrow [lend] me 50 dollars? [male, business learner, 'Money'] Could you help me to weigh the letter? [male. business learner, 'Post'] Could you please give me a chance? [male, language learner, 'Police'] Would you mind play it again now? [female, business learner, ~ctress'] Would you mind showing me how to do it? [female, language learner, 'TV']

In the different scenarios in (a) to (g), the learners rely on a few formulae such as Can you VP, Could you VP, May I, Would you mind, and Would you VP. By contrast, the native speakers show a much richer repertoire that contains many formulae seldom used by the learners - e.g., Can I VP, Could I VP, Do you think

you can/could/be able to, I wonder ij; Is it AD] if! to, Would I be able to, Would you be AD] toVP, and Would it be AD]to!ifin (h) to (o). (14)

h. Could I have another bag please? [male, native speaker, 'Bag'] i.

Is it possible to get a printout of my account balance? [female. native speaker, 'Bank'] j. I was wondering if youa mind writing me a reference letter at the end of this month. [male, native speaker, 'Reference') k. Would it be at all possible if you could write me a reference letter? [female, native speaker, 'Reference'] 1. Would I be able to borrow it from you? [female, native speaker, 'Money] m. Do you reckon youa be able to check a screw in the door mate? [male, native speaker, 'Door'] n. Will you be so kind as to perform an excerpt ofyour movie for us? [male, native speaker, ~ctress'] 0. Would you care to perform a scene from the play with me to the other residents? [male, native speaker, ~ctress'] In addition, closer examination of the native speakers' 07 QuERY PREPARATORY requests shows a frequently-occurring syntactic feature- the hi-clausal structure. The native speakers seem to favour bi-clausal structures in deferential situations.


For example, asking a professor to write a reference letter ('Reference') entails a considerable level of politeness. In this scenario, the native speakers favour hiclausal structures - I 1vas wondering if you could or Do you think you could possibly write. Unlike the native speakers, the learners use hi-clausal structures only infrequently, and employ mainly mono-clausal structures such as Could you write or Would you write (cf. 6.1.2 Bi-clausal structures). The two groups of learners employ fewer (< 5%) 07 QuERY PREPARATORY strategies than the native speakers across the ten scenarios. However, a contextbased investigation reveals more marked inter-group differences. As was the case with the direct strategies, the most conspicuous discrepancies in the use of 07 QuERY PREPARATORY strategies by the learners and native speakers occur in two scenarios -'Bank' and 'Police'. In the 'Bank' scenario, the native speakers (87%) use 07 QuERY PREPARATORY strategies nearly twice as often as the business group (49%) and the language (48%) learners. In 'Police', the business (58%) and language learners (52%) use the 07 QuERY PREPARATORY more than twice as frequently as the native speakers (21%), who strongly prefer a direct strategy type - the 01 Mooo DERIVABLE. As noted previously, the discrepancies in directness levels between learners and native speakers in these two scenarios relate to the respondent groups' different understandings of social and contextual factors (cf. 4.2.1). The distributions of the 07 QuERY PREPARATORY strategies in the ten scenarios do not show significant differences between the learners and the native speakers: for the business learners [x2 (9, N = 475) = 15.936, p = .068], although they employ 07 QuERY PREPARATORY strategies somewhat less frequently in favour-asking scenarios such as 'Reference~ 'MoneY, and a common service, 'Bank'; for the language group [.f (9, N =408) = 13.055,p = .160], although they use this strategy type less frequently in prescribed and common service situations such as 'Bank' and 'Restaurant'. In addition, the two groups oflearners differ from the native speakers in the syntactic formulation of their requests: they use shorter and syntactically simpler lexical formulations than the longer hi-clausal requests favoured by the native speakers in the polite scenarios.

4.2. 3

Non-conventionally indirect strategies

This is a strategy category that both learners and native speakers utilise very infrequently (Table 4.2). Although the occurrence frequencies are low, the learners' use of such non-conventionally indirect (NCID) strategies is markedly non-nativelike in one particular scenario - 'Police'. The native speakers concentrate their use ofNCID strategies in 'Police' (14%), where very few language learners (3.4%)

81

82


or business learners (nil) use it The distribution of NCID strategies across the ten scenarios is significantly non-native-like in the business learners Lf (6, N = 14) = 19.121, p = .030]; but not in the language learners Lf (5, N = 13) = 5.728, p = .455]. There are two strategy types in this category:

08 STRONG HINT and 09 MIL-D HINT In some situations, the speaker opts not to explicitly make a request, but instead to address some topics relevant but peripheral to the request In such cases, the hearer is left to figure out the speaker's intended meaning for him/herself. For example, I saw that you have handy tools so I just remember that a screw in one of my doors is missing [male, business learner, 'Door'] contains no explicit statement of the request. However, from an utterance such as I just remember that a screw in one of my doors is missing, and the con textual cues (like the fact that the technician has suitable tools to hand), the hearer can make a good guess that the speaker probably wants the hearer to fix the door, or to borrow the tools. The intention to request, although not explicitly expressed, can be recovered from the situational context The 08 STRONG HINT and 09 MILD HINT strategies are both non-conventional and indirect (cf. Table 3.3). The 08 STRONG HINT gives a clearer indication of the intention of requesting than the 09 MILD HINT. The 08 STRONG HINT strategies occur infrequently in both native speakers and learners- 1.2% in the business learners, 1.6% in the language learners, and 2.6% in the native speakers. The 09 MILD HINT contains a less overt indication of the request intention. It is rarely used by either native speakers or learners. There is only one example of the 09 MILD HINT in this sample, in the business learners (0.2%). (15) a.

b.

c.

d. e. f.

I am seeking a reference letter for employment and thought you to be an ideal candidate to write one for me. [male, native speaker, 'Reference'] Hello, Dr. Davis, I know it is so rude to ask you for borrowing some money now, but I am in a hurry, and I can't get the money in the ATM machine. [female, language learner, 'Money'] I'm sorry I am a little over time but I was delayed by the lazer [lazier] than usual que [queue] in the take away [sic]. I will leave immediately! [male, native speaker, 'Police'] Do you have any spare screw like this one? [male, business learner, 'Door'] I was wondering how to do the caption thing with this TV set? [male, language learner, 'TV'] Your one more bag can make my fingers happier. [male, business learner,

'Bag']


In (a), the speaker states his belief that the hearer is an ideal candidate to write the reference letter, but refrains from explicitly asking the hearer to write a reference. The expression ideal candidate is flattering, suggesting to the professor that he is senior and well placed. In (b), the speaker admits that borrowing money is rude and explains that the situation is an emergency; but nowhere in her utterance does she explicitly ask for money. In (c), the speaker apologises for parking longer than allowed, explains the situation, and then promises to move the car immediately. He does not ask to be let off without a ticket, although his long and elaborate utterance reveals this intention. In (d), the speaker queries whether the hearer has a certain type of screw, which implies that he wants to have his door fixed. In (e), the speaker simply expresses curiosity about a feature of the television. However, the context - a customer asking a shop assistant about a specific feature of a product - enables the latter to interpret the utterance as a request for him to explain and/or demonstrate the use of captions. The learner in (f) states that his fingers will be "happier" if another bag can be provided - an unusual and unidiomatic way of requesting another bag. This is a creative way of addressing the fact that his fingers hurt because of the thin, heavy bag, and leads to the desired solution -the provision of another bag. In this sample, the 08 STRONG HINT and 09 MILD HINT strategies are used infrequently by both learners and native speakers. In no scenario do these strategy types occur frequently. Statistically; the business learners are significantly different from the native speakers in the distribution of their use of the 08 STRONG HINT across the ten scenarios [x2 (6, N = 13) = 13.000, p = .043], whereas the language group is not [x2 (5, N =13) = 4.691, p = .455]. To summarise, we see here that the business and the language learners do not differ significantly from the native speakers in their use of the ten strategy types and three strategy categories when all ten scenarios are considered together. However, an investigation of the distribution pattern of each of the ten strategy types and categories in the individual scenarios reveals that the business learners differ significantly from the native speakers in their use of three strategy types the 00 DIRECT QUESTION (p < .01), the 05 WANT STATEMENT (p < .05), and the 08 STRONG HINT (p < .05) - whereas the language learners do not differ significantly from the native speakers in their use of any of the ten strategy types. The business learners also differ from the native speakers in the distribution patterns of their use of direct strategies and non -conventionally indirect strategies, but the language learners do not. As a whole, the business learners show a stronger tendency than the language learners to use strategy types and strategy categories that are unlikely to be used by native speakers in these scenarios- e.g., a considerable number of business learners employ the direct strategy 05 WANT STATEMENT in the 'Bank: 'Reference: and 'Money' scenarios, but very few native speakers do so.

83

84


4·3

Strategy use in scenarios

We will now focus on the individual scenarios to examine how the learners and native speakers differ in their strategy use in specific contexts. Statistically, the distribution pattern of the use of the ten strategy types shows that the two groups oflearners show marked differences from the native speakers in several scenarios (Table 4.3). The business learners differ from the native Table 4.3 Chi-square tests for inter-group variance of distributions of three strategy categories in the ten scenarios N

df

p

73 73

2

.507 .087

73 66 72

2 2

.295 .001** .043*

3.202 5.079

72

71

2 2

.202 .079

8.357 5.381 11.991

72

2

69 69

2

.015* .020* .002**

Business learners vs. native speakers Prescribed service Post 1.358 Restaurant 2.924 Common service 2.442 Bag Bank

TV Small favour Door Actress Medium-large favour Reference Money Police

10.980 6.271

Language learners vs. native speakers Prescribed service Post 2.087 5.333 Restaurant Common service Bag Bank

TV Small favour Door Actress Medium-large favour Reference Money Police • p < .05, •* p < .01

61 64

2

.352 .021*

10.435 1.010

64 60 63

1 2

.001** .603

.984 4.276

63 62

2

.321 .118

.536 1.335 6.522

63 57 58

2 2 2

.765 .513 .038*


speakers in five of the ten scenarios in the distributions of the three categories of strategy. These include two common service scenarios - 'Bank' (p < .001) and 'TV' (p < .05) -and all three medium-large favour scenarios- 'Reference' (p < .05), 'Money' (p < .05), and 'Police' (p < .01). In three of these scenarios ('Bank', 'Reference', and 'Money'), the business learners use more direct strategies than the native speakers, and in two others ('Police' and 'TV'), the business learners employ more CID strategies than the native speakers. The language learners difter significantly from the native speakers in three scenarios: 'Bank' (p < .01), 'Restaurant' (p < .05), and 'Police' (p < .05). In the 'Bank' scenario, the language learners use more direct strategies than the native speakers, whereas in the 'Restaurant' and 'Police' scenarios, they tend to use more CID strategies than the native speakers. Thus both learner groups differ significantly from native speakers in the 'Bank' and 'Police' scenarios. Let us look now at strategy use in the four groups of scenarios and contrast the two groups of learners with the native speakers.

A. Prescribed services Direct strategies are the most commonly used strategies by all respondent groups in the two prescribed service scenarios ('Post' and 'Restaurant'), and tend to be favoured more by the learners than by the native speakers. The only significant inter-group variance occurs in the 'Restaurant' scenario, in which the language learners use direct strategies (88%) much more frequently than the native speakers (63%). With this one exception, the two learner groups are native-like in the distribution patterns of their strategy categories for the prescribed services. In the two prescribed service scenarios, 05 WANT STATEMENT strategies occur most frequently- e.g., I want to (mail this letter to New Ym·k) and I would like to order a beefsteak. In the 'Post' scenario the 00 DIRECT QuESTION and 01 MooD DERIVABLE strategies are the other two frequently-used strategies; the 00 DIRECT QuESTION (e.g., How much will it [the letter] cost?) occurs more frequently in the business (17%) and language learners (17%) than in the native speakers (6.5%), and the 01 MooD DERIVABLE (e.g .• Please weight this mail) occurs in the business (7.3%) and language learners (6.9%), but not in the native speakers. In the 'Restaurant' scenario, 07 QuERY PREPARATORY strategies are the second most common strategy type (after the 05 WANT STATEMENT) in all respondent groups: they are favoured much more by the native speakers (38%) than by the business (20%) and language learners (13%)- e.g., Can I have a beefsteak please? [native speaker, male]. As a whole, the two groups of learners can be considered native-like in their pattern of strategy use in the prescribed service scenarios.

85

86


Group B: Common services The native speakers favour conventionally-indirect (CID) strategies in all three common service scenarios, while the two groups of learners do so in all but the 'Bank' scenario. In this scenario, the learners prefer direct strategies (mainly the OS WANT STATEMENT), while the native speakers favour CID strategies (predominantly the 07 QuERY PREPARATORY), creating significant inter-group variance. By contrast, in the 'Bag' scenario the two groups oflearners tend to follow the native pattern of strategy category use whereby CID strategies are predominant (mainly the 07 QuERY PREPARATORY). The 'TV' scenario demonstrates inter-group variance only between the business learners and the native speakers - one in four of the native speakers employs 00 DIRECT QuESTIONS but no business learners use these strategies. Statistically the business learners differ from native speakers in strategy-category distribution in two of the three common service scenarios, while the language learners do so in only one scenario.

Group C: Small favours Of the four groups of scenarios, the two groups of learners show most nativelike strategy use in the small favour scenarios, in which CID strategies are most frequently used by all respondent groups. In the 'Door' scenario, all respondent groups employ mainly CID strategies such as the 06 SuGGESTORY FoRMULA and the 07 QuERY PREPARATORY. Similarly, in the 'Actress' scenario, CID strategies are favoured by both groups oflearners and native speakers. Some business (10%) and language learners (10%) also make use of direct strategies- e.g. I would like you perform [sic] a short segment of the film [business learner, male] - but no native speakers use such strategies. However, this does not cause significant inter-group differences. In the 'Actress' scenario, the language learners (23%) utilise 06 SuGGESTORY FoRMULA strategies with the same frequency as the native speakers, but very few business learners (7 .5%) use them. In the two small favour scenarios, the learners rely heavily on the use of CID strategies, just as the native speakers do, but the language learners are relatively more native-like than the business group in their choice of strategy types.

Group D: Medium-large favours The business learners differ significantly from the native speakers in strategy-category use across all medium-large favour scenarios, while the language learners differ only in the 'Police' scenario. The business learners are non-native-like in the 'Reference' and 'Money' scenarios because they do not employ CID strategies to the extent that the native speakers do - a substantial portion of the business learners (30% and 24% respectively) opt for direct strategies in these scenarios. The language learners employ CID strategies at very high frequencies in these


two scenarios, and are statistically similar in their strategy use to native speakers. The 'Police' scenario appears to be a special situation, in which the two groups of learners favour CID strategies whereas the native speakers prefer direct strategies, resulting in significant inter-group variance (cf. 4.2.1). In sum, the language learners employ predominantly CID strategies in the small-large favour scenarios (except for 'Police'), adopting native patterns of strategy use conspicuously more successfully than the business learners.

4·4

Summary

Our sample demonstrates that a context-based examination otters valuable insight into how learners' strategy use differs from that of native speakers. Across the four groups of scenarios, from prescribed services to medium-large favours, the native speaker use of strategies tends to shift from very direct to predominantly conventionally indirect. The two groups of learners largely follow this trend across the scenarios, but vary noticeably from the native patterns in a number of individual scenarios. The business learners exhibit greater and more frequent deviation from native strategy use than the language learners on a scenario by scenario basis. These findings lead to an interesting and important working assumption about interlanguage pragmatics that can be tested in broader populations of L2 learners in subsequent studies. This assumption is that L2 learners often do not fall short in their ability to be conventionally indirect in their strategy use -in tact, the learners in this sample employ mainly CID strategies in several scenarios. Rather, the difficulty for learners lies in whether they are able to adapt their strategyuse in different contexts and be director indirect in a native-like manner. This context-based variation in strategy use presents a critical element of communicative competence with which even advanced learners such as those in our sample may struggle.

87

CHAPTER

5

Formulaic expressions

Formulaic expressions are fixed chunks of language that are often bound to particular recurrent situations. By using such expressions, interlocutors do not need to compose their entire utterance every time they make a request- they can make use of formulae that are conventionally used for such requests, resulting in more efficient and effective communication (cf. 2.3.2). In this chapter, we will (a) draw an overall comparison between the use of formulae by learners and native speakers, (b) focus on individual types of formula that learners and native speakers favour, and (c) examine the distribution of formulae in the four groups of scenarios. In addition, we will compare the use of formulae and strategies by learners in terms of their ability to reveal essential characteristics of learners' pragmatic behaviour.

5.1

The formulae repertoires of learners and native speakers

Let us first attempt to sketch a general picture of the types of request formulae used by learners and native speakers over the ten scenarios as a whole, and compare the types of formula that are most commonly used by learners and native speakers and how frequently they use them.

5.1.1

The most c.ommonly used formulae: Learners vs. native speakers

Our first step is to investigate whether the two learner groups employ their sets of formulae in a similar way to native speakers.

The repertoire offormulae: Comparing the 75th and 90th percentiles By comparing the minimum number of types of request formula that learners and native speakers need to make the majority of their request utterances, we can determine not only the types of formula learners and native speakers favour, but also the richness of the types of formula in their repertoires. To make this comparison, we consider the minimum number of request formulae used by the learner groups and native speakers to make 75% and then 90% of their request utterances.

90


Table5.1 The request formulae in order of frequency: The 75th and 90th percentiles Formulae types

n

%

cum.%

could you VP can you VP I want I would like VP would you mind may I

91 77 40 30 23 21 17

23.0 19.4 10.1 7.6 5.8 5.3 4.3

23.0 42.4 52.5 60.1 65.9 71.2 75.5

Business 2 3 4 5 6 7

·-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 8 would you VP 14 3.5 79.0 9 10 11

12 13

I hopeyouMV would you like to can I VP I wonder if do you mind

12

could you VP I would like would you VP I want would you mind can you VP VP

9 6 5

3.0 2.8 2.3 1.5 1.3

82.1 84.8 87.1 88.6 89.9

63 31 31 29 28 27 13

20.9 10.3 10.3 9.6 9.3 9.0 4.3

20.9 31.2 41.5 51.2 60.5 69.4 73.8

8 7 7 6 5 5

2.7 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.7

80.4 82.7 85.0 87.0 88.7 90.4

35 30 30 22 20 19 19 16 12

11.6 10.0 10.0 7.3 6.6 6.3 6.3 5.3 4.0 3.7 3.7

11.6 21.6 31.6 38.9 45.5 51.8 58.1 63.5 67.4 71.1 74.8

11

Language 1 2= 2= 4 5 6 7

·-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 8 may I 12 4.0 77.7 9 10= 10= 12 13= 13=

can I VP it is ADJ to/that/if would you like to

I will ... if how much/many I wonder if

Native 2= 2= 4 5 6= 6= 8 9 10= 10=

could I VP could you VP I wonder if would you mind can you VP can I VP would you be ADJ to VP I would like I need I will VP don'tVP

11 11

·-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------·

Chapter 5. Formulaic expressions

Tab1e5.1 (continued) Formulae types 12= 12= 14= 14= 16= 16= 16= 16=

n

how do you/can 1/does it would it be ADJ to/if may I would I be able to do you think you can/could/be able to I want is it ADJ if/to VP

8 8 6 6 5 5 5 5

% 2.7 2.7 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

cum.% 77.4 80.1 82.1 84.1 85.7 87.4 89.0 90.7

Abbreviations: NP: noWI phrase VP: verb phrase MV: modal verb

n: occurrence frequency cum. %: cumulative percentage "=":eq~ranking "------~marks the 75th

& the 90th percentiles

Table 5.1 shows the types offormula favoured by the business and language learners and those favoured by the native speakers, ordered from most frequently used to least frequently used. We can see from the table that both native speakers and learners rely on a certain number of formulae to produce most of their request utterances, but the two learner groups use more restricted repertoires of formulae than the native speakers do. Both the business and language learners rely on seven types of request formulae to generate 75% of their request utterances, while the native speakers use 11 types to produce the same percentage of requests. Examining the 90th percentile reveals a similar pattern -the business learners employ 13 types of formula and the language learners 14, but the native speakers use 19 types of formula to produce this percentage of utterances. Thus, the learners use a smaller repertoire of formula types than do the native speakers. This is particularly true of the business learners, who rely on only three formulae - Could you VP, Can you VP and I want - to make 53% their request utterances.

5.1.2

Differences in preferred formulae between learners and native speakers

Are the formulae learners rely on also commonly used by native speakers? The two groups of learners differ from the native speakers not only in terms of the size of their repertoire of formulae, but also in which formula types they favour. Our data show that the types of formula commonly used by learners are not the same as those usually employed by native speakers. Of the eight formulae that are employed most often by the two learner groups - Could you VP_r would like,

91

92


Would you VP, I want, Would you mind, Can you VP, VP, and May I - four are used only infrequently by the native speakers. These are May I (2.0%, ranked 14 in occurrence frequency in the native speakers), I want (1.7%, ranked 16), VP (1.7%, ranked 16), and Would you VP (1.3%, ranked 21). These four formulae together occur in 24% of all utterances by the business learners and 28% of those by the language learners, compared to only 6.6% by the native speakers. A closer examination reveals that these four formulae are syntactically simpler and shorter structures than those commonly used by the native speakers. It is interesting to note here that not only are the same eight types of formula used most often by both the business and language groups; they also follow a very similar order of usage (see Table 5.1). These eight formulae are used in request utterances more than twice as frequently by the business (79%) and language learners (78%) as by the native speakers (36%). This indicates that the advanced learners have not added new types of formula to those they commonly use; the formulae they use remain very much the same as those used by intermediate learners.

Are the formulae native speakers favour also used by learners? We have seen that learners use a more restricted range of request formulae than native speakers, and that a substantial proportion of the formulae used by learners are not commonly used by native speakers. Let us now look at this question the other way around- to see whether the formulae employed by the native speakers are also used by the learners. Our data reveal that many request formulae that the native speakers use are rarely or never used by the learners. Of the 11 formulae used most frequently by the native speakers, five - Could I VP, I wonder if, Would you be AD! to VP, I need, and I will VP - are used much less frequently by both learner groups. Could I VP is the formula type used most frequently by the native speakers (12%), but is ranked only 19 for the two groups of learners. The native speakers prefer to use I wonder i/(10%) and Would you be AD! to VP (6.3%) in the polite scenarios such as 'Reference' and 'Money: whereas the business and language learners use the former formula infrequently (< 1.7%) and do not use the latter at all. The native speakers use I need and I will VP frequently in specific scenarios - I need (to mail this letter) in 'Post' (26%), and I will (have a beeftteak)in 'Restaurant' (34%) -but, again, these expressions are rarely used by the two groups oflearners (< 1.5%). Similarly, of the 20 types of formula used most frequently by the native speakers- which are used in an extremely high proportion of their requests (92%)- 11 are rarely used by the learners. These 11 formulae include the 5 noted above, as well as How do you/can l!does it, Would it be AD! to/if, Would I be able to, Do


you think you can/could/be able to, Is it AD! if/to, and You can/could/have to. The native speakers use these six types of formula to produce a substantial proportion of their requests (12%), but they are used very infrequently by the business (0.3%) and language learners (0.7%). The formula How do you/can I!does it- e.g., How do you set up that function? [male, native speaker, 'TV'] -is used by native speakers mainly in the 'TV' scenario (27%), where very few learners use it. Closer examination shows that many of the 11 formulae that are rarely used by the learners are hi-clausal structures (cf. 3.4.4). For instance, the native speakers tend to use I wonde1· if, Would it be AD! if or Do you think you can to formulate elaborate, lengthy, and polite requests, such as Would it be at a.ll possible ifyou could write me a reforence letter? [female, native speaker, 'Reference'] or Do you think you'd be able to check a screw in the door? [male, native speaker, 'Door']. Such hi-clausal structures are used less frequently by both learner groups (cf. 6.1.2). The 11 formulae mentioned above are used regularly by the native speakers (48%), but are only used by a small proportion of business (3.8%) and language learners (4.3%). Notably absent from the learners' repertoire are (a) syntactically complex and elaborate types of formula, especially hi-clausal structures; and (b) those that are bound to particular contexts- I was wondering ifyou a.re able to write me a reference for 'Reference, I'll have (dish name) for 'Restaurant, I need to (mail this letter) for 'Post'. In terms ofL2learning, these 11 request formulae and the situations in which they are used constitute valuable knowledge that learners need to acquire if they hope to approximate native pragmatic behaviour.

Formulae commonly used by both native speakers and learners Native speakers and learners both employ seven request formulae frequently Ca.n you VP, Could you VP, Can I VP, I want, I would like, Don't VP, and Would you mind. These request formulae tend to be non-scenario specific, because their usage is spread across various scenarios. To sum up. the two learner groups and native speakers tend to employ substantially different repertoires of request formulae. 11 of the 20 formulae that native speakers frequently employ are rarely used by learners, while learners make use of a number of formulae that are not commonly used by native speakers. The learners rely heavily on a small number of formulae to communicate across different scenarios, whereas the native speakers tend to utilise more diverse types offormula from a larger repertoire to adapt to different scenarios. The language group and the business group were found to use very similar repertoires of formulae.

93

94


5.2

Individual formula types

The following two sections will focus on the individual types of formula favoured by native speakers and learners. A detailed breakdown of the use of formulae by the three groups in each scenario is contained in Appendix 3.

5.2.1

Formulae commonly used by native speakers

Let us first examine the formulae that are commonly used by native speakers but used infrequently by the learners.

Could! VP This is the type of request formula used most frequently by the native speakers (12%) in the scenarios as a whole. Could I VP is also the most commonly used formula in the two common service scenarios ('Bag, 31% and 'Bank: 19%) and one medium-large favour scenario ('MoneY, 28%) -e.g., Could I have another bag?, Could I ha11e a printout ofmy account balance please?, and Could I please borrow $50?. In other words, the native speakers use Could I VP in situations ranging from common services to large favours. By contrast, the business (0.8%) and language learners (0.7%) employ this formula extremely infrequently across the ten scenarios. Could I VP is one important type of formula that is conspicuously absent from the repertoires of the two learner groups.

CaniVP This is the formula that is used sixth most commonly by the native speakers (6.3%) across the scenarios, but ranks only 11th for the business (2.3%) and 9th for the language learners (2.7%). The native speakers tend to employ this formula in the prescribed and common service scenarios - e.g., Can I have a.notha· bag? or Can I plea..q; have the steak medium rare? In the 'Bag' scenario, 25% of the native speakers employ Can I VP, significantly more than the business (13%) and language learners (16%). A number of native speakers (16%) utilise Can I VP in 'Restaurant, a scenario in which very few learners employ it ( < 5%). By using Could I VP and Can I VP, the speaker solicits the hearer's opinion or permission regarding the speaker's right to receive what is requested. The hearer is given a say in whether the speaker deserves to have the request granted, which in turn results in either compliance with or denial of the request. The act of soliciting the hearer's opinion expresses deference, respect, and tentativeness. In comparison to the native speakers, the learner groups do not make full use of Can I VP or Could I VP, particularly in the common service scenarios.


I wonder if and Would you beAD] to VP These two request formulae sound polite, deferential and elaborate, and are frequently used by native speakers in medium-large favour scenarios such as 'Reference' and 'MoneY, but are rarely used by learners. I wonder if is the second most frequently used type offormula by the native speakers. Most native speakers (63%) employ it in 'Reference~ to request a reference from their professor- e.g., I

was just wondering if it would be possible for you to write a reference letter for me?but only a very small number of the business (5.0%) and language learners (6.7%) use it in this scenario. A considerable number of native speakers (18%) employ I wonder if in 'Money -e.g., I was wondering if! could borrow $50 from you- but few business (2.4%) and no language learners use it in this scenario. If we consider the scenarios as a whole, the native speakers (10%) employ I wonder ifsix to seven times more frequently than the business (1.5%) or language learners (1.7%).

Would you be AD] to VP is the sixth most regularly used type of formula (equal ranking with Can I VP) in the scenarios overall, but neither learner group uses it. The native speakers employ Would you be AD] to VP in several small to large favour scenarios, such as 'Door' (23%), 'Money (18%) and 'Actress' (10%)e.g., Would you be able to just fix a screw in the door before you go? and Would you be able to lend me some money?. Most of the business and language learners seem to lack the ability to utilise I wonder if and Would you be AD] to VP to formulate polite requests in medium-large favour scenarios.

I will VP This is a type of formula that 34% of the native speakers use only in the 'Restaurant' scenario- e.g., fll have a beefsteak, medium m1-e. By contrast, no learner uses this formula type in 'Restaurant' or any other scenario- I will VP thus presents an important scenario-specific formula that does not constitute part of the learners' repertoire. I need The native speakers mainly use I need in two of the prescribed/common service scenarios- 'Post' (26%) and 'Bank' (10%) -e.g., I need to send this to New York and I need a statement ofmy account balance. Unlike the native speakers, the business and language learners generally do not use I need in 'Post' (nil and 6.9% respectively) or 'Bank' (both nil).

Don'tVP Both learners and native speakers concentrate their use of Don't VP in the 'Police' scenario - e.g., Don't give me a ticket!. In 'Police' nearly half of the native speakers

95

96


(44%) utilise this type offormula, more than four times the proportion of business (10%) and language learners (18%) who use it. In sum, the native speakers frequently use certain types of formula - e.g. Can I VP and Could I VP - in a wide range of scenarios, but use other types of formula - e.g. I will ha.ve and I need- only in specific situations. These are all formula types that are rarely or never used by the two learner groups.

5.2.2

Formulae commonly used by learners

We move now to consider the formulae favoured by the learners, and compare their usage with the usage by native speakers.

Couldyou VP This is by tar the most frequently used type of formula by the business (23%) and language groups (21%) in the scenarios as a whole (Table 5.1), but is only the second most commonly used by the native speakers (10%). The learners rely on Could you VP to make requests in a broad range of scenarios, including common services and small-large favours, whereas the native speakers tend to use it only in a few common service and small favour scenarios. If we consider the types of formula that occur in more than 20 per cent of the request utterances for a given scenario to be those that are frequently used, the business learners employ Could you VP frequently in seven scenarios -'Bag: 'BanK 'TV: 'Door: 'Reference: 'MoneY, and 'Police' - and the language learners in five scenarios - 'TV: 'Door: 'Actress: 'Money; and 'Police'. The native speakers, on the other hand, use it frequently in only one scenario - 'TV'. The learners therefore rely heavily on Could you VP, regardless of whether the requesting situation is a common service or a small to large favour - e.g., Could you give me a. bag? Could you W1"ite me a 1·ejerence? Could you lend me some money? Could you let me go without giving me a ticket? and Could you teach me how to use the caption? Can you VP This is the second most commonly used formula by the business learners, and the sixth and fifth most commonly used by the language learners and native speakers respectively. Can you VP is morphosyntactically a simpler structure than Could you VP, without the conditional could. The business learners (19%) use Ca.n you VP almost as frequently as they use Could you VP, or two to three times as frequently as the language learners (9.0%) and the native speakers (6.6%) use it. For instance, in 'MoneY, one third of the business learners (34%) produce utterances such as Can you lend me some money?, but noticeably fewer language learners


(18%) and no native speakers use such expressions. Can you lend me some money probably sounds rather direct and brusque to native speakers, who prefer to use more elaborate and deferential formulae in 'MoneY, and tend to associate Can you VP with moderately polite situations. The learners, particularly the business learners, also use Can you VP frequently in other favour-asking scenarios such as 'Reference, 'Police: and 'Door: in which the native speakers rarely do so. The business learners not only employ Can you VP considerably more often than the language learners and the native speakers in the scenarios overall, but also use it in a wider range of scenarios than the language learners or native speakers do. The heavy reliance on Can you VP by the business learners in various contexts suggests that this may be a characteristic of intermediate learners.

I want This is the third most frequently used formula by the business learners (10%) and the fourth most commonly used by the language learners (10%), but ranks only 16th with the native speakers (1.7%). The two groups of learners use I want extensively to make requests in three service scenarios- 'Post, 'Restaurant' and 'Bank' - where goods or services are normally expected to be delivered - e.g., I want to post this letter to New York, I want a beef steak please, or I want a bank statement. Unlike the learners, the native speakers rarely employ I want in scenarios other than 'Post'. And in the 'Post' scenario, only 13% of the native speakers use I wa.nt, whereas 32% of the business and 31% of the language learners do so. A small number of learners also employ I want in very polite scenarios such as 'Reference' and 'MoneY, where it sounds rather blunt- e.g., I want to trouble you give me the n~Jerence letter or I want to borrow some money. This may result from L1 interference, particularly in the case ofless able learners, and will be discussed in more detail in Section 8.2 B. I would like This is the fourth most frequently used formula for the business learners (7.6%), the second most commonly used by the language learners (10%), and ranks 8th with the native speakers (5.3%).I would like is favoured by both native speakers and learners in the two prescribed service scenarios - 'Post' and 'Restaurant'. In 'Post' more native speakers (23%) than business (7.3%) or language (14%) learners use I would like; the learners tend to use I want. In 'Restaurant, more business learners (32%) and significantly more language learners (53%) than native speakers (25%) employ I would like- e.g., I would like to have a beefsteak. In this scenario, the native speakers tend to use fll have. It may be that learners rely heavily on I would like because they have not mastered alternative formulae such as fll have. In addition, 20% of business and 28% of language learners employ I would

97

98


like in the 'Bank' scenario - e.g., I would like my updated balance for my account and I would like to ha.ve a reje1-ence letter- whereas native speakers (3.2%) rarely do so. A number of business learners (13%) use I would like to ask for a reference letter ('Reference'), but no language learner or native speaker uses the formula in this scenario. In other words, the business group extends the use of I would like to request situations in which the language learner and native speaker groups do not use it. Would you mind This type of formula is frequently used by the business (5.3%, ranked 6) and Ianguage learners (9.3%, ranked 5), as well as the native speakers (7.3%, ranked 4) in the scenarios as a whole. The native speakers mainly employ Would you mind in three small-medium favour scenarios- 'Door (19%), 'Actress' (19%) and 'Reference' (13%) -e.g., Would you mind .fixing this while you are here? [male, native speaker, 'Door'] -scenarios in which the business and language learners also use it frequently- 'Door' (10% and 16% respectively), 'Actress' (13% and 13%), and 'Reference' (5.0% and 13%). A number oflanguage learners further extend their use of Would you mind to 'Bag' (19%), but the business (2.6%) and native speaker (3.1 %) groups rarely do so.

Would you VP The language learners (10%, ranked equal2) employ Would you VP much more frequently than the business learners (3.5%, ranked 8) and the native speakers (1.3%, ranked equal 22) in the scenarios as a whole. The business and language learners employ it in eight and nine scenarios respectively, while the native speakers employ it very infrequently ( < 3.6%) and only in four scenarios. The language learners use Would you VP most frequently in three favour-asking scenarios 'Reference' (23%), 'Police' (14%), and 'Door' (16%)- e.g., Would you please to [sic] W1"ite a recommenda.tion for me? [female, language learner, 'Reference'], Would you give me a precious cha.nce? [female, language learner, 'Police'], and Would you help me to fix the screw of my door? [female, language learner, 'Door']. The business group rarely uses Would you VP in the three scenarios (2.5-5.3%), and the native speakers do not use it at all.

VP Imperatives are introduced when verb phrases (VPs) form the main syntactic structure of a request utterance. In the scenarios as a whole, more business (5.8%, ranked 5) and language learners (4.3%, ranked 7) than native speakers (1.7%, ranked equal16) use VP. The native speakers (20%) utilise VP only in the 'Police' scenario - e.g., Give me a break! - where the business and language learners also


use this formula frequently (25%) but prefer a different collocation- give me a

chance (see 5.2.2). A small number of business and language learners (2.5-7.5%) use VP +please in all of the scenarios apart from 'Reference' - e.g., Please gi11e me another bag ['Bag'], Please weigh this mail for me ['Post'], Please borrow [lend] me $50 for me to buy an air ticket ['Money'], and Please demonstrate how to play captions with this TV set ['TV']. These learners rely on VP to such an extent that they do not switch to more elaborate types of formula even when asking favours. In short, these seven types of formula that are commonly used by learners are not used by native speakers in the same manner. While learners tend to employ them in a wide range of scenarios, native speakers use some types -Could you VP, Can you VP, I want, I would like, Would you VP- much less frequently, and other types - Would you mind and VP- in a more restricted range of scenarios. We have seen in the previous two sections that the two learner groups and native speakers do not favour the same set of request formulae, and that they do not employ the formulae in the same range of scenarios. The learners tend to make less use of elaborate and deferential formulae such as I wonder if and Would you be AD! to VP. They also fail to use context-specific formulae such as I will VP for 'Restaurant' and I need for 'Post'. Unlike native speakers, who readily adapt their use of formulae to different situations, learners tend to rely extensively on a small number of - often syntactically simpler - types of formula such as I would VR I want, Can/Could you VP, and Would you VP across a wide range of scenarios. This results in non-native-like, and potentially inappropriate, request utterances such as Would you lend me some money ['Money'] and I want to ask you to write a reference letters [sic] for me ['Reference'] . The language learners are only slightly more native-like than the business learners in their ability to modify request formulae to suit different scenarios, and in their use of more elaborate and syntactically more complex formulae.

5·3

Scenario-based use of formulae

Let us now examine the use of formulae by learners and native speakers in the individual scenarios.

5.3.1

The distribution of formulae across all scenarios

Both the language and business learners are statistically non-native-like in formulae distribution when the scenarios are considered as a whole (p < .001) - the difference between the business learners and the native speakers is Lf (37, N =

99

100


710) = 259.745, p = .000], and between the language learners and the native speakers is Lf (39, N = 615) = 211.596, p = .000]. A scenario-based analysis of formulae use indicates that the business learners are non-native-like in more scenarios than the language learners. The business learners differ significantly from the native speakers in nine of the ten scenarios- all but ~ctress' (p = .067) -while the language learners differ in 5 scenarios -'Restaurant, 'BanK 'Dooi, 'Reference. and 'Money' (Table 5.2). The language learners differ significantly from the native speakers in at least one scenario in each of the four groups of scenarios, and tend to differ from native speakers more in favour asking than in the prescribed and common service scenarios. A comparison of the use of formula types between the two learner groups provides a perspective on how pragmatic behaviour develops from intermediate to advanced learners. The language and business learners in our sample are statistically non-significant in their use of formula types in each of the ten scenarios (p > .05). This suggests that the advanced learners in our sample have not progressed substantially past the level of the intermediate learners in their contextbased use of request formulae. The statistical results confirm that the use offormulae presents a critical measure that distinguishes learners from native speakers - both learner groups are markedly non-native-like, both in a considerable number of scenarios and in the scenarios overall. Let us now consider the four groups of scenarios to investigate how learners and native speakers make use of formulae in different contexts. Table 5.2 Inter-group variance between the two learner groups and native speakers in formulae use in each scenario Scenario

f

N

df

p

35.732 37.847

72

73

16 10

.003** .000***

21.363 35.722 21.673

71 66 71

9 16 10

.011* .003** .017*

40.578 27.670

71 69

17 18

.067

47.953 56.935 27.538

70 69 65

14 15 12

.000*** .000*** .006**

Business vs. native A. Prescribed service

post-office restaurant B. Common service bag bank TV

c.

Small favour door actress

.001 **

D. Medium-large favour reference money police


Table5.2 (continued) N

df

p

19.382 36.240

60 64

11 8

.055 .000***

17.851 31.031 20.815

64 60 61

10 13 12

.058 .003** .053

35.517 23.337

63 61

16 16

.003** .105

38.762 47.619 19.253

60 56 53

14 15 11

.000*** .000***

14.257 9.021

70 73

14 10

.431 .530

11.796 11.330 10.413

71 64

9 11 12

.225 .416 .580

Scenario

Language vs. native A. Prescribed service


c.

Small favour door actress D. Medium-large favour reference money police

.057

Business vs.langu.age A. Prescribed service


72

c.

Small favour door actress D. Medium-large favour reference money police A. Prescribed service

14.195 13.974

68

15 16

.511 .601

18.339 15.074 11.306

70 69 68

13 13 10

.145 .303 .334

72

• p < .05, ... p < .01, ...... p < .001

5·3·2

The use formulae in the four groups of scenarios

A scenario-based examination shows that native speakers vary markedly in the formulae they use in different scenarios, while there is much less variation in the two learner groups. Table 5.3 lists the two types of formula that are most commonly used by learners and native speakers in each scenario.

101

§

J

Table 5.3 The first and the second most commonly used formulae in each scenario A. Prescribed service

Business

Language

~

-a

B. Common service

Post

Restaurant

Bag

Bank

TV

I want 3296 can you VP 1596 Iwant3196 how much/many 1796

I want 3296 I would like 3296 Iwouldlike5396 I want 2896

oould you VP 3196 may I 2696 oouldyou VP1996 would you mind 1996

I want 2696 could you VP 2696 Iwouldlike2896 I want 24%

could you VP 3496 can you VP 3296 couldyou VP3596 can you VP 1396

·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· Native I need 26% I will VP 34% oould I VP 3196 could I VP 19% could you VP 33% I would like 2396

I would like 25%

can I VP 25%

Language

can you VP 27%

D. Medium-large favour

C. Small favour

Business

can I VP 16% could you VP 16%

Door

Actress

Reference

Money

Police

could you VP 38% can you VP 28%

could you VP 1896 can you VP 13% would you like to 1396 would you mind 1396 oould you VP 2096 it Is ADJ to/that/if 1396 would you mind 1396

could you VP 30% can you VP 18%

can you VP 3496 could you VP 24%

can you VP 28%

would you VP 2396 oould you VP 1796

could you VP 4696 can you VP 1896

could you VP 2596

would you mind 2996 oould you VP 1696

I wonder if6396 would you mind 1396

can you VP 2296 could you VP 2296

VP25%

VP2596

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Native

would you be ADJ to VP 2396 would you mind 1996

could I VP 2996 I wonder if 1896 would you be ADJ to VP 1896

don't VP 4496 VP 2096

!! ...

-i ()

~

tt>

~

t""'

I;

~


Group A: Prescribed services The native speakers employ mainly direct strategies in the Group A scenarios 'Post' and 'Restaurant' - but they use different types of formula in each scenario to achieve their purpose (cf. 4.3). When requesting stamps in 'Posf. the native speakers employ I need (26%) most frequently- e.g., I need to post this to New York please. The formula I need to is specific to 'Po sf, and its use in this scenario accounts for 67% of its overall use. The second most commonly used formula in 'Post' is I would like (23%), which, unlike I need. is not specific to this scenario, because it is also used in scenarios such as 'Restaurant' and 'Bank'. To place an order in a restaurant, the native speakers use I'll have a NP (34%) -e.g., fll ha.ve a steak. They employ this type of formula exclusively in 'Restaurant, but none of the learners uses it. The learners also prefer direct strategies in the two prescribed service scenarios, but do not follow the scenario-specific formulae that native speakers utilise. To buy stamps to send a letter to New York, the native speakers' preferred expression I need to is rarely used by the business (nil) or language learners (6.9%). Instead, a considerable proportion of the business (32%) and language learners (31 %) choose to use I want in 'Po sf. Although I want expresses the speaker's strong desire to receive what is requested expediently, this formula is probably acceptable in the 'Post' situation since providing stamps is a service, and expediency should be expected when there are other customers waiting to be served. Even so, only one eighth of the native speakers employ I want, and the majority prefer less coercive request formulations - I need to and I would like. In addition, a number of business learners employ Can you VP (15%) or How much (10%) -How much for this letter? -while a moderate number of language learners utilise How much (17%) and I would like (14%). Only a few native speakers (6.5%) utilise How much in 'Po sf, possibly because the postage cost is low and not worth a specific inquiry. Both learners and native speakers avoid using Can I VP and Could I VP. These two formulae are not appropriate here, probably because sending a letter is a prescribed act in a post office, so it is unnecessary to use such indirect strategies as Can I send this letter to New York? To order food in 'Restaurant, the learners do not use the native speakers' preference in this scenariohave a (dish name)- but favour non-scenario-specific formulae - I would like and I wa.nt. The formula type I would like is the second most commonly used formula by native speakers (25%) in this scenario, and is employed by a substantial proportion of business (32%) and language learners (53%). I want is also frequently used by the business (32%) and language learners (28%), but no native speaker uses it to place orders in this relatively formal restaurant setting- e.g., I want a beefsteak. Together, these two formulae- I would like and I want- are employed by the majority of the business (63%) and language

ru

103

104


learners (81 %). A few learners use imperatives such as give me a beefsteak or let me have a beefsteak, which is noticeably more direct than the native preference I'll have. This may reflect Chinese speakers' common use of plain imperatives to order food in L1 contexts (cf. sociopragmatic interference 8.2 B.). In these two prescribed service scenarios, the learners do not follow native preferences - I need to in 'Post' and I'll have in 'Restaurant: Instead, the learners use different formulae- I want, I would like, Can you. and Could you. The chisquare tests on formulae distribution show that the business and language learners are significantly non-native-like (p < .01) in all prescribed service scenarios, the only exception being the language learners in 'Post, where the significance level is just avoided [i (11, N = 60) = 19.382, p = .055].

Group B: Common services In the common service scenarios - 'Bag, 'Bank' and 'TV'- the speakers are asking for routinely provided goods or services that they normally have the right to receive. They need only to indicate what their particular needs are. The native speakers' use of formulae does not vary much across these three scenarios. In the 'Bag' scenario, the native speakers mainly use Could I VP (31 %) and Can I VP (25%) -e.g., Could I have/grab a bag. Similarly, in 'BanK Could I VP (19%), Can I VP (16%), and Could you VP (16%) are most frequently employed formulae - e.g., Could I have a. printed statement? In the 'TV' scenario, more youbased utterances are produced than in the other two common service scenarios: the native speakers use Could you VP (33%), Can you VP (27%) and direct questions (27%) such as How do you set up that caption? Thus, the native speakers tend to employ four types of formula - Could I VP, Can I VP, Could you VP and Can you VP - in these common service scenarios. The two learner groups show dear differences from the native speakers in each of the three common service scenarios. To request a bag in the supermarket, the business and language learners mostly use you-oriented formulae such as Could you VP (31% and 19% respectively) and Can you VP (18% and 9.4%), rather than the !-oriented phrases that are most commonly used by the native speakers - Could I VP and Can I VP. As in the 'Bag' scenario, learners use the native speaker preferences - Could I VP and Ca.n I VP - only infrequently when requesting a bank statement. While the learners also use I-based request formulae, they use formulae based on more direct strategies- I want and I would VP- than those used by the native speakers. The business and language learners use I want (26% and 24% respectively), I would like (20% and 28%), and Could you VP (26% and 17%) in 'BanK but no native speaker uses I want.


In 'TV', as in 'Bag', the business and language learners mostly use Could you VP (34% and 36% respectively) and Can you VP (32% and 13%) to ask the sales person for help with the TV's functions - e.g., Could you help me function [sic] the captions? This is similar to the native speaker group, which frequently employs Could you VP (33%) and Can you VP (27%). However, the business (0%) and language learners (3.2%) rarely employ direct questions such asHow do you/ Can !/Does it - e.g., How do you show captions? - which native speakers (27%) tend to use. The business learners are significantly non-native-like in their use of formulae (p < .05) in all three common service scenarios, while the language learners are only non-native-like in 'Bani{, and just miss the significance level for 'Bag' Li (10, N = 64) = 17.851, p = .058] and 'TV' li (12, N = 61) = 20.815, p = .053]. The two learner groups favour Could you VP and Can you VP, but use direct questions and the two I- oriented formulae that the native speakers favour -Could I VP, Can I VP - only infrequently. A number of business learners also use the rather blunt I want. As in the prescribed service scenarios, the business learners in these common service situations differ from the native speakers to a greater extent than the language learners do. Group C: Small favours The two small-favour scenarios ('Door' and 'Actress') entail requests for goods or services that are not automatically delivered. It is not part of his usual job for a technician to put a screw in a door, and for a retired actress to give a short impromptu performance is normally an act of good will rather than obligation. In the small-favour scenarios, native speakers use conspicuously longer, more elaborate and polite types of formula than they use in the prescribed and common service scenarios - e.g., Would you be able to, Would you mind, and Do you think you can/could. When asking for a small favour of a technician in the 'Door' scenario, the native speakers use Would you be able to VP most frequently (23%) -e.g., Would you be able to put a screw in this door? The other formulae they tend to employ are Would you mind (20%) and Do you think you can/could/be able to (13%)- e.g., Do you think you'd be able to fix my door? These types of formula express the speaker's consideration about the hearer's willingness to comply. It is worth noting that Do you think you can/could/be able to is constructed using two clauses - Do you think and You can/could/be able to. This hi-clausal structure offers a syntactic means for native speakers to construct polite requests (cf. 6.1.2). In the 'Actress' scenario, Would you mind (29%) and Could you VP (16%) are used most frequently by the native speakers. By asking Would you mind, the

105

106


speaker queries whether the hearer (the elderly actress) feels comfortable about giving a short performance. The native speakers tend to favour Would you mind in both the 'Actress' and 'Door' scenarios, which suggests that this is a type of formula that is suitable for asking small favours. In the two small-favour scenarios, both learner groups differ significantly from the native speaker group in the 'Door' scenario, but not in the 'Actress' scenario. In 'Door', the business and language learners tend to use two formulae - Could you VP (38% and 22%) and Can you VP (28% and 22%) - to ask for a favour from the technician - e.g., Could you help me to fix the dom· please? A number of language (16%) and business learners (2.5%) also use Would you VP. These three formulae are rarely used by the native speakers- Could you VP (10%). Can you VP (3.2%). and Would you VP (nil). On the other hand, two of the three formulae that native speakers use most frequently in 'Door'- Would you be AD! to VP and Do you think you can/could/be able to -are not utilised by learners; while the other formula - Would you mind - is used less frequently by the business (10%) and language learners (16%) than by the native speakers (19%). In addition, a more polite and longer formula- Would it be AD! to/if- is used by a small number oflearners (10%)- e.g., Would it be possible ifyou could take a look - but is not used by any of the native speakers. Most of the formula types that learners and native speakers favour do not coincide, which makes both learner groups differ significantly from the native speakers in 'Door' (p < .01). 'Actress' is the only scenario in which both groups oflearners are native-like in their use of formula types. Their inter-group variances from native speakers for business learners (p = .067) and for language learners (p = .105)- do not reach the significance level for this scenario. Such native-like use of formulae largely results from the fact that the learners frequently use two formulae that native speakers also commonly use - Would you mind and Could you VP. The native speakers employ Would you mind (29%) most often, and this formula is also used by a number of business (13%) and language learners (13%). The business (18%) and language learners (20%) mostly choose to use Could you VP, which is the second most commonly used formula type by the native speakers (16%). However, the learners still diller from the native speakers in their usage of some other types of formula. Three formulae - Would you VP, Would you like to and Do you mind combined - that together are used by a considerable proportion of the business (26%) and language learners (20%) are rarely used by the native speakers (3.2%). In addition, one elaborate formula - Would you be AD! to VP - that a number of native speakers (10%) employ- e.g., Would you be able to give us a demonstra.tion?- is not used by the learners. To summarise, the two learner groups mainly rely on Could you VP and Can you VP, and also use Would you mind and Would you VP frequently in the two


small-favour scenarios. The native speakers tend to use two of these four formulae - Would you mind and Could you VP - in 'ActresS, but shift to more elaborate request formulae such as Would you be AD! to VP and Do you think you can/ could/be able to in 'Door: Unlike the native speakers, the two learner groups do not vary their use of formulae types markedly from 'Actress' to 'Door'.

Group D: Medium-large favours The three medium-to-large favour scenarios- 'Reference: 'Money' and 'Police'involve requests for goods and services that the hearer has a right to refuse to provide. When approaching their professor to ask for a reference letter, most native speakers (63%) use a specific type of formula- I wonder ifin different forms, such as I wonder ifyou. I wonder ifI can/could, and I wonder ifit would be possible. The formula I wonder if is a hi-clausal structure: the main clause is I wonde1· and the subordinate clause is if [you could or it would be possible]. Most native speakers make requests in such situations using expressions such as I just wondered if you would be able to do a letter ofreference for me, while a small number (13%) use Would you mind- e.g., Would you mind giving me a reference letter? 'Money' probably constitutes the most face-threatening scenario in this sample -a situation in which the speaker needs to borrow money from a professor in an emergency to buy an air ticket to see his/her sick parent. Some native speakers and learners informed the investigator that this was such an embarrassing situation that they would shy away from it in real life. In such a scenario, the native speakers tend to employ elaborate and formal formulae - Could I VP (29%), I wonder if(18%), Would you be able to VP (18%), Would I be able to (14%), and Would it be AD! tolif(7.1 %). The word cluster be able to occurs in three of these types of formula. Native speakers noted that the use of be able to creates a more polite and indirect request than could, because in an utterance such as Would you be able to lend [me some money], for instance, lend- the word that explicitly indicates the core of the request -comes after a longer stretch of text- Would you be able to [lend]- than is the case in Could you [lend]. Thus, longer word clusters such as be able to appear to be another linguistic device that native speakers use to express indirectness and deference, in addition to hi-clausal structures. Interestingly, when asking a police officer not to give them a ticket ('Police') most native speakers opt for direct requests- Don't VP (44%) and VP (20%) [e.g., Don't give me a ticket and Gi11e me a break] -both imperatives. In the three medium-large favour scenarios, the native speakers tend to use syntactically complex structures such as hi-clausal structures and longer word clusters [e.g., be able to] to render polite requests. This confirms our conclusion that syntactically elaborate structures correlate strongly with native speakers' requests for larger favours. This said, a considerable number of native speakers still

107

108


choose to employ mono-clausal utterances such as Could I VP (29%) in 'Money'e.g., Could I bo1Tow some money? This suggests that it is not considered entirely inappropriate by native speakers to use Could I VP to make requests in situations in which a high level of politeness is required. By contrast, learners use the expressions most commonly used by native speakers -I wonder if in 'Reference: and Could I VP in 'Money' - infrequently. To request a reference letter, the business and language learners employ three formulae- Could you VP (30% and 17% respectively), Would you VP (5.0% and 23%) and Ca.n you VP (18% and 10%) -that they also rely on heavily both to request small favours and in a number of the service scenarios. Unlike the learners, the native speakers rarely use the three formulae Could you VP (3.3%), Can you VP (0%), and Would you VP (0%) in 'Police'. Only a small number of business (5.0%) and language learners (6.7%) use the native speaker preference I wonder ifin 'Reference: The formula used second most commonly by native speakers - Would you mind (13%)- is frequently used by the language learners (13%), but not by the business learners (5.0%). In the 'Reference' scenario, both the language and business learners difrer significantly from native speakers in terms of formulae use (p < .001). In the scenario that calls for them to borrow money from a professor ('Money'), the business and language learners rely on the same three types of formula they favour in 'Reference'- Could you VP (24% and46% respectively), Would you VP (4.9% and 7.1 %), and Can you VP (34% and 18%) -whereas only 7.2% of the native speakers use these types offormula. A number of business and language learners also employ mind-based request formulae- Would you mind (4.9% and 7.1% respectively) and Do you mind (2.4% and 3.6%) - that are not used by the native speakers. According to the native speakers, Would you mind is normally used to ask small favours- e.g., Would you mind closing the door? This is confirmed by our data (see Table 5.3). Would you mind and Do you mind are unlikely to be considered appropriate by native speakers in the 'Money scenario, because borrowing money can be a sensitive issue and normally entails a large favour. No learner utilises the native preferences in 'Money'- Could I VP, I wonder if, Would you be able to, Would I be able to and Would it be AD! to/if- apart from one business learner who uses I wonder if in one case. In 'MoneY, the formulae favoured by native speakers and learners are quite different: the learners are not able to utilise the more polite and elaborate formulae that the native speakers favour. In the 'Police' scenario, the business and language learners prefer indirect strategies, as can be seen from the two formulae they favour - Ca.n you VP (28% and 7.1% respectively) and Could you VP (20% and 25%). The native speakers tend to use direct requests such as Don't VP (44%) and VP (20%), which are also used, but less frequently, by the business and language learners: Don't VP (10%

Chapter 5. Formulaic expressions 109

and 18% respectively) and VP (both 25%). In addition, the learners' formulations of VP in this scenario introduce a special feature - a considerable number ofbusiness (18%) and language learners (18%) produce VP-type requests that include give me a chance- e.g., Please give me a chance. Although syntactically an imperative, give me a. chance does not sound as direct and blunt as Give me a break. The former implies that the speaker acknowledges his/her wrong doing, shows regret, and asks the hearer who is in the decisive position not to impose the penalty, while the latter tends to indicate the speaker's bad humour. Give me a chance may be a lexical collocation specific to Chinese speakers, because no native speaker in the sample employs it. It is also bound to this situation, because the learners do not use it in any other scenario. In 'Police: the two groups of learners employ the formulae Can/Could you VP and Give me a chance, which are more polite and more indirect than the formulae Don't VP and Give me a break that are favoured by the native speakers. The business group is significantly non-native-like in the choice of types offormula (p < .01), whereas the language group is just above the significance level (p = .053). In sum, in all scenarios that entail a medium-large favour apart from 'Police: the native speaker group uses elaborate and syntactically complex types of formula and tends to employ linguistic devices such as hi-clausal structures and longer word clusters. The two learner groups, on the other hand, continue to rely on simpler and less varied types of request formula such as Can you VP and Could you VP, and rarely use bi -clausal structures and longer word clusters. Statistically, both learner groups are significantly non-native-like in all medium-large favour scenarios, the only exception being the language group in 'Police' (see Table 5.2).

Changing formula use in different scenarios Across the four groups of scenarios, the native speakers adjust their use offormulae markedly in different contexts. To ask for prescribed goods or services ('Restaurant' and 'Post'), native speakers favour direct types of formula such as I need, I would like, I'll VP, and direct questions. For routine services ('Bag, 'Bank' and 'TV'), they shift to conventionally-indirect types of formula - Could I VP, Can I VP, and Could you VP. When asking for small favours ('Door' and 'Actress'), they prefer to use the types of formula that show consideration of the hearer's inclination to comply, such as Would you mind and Would you AD! to VP. When asking for medium-large favours ('Reference' and 'Money), native speakers tend to use conspicuously longer and more elaborate types of formula - e.g., I wonder ifand Would you AD! to VP. In addition, scenario-specific formulae emerge in the native speaker sample -I wonder if associated with 'Reference, I'll have NP with 'Restaurant: Don't VP [give me a ticket] with 'Police, and I need with 'Post'.

uo Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners

The business and language groups also vary their use of formula types across scenarios. However, since the learners have not mastered many of the types of formula that native speakers frequently use, they are unable to shift their use of formulae across the four groups of scenarios as distinctly as native speakers are. Both learner groups commonly use I want, I would like and direct questions in the prescribed service scenarios, and fail to use the formulae most commonly used by the native speakers- fll have (dish name) in 'Restaurant: and I need to (send this letter) in 'Post'. The business and language learners change to conventionallyindirect requests and make frequent use of Ca.n you VP and Could you VP in all of the common service scenarios apart from 'Bank: although they still tend to use direct requests formulated with I want and I would like in 'Bank'. The two learner groups do not make use of Could I VP and Can I VP, which are frequently used by the native speakers. When asking for small favours, both business and language learners continue to rely on Can you VP and Could you VP, the same types of formula they use frequently in the common service scenarios, but use Would you mind much less frequently than the native speakers. For medium-large favour scenarios, both learner groups again rely heavily on Can you VP and Could you VP, and seem unable to make use of elaborate and deferential formulae such as I wonder if, Would you be AD] to VP, and Do you think you can/could/be able to. The learner groups therefore rely heavily on a restricted repertoire of formulae such as Can/Could you, I would like, and I want, and adapt their use of types of formula much less than native speakers do across the four groups of scenarios. Both groups of learners are very similar in how they vary their use of formulae in difterent scenarios.

5·4

Formulae-based vs. strategy-based examination

Our sample reveals greater differences between the learner and native speaker groups in terms of formula use than strategy use. A scenario-based examination indicates that statistically the business group difters from native speakers in five scenarios in the use of strategies, and nine scenarios in the use of formulae; while the language group differs in three scenarios in the use of strategies, and five in the use of formulae (see Table 4.3 and Table 5.2). In 'Post: 'Restaurant: 'Bag' and 'Doof, the business learners are native-like in their use of strategies, but significantly non-native-like in their use of formulae; while this is also true of the language learners in the 'Bank', 'Door: 'Reference' and 'Money' scenarios. This suggests that learners' use of different types of formula presents another useful measure, which can be used in conjunction with strategy use to provide a more comprehensive picture oflearners' pragmatic competence.


Categorisation of formulae tends to be more fine-grained than stratification of strategies. For example, the most frequently used strategy type -the 07 QuERY PREPARATORY -is not further divided into sub-categories in the present study, so all request utterances of 07 QuERY PREPARATORY types are considered the same. However, learners and native speakers choose to use very different types of formula to express the 07 QuERY PREPARATORY -learners frequently use Could you VP, Can you VP, Would you VP, Would you mind and May I, while native speakers favour I wonder if, Could I, Do you think you can/could, Would you be AD! to VP, Would it beAD! to/if, Would! be able to, and Is it AD! if/to. In this case, a formulabased examination graphically captures such differences in lexical formulation, while a strategy-based analysis is less illuminating. Similarly, a formula-based examination shows that learners rely on I want and I would like to express 05 WANT STATEMENT strategies, whereas native speakers prefer more scenario-specific types of formula such as I'll have, and I need to (send). Such empirical evidence shows that a formula-based examination provides crucial information that cannot be captured by a strategy-based analysis. This strongly suggests that the use of formulae needs to be recognized as an essential element in the examination of learners' pragmatic competence.

111

CHAPTER6

Internal modifications

Internal modifiers are linguistic devices used in the head act of request utterances that generally serve to mitigate the tone of the request (cf. 3.4.4). In this chapter, we focus on two types of internal modifications: (a) syntactic modifiers- conditionals and hi-clausal structures; and (b) lexical modifiers -lexical downgraders and address terms.

6.1

Syntactic modifiers

6.1.1

Conditionals

Conditionals are a commonly used linguistic device that serves to express tentativeness in requests. For example, Could you sounds more indirect and less coercive than Can you. In our sample, the native speaker group uses conditionals in 62% of their requests in the scenarios as a whole. While the language learners (58%) use such devices almost as frequently as the native speakers, the business group (45%) uses them much less frequently. The language group is native-like in its use of conditionals when the scenarios are taken as a whole (1, N = 615) = .705,p = .401], whereas the business group is significantly non-native-like Li (1, N = 710) = 19.273, p < .001]. A scenario-based analysis shows that, statistically, both learner groups are native-like in the five prescribed and common service scenarios, but significantly non-native-like in the five favour-asking scenarios (Table 6.1). Around half the native speakers (between 41% and 61 %) use conditionals across the range of prescribed and common service scenarios. In the same scenarios, the language learners (28% to 69%) generally use conditionals more frequently than the native speakers, while the business learners (27% to 56%) employ them rather less frequently (Table 6.2). By contrast, in the favour-asking scenarios ('Dooi, 'ActresS, 'Reference' and 'Money'), most native speakers use conditionals (84% to 100%), whereas the two learner groups continue to use conditionals to roughly the same extent that they use them in the prescribed and common service scenarios - 37% to 60% for the business learners, and 58% to 74% for the language learners. The

Lr

114 Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners

Table 6.1 Chi-square tests for differences between learner and native speaker groups in scenario-based use of conditionals Scenario

Language vs. Native

Business vs. Native

f A. Prescribed service Post 1.550 Restaurant .385 B. Common service Bag .166 .330 .845

Bank

p

f

N

73 73

.213 .535

1.146 1.000

61 64

.284 .317

66 72

.684 .566 .358

1.564 .004 3.578

64 60 63

.211 .951 .059

.000*** .017*

9.908 5.010

63 62

.002** .025*

.000*** .000*** .018*

9.459 6.407 9.416

63 57 58

.002** .011* .002**

N

TV Small favour Door 16.357 Actress 5.680 D. Medium-large favour Reference 16.457 Money 21.849 Police 5.548

df

df

p

c.

72

71 72

69 69

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *•* p < .001

Table 6.2 The distribution of conditionals in the four groups of scenarios A. Prescribed service

Business n %

Language n %

Native n %

B. Common service

C. Small favour


Post

Restau

Bag

Bank

TV

11 26.8%

15 36.6%

16 39.0%

19 54.3%

23 56.1%

22 53.7%

23 24 57.5% 60.0%

15 36.6%

12 30.0%

8 27.6%

18 56.3%

19 18 59.4% 62.1%

22 68.8%

21 65.6%

18 23 58.1% 74.2%

19 65.5%

12 41.4%

13 40.6%

14 43.8%

14 43.8%

14 45.2%

30 26 32 26 96.8% 83.9% 100.0% 92.9%

2 6.9%

19 61.3%

Door Actress

Ref

Money Police

results for the remaining favour-asking scenario - 'Police' - present the opposite picture: very few native speakers (7%) make use of conditionals here, whereas a substantial proportion of business (30%) and language learners (41 %) use them. Taken together, both business and language learners difrer significantly from native speakers across all five favour-asking scenarios (see Table 6.1).

Chapter 6. Internal modifications

Our data show that conditionals constitute a linguistic property that is relied on heavily by native speakers in moderately to extremely polite situations in which they need to ask for some type of favour. However, learners do not make use of conditionals in polite situations to the same extent. For example, in the 'Reference' scenario, while all of the native speakers employ conditionals in their requests, only 60% ofbusiness and 74% oflanguage learners do so (cf. Table 6.2). Let us now consider specific examples of request utterances by native speakers and learners when asking for a fuvour. I want to trouble you give me the letter. [male, business learner, 'Reference') b. I want to ask you to write a reference letters [sic] for me. [female, language learner, 'Reference'] c. I hope you can write a reference letters [sic] for me. [female, business learner, 'Reference'] d. Can you help me to write a reference letters [sic]? [female, language learner, 'Reference'] e. Can you just lend me $50? [male, business learner, 'Money'] f. Do you mind to perform [sic] a short segment of the scene? [female, language learner, ~ctress'] g. Can you help me to install it if you have a [sic] time? [male, business learner, 'Door'] h. Could I possibly borrow $50? [female, native speaker, 'Money'] i. Would you be able to just fix a screw in the door before you go? [male, native speaker, 'Door']

(16) a.

Utterances (a) to (g) are noticeably direct and tend to sound in appropriately coercive. This coerciveness could have been toned down substantially if conditionals had been employed - e.g., with the use of I would like to trouble you rather than I want in (a), I hope you could write rather than I hope you can in (c), Could you just lend me for Can you[ ... ] in (e), and Would you mind performing for Do you mind [... ] in (f). This suggests that the learners have not mastered the use of conditionals well enough to be able to effectively mitigate their requests. By contrast, the native speakers strongly favour conditionals when asking favours, as demonstrated in (h) Could I and (i) Would you be able to.

6.1.2

Bi-clausal structures

Bi-clausal structures are another important syntactic device that native speakers use to make polite requests. We saw in the previous chapter that hi-clausal structures tend to occur in elaborate formulae -e.g., I wonder if, Would it be ADJ if, Do

115

116


you think you can/could/be able to and Is it AD! if- that are used by native speakers in polite situations. The business (7.0%) and language learner groups (7.5%) employ hi-clausal structures less than half as frequently as the native speaker group (16%) in the scenarios as a whole. Statistically, both learner groups differ from the native speakers across the scenarios as a whole: for the business learners li (2, N = 710) = 16.472, p = .000], and for the language learners li (2, N = 615) = 11.950, p = .003]. The native speaker group rarely uses hi-clausal structures in the prescribed and common service scenarios, but uses them frequently in the favour-asking scenarios (apart from 'Police')- e.g., 72% in 'Reference' and 29% in 'Door~ using utterances such as I was wondering if you would be able to ·write a reference letter for me? and Do you think you(l be able to fix my door? The learners broadly follow this trend of favouring hi-clausal structures in the favour-asking scenarios, although they tend to use hi-clausal structures much less frequently than native speakers do. For example, 20% of the business and 19% of the language learners use hi-clausal structures in 'Reference: and 15% of business and 23% of language learners employ them in ~ctress'. On the other hand, both learner groups employ bi -clausal structures in no more than 5% of the requests in each of the five service scenarios (see Table 6.3). A number of the request formulae commonly used by the native speakers are hi-clausal structures. For example, the native speaker group relies heavily on I wonder if(63%) in 'Reference: and uses several hi-clausal formulae in 'Door'- Do you think you couldlyou(l be able to (13%), I wonder ifyou (6.5%), and I don't suppose you could, fd be AD! ifyou and Would it be ADJ ifyou (9.3% combined). Table 6.3 The distribution ofbi-clausal structures in the four groups of scenarios

A. Prescribed service Post

Restau


Bank

Business n %

C. Small favour

TV

Native n %

3.4%

3.1% 3 9.4%

3 9.7%

Ref

Money Police

2 4.9%

4 10.0%

6 15.0%

8 20.0%

7 17.1%

2.5%

3.1%

4 12.5%

7 22.6%

6 19.4%

2 7.1%

3.4%

3.2%

9 29.0%

5 16.1%

23 71.9%

5 17.9%

3.4%

Language n %

Door Actress



(17) a. b. c. d. e. f.

I was wondering if you would be willing to provide me with a reference for my resume. [male, native speaker, 'Reference'] Would it be at all possible ifyou could write me a reference letter. [female, native speaker, 'Reference'] I was wondering if I could borrow $50 from you. [female, native speaker, 'Money'] Do you think you would be able to perform for us? [female, native speaker, 'Actress'] I'd love it if you could do a bit from your movie! [male, native speaker, 'Actress'] Do you reckon youa be able to check a screw in the door? [male, native speaker, 'Door']

In (a) to (f), the native speakers use various formulations of the main-clause -I was wondering, Would it be possible, Do you think/reckon and I'd love it- to introduce the subordinate if and that clauses. The hi-clausal structures are longer, more elaborate, and sound more deferential and indirect, which makes them appropriate for making polite requests. By contrast, the learner groups tend to use mono-clausal request utterances to ask for favours: (17) g.

Could you do me a favor to write a reference letter for me? [male, business learner, 'Reference'] h. May I ask for your help for one reference letter? [female, language learner, 'Reference'] i. Would you mind helping me fix it? [female, business learner, 'Door'] j. Would you act it again? [temale, language learner, 'Actress']

In (g) to Q), the learners do not use hi-clausal structures, although they employ conditionals such as Could you and Would you and a polite modal such as May I. The utterances can be further modified into hi-clausal structures: Could you do me a favou1· in (g) can be changed to I was wonde1·ing ifyou could [... ] or Do you think you could[ ... ], and Would you act in G) can be changed to ICl appreciate it ifyou would[ ... ]. In only a few instances do the learners use hi-clausal structures (see Table 6.3). ( 18) a. b. c.

I was wondering if youa mind writing me a reference letter. [male, business learner, 'Reference'] I would be grateful if you can help me to write this letter. [temale, language learner, 'Reference'] I hope that you would be please to write me a reference letters. [temale, language learner, 'Reference']

117

us


d. e.

It would be nice if you could fix a screw of this door? [female, language learner, 'Door'] Would you please see if you could help me for that? [female, language learner, 'Door']

In (a) to (e), the two learner groups employ I was wondering ij; I would be grateful if, I hope tha.t, It would be nice if, and Would you please see ifto formulate hi-clausal structures. However, they do not use some of the other hi-clausal formulations that the native speakers employ - Do you think/reckon, Would it be possible if and I don't suppose you could. Thus, the learners have a more restricted repertoire of formulae that they can use to construct hi-clausal requests. In addition, the native speakers often employ a combination of conditionals and hi-clausal structures to formulate polite requests. For example, in I was wondering ifyou could write a. reference for me, the conditional could and the hiclausal structure I was wondering ifyou could are both present. Request utterances that use two di:trerent types of syntactic modifier tend to express a higher level of politeness, deference, and non -coerciveness. Such utterances occur in 11% of the requests by native speakers across all scenarios, which is substantially more frequently than in those by the business group (1.0%) or the language group (2.3%). The native speakers (14% to 66%) tend to employ the two syntactic modifiers together in the favour-asking scenarios, apart from 'Police: compared to usage of only 0% to 5% for the business group and 3.2% to 10% for the language group (see Table 6.4). The native speakers and a small number of learners tend to use a combination of conditionals and bi-clausal structures to ask for favours. Requests with Table 6.4 Requests with both hi-clausal structures and conditionals by native speakers and learners by scenario


Restau

c. Small


Bank

favour

TV

Door Actress

Business n %

Language n %

Native n %

1 3.1%

1 3.2%


Money Police

2.4%

2 5.0%

1 2.5%

2 6.3%

3.2%

3 9.7%

1 3.4%

4 12.9%

4 12.9%

21 65.6%

4 14.3%


a combination of two syntactic modifiers occur most frequently in 'Reference'66% for the native speakers, 10% for the language learners, and 2.5% for the business learners (see Table 6.4). (19) a.

b. c. d. e.

I was wondering ifyoua be able to write me a reference letter? [female, native speaker, 'Reterence'] I was just wondering if you would mind being a referee for me? [male, native speaker, 'Reterence'] I was wondering if you'd be able to fix this door for me too please. [female, native speaker, 'Door'] I was wondering ifyoua mind writing me a reference letter. [male, business learner, 'Reference'] I would highly appreciate [sic] if I could have your recommendation. [female, language learner, 'Reference']

Requests (a) to (e) are longer, more elaborate and more polite. Like the native speakers in (a) to (c), a small number of the learners are able to produce utterances such as (d) and (e) using conditionals- wouldinyouCl and could in I couldand hi -clausal structures - I was wondering ifyouCl and I would highly appreciate

ifI could.

6.2

Lexical modifiers

Let us now move on to examine the two types oflexical modifier used by learners and native speakers - lexical downgraders and address terms.

6.2.1

Lexical downgraders

Lexical downgraders are used less frequently by the two learner groups than by the native speakers across the range of scenarios - 10% by native speakers, 4.2% by business learners and 3.9% by language learners. Statistically, both groups of learners differ significantly from the native speakers in their use oflexical downgraders: for the business group [x2 (1, N = 710) = 8.445, p = .004], and for the language group [x2 (1, N = 615) =8.093,p = .004]. Lexical downgraders such as look, you kno'M{ just, at all, maybe, and possibly, which are underlined in (a) to (k), function to mitigate the imposing force of requests.

119

120


(20) a.

b. c. d. e. f.

Look,[ ... ], would you be able to help me[ ... ]. [female, native speaker, 'Money'] I'd j!ill; like to post this to New York. [female, native speaker, 'Post'] I'd be really grateful if you could also j!ill; have a quick look at my door. [female, native speaker, 'Door'] Would it be at all possible if you could write me a reference letter? [female, native speaker, 'Reference'] Maybe you could act that out for us all? [male, native speaker, 'Actress'] Could you possibly lend me $50 for a flight home. [male, native speaker, 'Money']

In (a), the native speaker uses look, not to invite the hearer to watch something physically, but to introduce a topic and to invite the hearer to be involved in the speaker's utterance. Look is considered a cajoler in the coding scheme used in the CCSARP project (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b). The learners in this sample do not make use of look, but some do employ another cajoler -you know, as in (g) - to attract the hearer's attention and prepare the hearer to consider the speaker's request. The act of involving and preparing the hearer mitigates the imposing force of the request. The native speaker group also employs another type oflexical downgrader - the understater (cf. Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b: Appendix). For example, in (b) and (c), by using just in I'd just like to and if you could just, the speaker suggests that what is requested is something simple and straightforward, which makes the request sound less coercive than f d like to or ifyou could. Similarly; in (d) to (f), at all (in Would it be a.t all possible), maybe (in Maybe you could), and possibly (in Could you possibly) mitigate the imposing force and make the requests sound more indirect and tentative. The two groups of learners are able to use just in a number of instances, as in requests (h) to Q), but do not use at all in this sample. Thus, the native speakers use lexical downgraders more frequently and show more variety in their choices than the learners do. (20) g.

I wantto know about how to play captions, you know [... ] [male, business learner, 'TV'] h. Could you j!ill; lend me $50 for my need? [male, business learner, 'Money'] i. Could you j!ill; give me a chance? [male, business learner, 'Police'] j. I j!ill; wonder if we can have the honor to invite you to perform. [female, language learner, ~ctress'] k. May be [Maybe] we can look for it together. [female, language learner, 'Door']

There is a general tendency for both native speakers and learners to use lexical downgraders more frequently in the favour-asking scenarios (see Table 6.5). The


Table 6.5 The use of lexical downgraders by native speakers and learners by scenario A. Prescribed service Post

Restau

Business n % Language n % Native n 2 % 6.3%


Bank

C. Small favour

TV

Door Actress

1 2.4% 1 3.1%

3.1%

3.2%

2 6.3%


Ref

Money Police

1 2.5%

6 17.5% 14.6%

2 5.0%

3 9.7%

2 6.5%

3 10.3%

1 3.4%

9 6 5 3 3 29.0% 19.4% 15.6% 10.7% 10.3%

native speaker group uses lexical downgraders most frequently in the 'Door' scenario - in which they ask a favour of a technician - e.g., Would you be able to jM§tfix a screw in the door before you go? [underlining added]. The two learner groups use significantly fewer lexical downgraders than the native speaker group in 'Door': for the business group (p < .01) and for the language group (p < .05). Overall, there is room for both business and language learners to utilise a wider range of lexical downgraders that native speakers commonly use - e.g., look, at a.ll, possibly - and to employ them more frequently.

6.2.2

Address terms

A speaker can choose appropriate names or terms to address his/her hearer in order to express politeness. The business (42%) and language (32%) learners use address terms significantly more frequently in their requests than the native speakers (12%), who use them across all scenarios (p < .001). Sir is the term of address used most frequently by the learners - 18% by the business learners and 12% by the language learners across the scenarios, but only 2% by the native speakers. The native speaker group (6.9%) uses sir only to address the police officer in the 'Police' scenario. By contrast, the business and language learners use sir to address a range of hearers - the cashier in 'Post: the waiter in 'Restaurant: the shop assistant in 'TV: and the technician in 'Door' (Table 6.6). Addressing hearers other than the police officer as sir demonstrates that the learners do not have native-like sociolinguistic knowledge of when to use, or not use sir. Unlike the learners, the native speakers use no address terms at all in 'Post, 'Restaurant' and 'TV: and only a small proportion of native speakers (13%) use

121

122


Table 6.6 Most commonly used address terms by native speakers and learners by scenario B. Common


Restau

16 39.0%

5 12.2%

C. Small favour

service Bag

Bank

TV

Door

2.9%

10 24.4%

12 29.3%

Actress


Money

Police

2 2.5%

4.9%

25 62.5%

Sir Business n

% Language n

% Native

5 17.2%

4

8

12.5%

25.0%

18 62.1%

3.2%

n

2

%

6.9%

Professor Business n

% Language n

% Native

14 35.0%

2.4%

17 54.8%

3.4%

n

9

%

32.1%

Doctor Business n

% Language n

% Native

33 80.5% 23

79.3%

n

13

%

46.4%

Officer Business n

% Language n

% Native

6 15.0% 4 13.8%

n

8

%

27.6%


mate in 'Door'. Australian English speakers, particularly young male speakers, employ mate to address their friends, their colleagues, and new acquaintances that they want to approach in a friendly and casual manner (Wierzbicka 1997). The fact that some native speakers address the technician in 'Door' as mate suggests that they are seeking friendly and informal social contact. This common colloquialism is not used by any of the learners. Using sir to address the technician, the waiter and the shop assistant is non-native-like and may sound unnecessarily formal in these situations. Pmfessor and Doctor are the terms of address used most frequently by both learners and native speakers, and are employed more frequently by the business and language learners than by the native speakers (Table 6.6). The native speakers use these two terms of address only in the 'Money scenario, whereas the two learner groups use them in both 'Money' and 'Reference'. Officer is the second most commonly used address term by the native speaker group. Both native speakers and learners only use officer to address the police officer in the 'Police' scenario - the scenario in which the learner groups strongly prefer the use of sir to officer, whereas the native speakers favour officer (see Table 6.6). Further, the business learners employ waiter (24%) and sir (12%) when addressing the waiter in the 'Restaurant' scenario, while the language learners and native speakers do not use these two terms at all. The business and language learners also employ Madam, Miss, lady and even cashier (9.4% to 17%) to address the cashiers in the 'Bag' and 'Bank' scenarios, whereas the native speakers do not use any address terms here. This indicates that the business learners in particular do not have native-like knowledge of the appropriate usage of terms of address such as si1·, madam and waiter.

6.3

Summary

The two learner groups differ from the native speakers in many ways in their use of syntactic and lexical modifiers. The learners employ syntactic modifiers- conditionals and, more particularly, hi-clausal structures - less frequently than the native speakers. In addition, they do not concentrate their use of syntactic modifiers in the favour-asking situations to the extent that the native speakers do. The two learner groups use fewer lexical downgraders than the native speakers, but employ terms of address more frequently; and tend to choose some address terms that native speakers rarely use in these situations. Finally, the business learners differ from the native speakers to a greater degree than the language learners do in these respects.

123

CHAPTER7

External modifications and utterance length

In this chapter, we will first examine the supportive moves used by the learners and native speakers in our sample in terms of their frequency of occurrence and position in the request utterance. We will then investigate the length of request utterances by the native speakers and learners, based on an understanding that the use of supportive moves contributes substantially to utterance length.

7.1

External modifications

Supportive moves are used to elaborate on or justify requests. For example, we could add the supportive move - Its cold in here - to the request Could you close the door?, to explain to the hearer why the door needs to be shut Supportive moves are considered to be a form of external modification because they occur outside the head act of the request (cf. 3.4.5).

7.1.1

Supportive moves

The learners in our sample produce noticeably more supportive moves than the native speakers. Both business and language groups employ an average of 1.7 supportive moves per request utterance across the ten scenarios, whereas the native speaker group uses only 1.1 supportive moves per request. Statistically, the two learner groups differ significantly from the native speakers in their use of supportive moves in the scenarios as a whole (p < .01). Both the learners and native speakers tend to use supportive moves more frequently to ask for favours than to request prescribed and common services, a trend that was also observed in their use of internal modifications. 'Money' the most face-threatening scenario in our sample- is the scenario in which supportive moves are used most frequently by both learners and native speakers. Supportive moves also occur frequently in other scenarios that entail a medium-to-large favour, such as 'Police: 'Door' and 'Reference' (see Table 7.1). By contrast, supportive moves are employed conspicuously less frequently by learners and native speakers in the prescribed and common service scenarios. For example, supportive moves

126


Table7.1 The use of supportive moves by learners and native speakers by scenario A. Prescribed service

Business s. move request ratio Language s. move request ratio Native s. move request ratio

C. Small favour

B. Common service


Post

Rest au

Bag

Bank

TV

46 41 1.1

7 41 0.2

34 39 0.9

43 35 1.2

48 41 1.2

81 39 2.1

66 38 1.7

87 40 2.2

135 41 3.3

127 40 3.2

29 29 1.0

6 32 0.2

27 32 0.8

29 1.3

29 31 0.9

58 32 1.8

49 30 1.6

54 30 1.8

121 28 4.3

109 28 3.9

19 30 0.6

32 0.0

12 32 0.4

16 31 0.5

16 26 0.6

53 31 1.7

28 31 0.9

36 30 1.2

84 28 3.0

58 25 2.3

Door Actress

Ref

Money Police

s. move= supportive move ratio =the number of supportive moves per request utterance

are used most infrequently by both learners and native speakers in the 'Restaurant' scenario. This suggests that the respondents consider that ordering food in a restaurant situation constitutes part of the prescribed service, and that justifications are therefore not necessary. When we compare the use of supportive moves by the two learner groups, we see that the business and language groups are very similar in terms of the number of supportive moves per request across the ten scenarios. (21) a. b. c. d. e.

f.

g.

This is a bit heavy. Can I have another bag? [male, native speaker, 'Bag'] I love that movie! Could you perform a segment of the scene for me? [female, native speaker, ~ctress'] While you are here, would you mind doing a small favour for me? It's just this one screw to replace. [male, native speaker, 'Door'] I just noticed one of the doors is missing a screw, could you just fix that up for me? [male, native speaker, 'Door'] Excuse me officer, this is my car. I was stuck in a queue at the takeaway shop. Is it possible to let me off this time? I was as quick as I could be? [temale, native speaker, 'Police'] Would you mind writing a referal [sic] for me as I am applying for a job? [male, native speaker, 'Reference'] Dr Davis, I hate to do this but I've just found out my Mum's sick, I need to fly home but my account is overdrawn, would I be able to borrow $50 dollars and as soon as I get home I'll get my Father to wire the money to you. [male, native speaker, 'Money']

Chapter 7. External modifications and utterance length

h.

I know this is a big ask, and I completely understand ifyou say no, but my mother is quite sick. I need to get home. I've got to book my flight today, but I can't get all my money from the ATM. Could I please borrow $50 and I'll pay you back first thing in the morning? [female, native speaker, 'Money')

The native speakers demonstrate various ways of using supportive moves, such as the instances cited in (21). The head acts in (a) to (h) are underlined, and the remaining parts of the utterance can be considered as supportive moves. By saying This is a bit heavy, the speaker in (a) outlines the problem, that the bag is heavy, which explains the need for another bag. The speaker in (b) expresses her affection for the movie in which the hearer played a major role. This suggests that the movie is good, and thus the speaker implicitly praises the actress. In Brown and Levinson's terms (1987), I love the movie enhances the hearer's positive face by expressing appreciation and approval of the hearer's abilities and achievements (cf. 2.1.4). It suggests that in such a context it should be a pleasure for the hearer to give a short performance for her admirer. In (d), the speaker offers some background information - he has just noticed that a screw is missing - which leads to his request for the hearer to fix the screw. This type of supportive move is termed a "grounder" in the CCSARP coding scheme. Speakers often need to provide a certain amount of background information to enable the hearer to understand their request: e.g., It's just this one screw to replace in (c) shows what the technician is expected to do; I am applying for a job in (f) indicates the purpose for which the reference letter is needed; and my Mum's sick, I need to fly home and my account is ove1·dra.wn in (g) offer even more background information. The native speakers tend to employ multiple supportive moves in the 'Police' and 'Money' scenarios. When asking the police officer not to issue a ticket, the speaker in (e) employs several supportive moves: she attracts the officer's attention using excuse me officer, offers the information that the car belongs to her, and explains why she was late -I was stuck in a queue a.t the takeaway shop. Only at this point does she make her request- Is it possible to let me off this time? She completes her request by supplying still more information - I was as quick as I could be -which indicates that she did not intend to be late and that she was rather unlucky to get into this situation. The supportive moves she uses not only justify her request, but also present a reason for the police officer to give her case special consideration. Extended use of supportive moves is also found in 'Money'. In (h), for example, the speaker first acknowledges that her request is an imposition on the hearer - I know this is a big ask - and gives the hearer an exit -I completely understand ifyou say no. In doing so, the speaker presents herself in a deferential, considerate and non-coercive way. This invites the hearer to behave in a similar manner in return, and thus makes it more difficult for the

127

u.s Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners

hearer to decline the request. This strategy- whereby the speaker acknowledges the potential difficulty for the hearer in complying - is known as "disarming" the hearer in the CCSARP coding scheme. The native speakers in our sample often admit that their request is an imposition when they ask a favour - e.g., I know it's a lot to ask ['Money'] or I know you don't have to ['Door'] -whereas the learners do not do so. To return to (h), the speaker provides background information about her sick mother, her flight booking, and the problem with the ATM withdrawal limit, and then makes her request- Could I please borrow $50? She concludes her request by promising to pay the money back very quickly. The supportive moves used in (h) carefully explain what the problem is, leave the hearer with an exit, and promise the prompt return of the money. Utterance (h) shows how a native speaker utilises a number of supportive moves to formulate a polite and convincing request in a face-threatening situation such as 'Money' Like the native speakers, the business and language learners show highly sophisticated use of supportive moves across the scenarios (see 7.2). The head acts of the requests are underlined. (22) a.

Sorry, could you give me another bag, please? Since I want to have another bag to carry my goods. [female, language learner, 'Bag'] b. Sorry, sir. My letter is too heavy. I think it should be weighed and stamped. Could you where should it be done? [female, business learner, 'Post'] I think I would like to buy it because it is useful for my English learning. But there are some problems tor me, I do not know how to play captions. Would you mind showing it to me? [male, business learner, 'TV'] d. Excuse me madam. I am a toreign student and going to renew my student visa. The officers need the statement of my account balance. Would you like to print out a statement of my account balance for me? [female, business learner, 'Bank'] e. Oh sir, please give me a chance!! I just come a bit late as I have to queue in the take-away shop because I am starving now! I have a serious stomached [sic), I cannot eat without anything regularly!! It is only the first time, I am sure I won't happen in future. Please believe in me!! I will follow the traffic rules next time!! [female, language learner, 'Police']

In (a), the language learner apologises to the cashier in the supermarket before requesting another bag, and the business learner in (b) says sorry to the postoffice cashier because her letter is heavy. Unlike the learners, the native speakers apologise in the favour-asking scenarios - e.g., Sorry to bother you, I was just wondering if it would be possible for you to write a reforence letter for me? ['Reference'], or Officer, fm 1·ea.lly sony, there was just a long queue in the shop [... ] ['Police'] - but not in prescribed or common service scenarios such as 'Bag' and


'Post'. The learners tend to sound over-apologetic in the service situations. The use of the terms of address si1· and madam in (b) and (d) is also non-native-like (cf 6.2.2). In (c), the business learner supplies a great deal of information before asking the shop assistant about the captions feature -he points out that he intends to buy the TV because it will help him, to learn English, and that he has a problem with using the captions. In (d), the business learner reveals that she is a foreign student and outlines why she needs the bank statement, whereas the native speakers in 'Bank' tend to make their request without any justification- Can you print out a sta.tement ofmy account ba.lance? The two learner groups increase their use of supportive moves when they ask for favours. The language learner in (e) asks the police officer to give her a chance, and offers several justifications - she was late because she needed to buy food urgently, her stomach ached, and this is the first time she has overstayed her parking limit. She asks the hearer to believe in her (no native speaker in our sample does this) and promises to observe the traffic rules in future. Although the native speakers employ an average of 2.3 supportive moves per request in 'Police', the business and language groups use supportive moves even more frequently (with 3.2 and 3.9 supportive moves per request respectively). 'Money' is the scenario in which supportive moves are used most frequently by both learners and native speakers. It is also the scenario in which both learners and native speakers make the longest utterances. (22) f.

g.

Hi, Dr. Davis. Nice to see you here. I've learned that my parent is very sick and I have to go home urgently. However, I can't get enough money at the ATM machine today. Could you lend me $50 more to buy a ticket? I will pay back to you soon. [male, language learner, 'Money'] Hi! Dr. Davis, how are you? Do you think that we are very friend? Can you help me for an urgent matter? My parents are very sick, but the bank is closed, the travel agency is going to close soon, so. Can you borrow $50 to me to let me see my parents. please? I will return it to you quickly! Thanks for your help. [female, business learner, 'Money']

Like the native speaker in (21h), the language learner in (22f) uses several external modifications- he greets the professor politely, reveals information about his sick parent, his planned trip home and the ATM problem, and promises to pay the money back soon. Similarly, the business learner in (g) greets the professor and explains the problem at the bank before making her request, and promises to return the money after making the request. In addition, she solicits the friendship of the professor, which none of the native speakers does, and asks whether the professor can help her before explaining the whole problem - Can you help me for an urgent matter? This is known as pre-committing the hearer in the CCSARP coding scheme. Both the native speakers and learners often try to

129

130


involve their hearer before they present their request- e.g., I was wondering if! could ask a favour ofyou [native speaker, 'Reference'] and May I ask you a favor? [language learner, 'Money']. Utterances (22a) to (22g) show that the two learner groups are able to use various types of supportive move, such as supplying background information, greetings, apologising and pre-committing the hearer, to strengthen their requests across different contexts. The two learner groups use supportive moves much more frequently than the native speaker group does, as shown in (21) and (22), which makes the learners' requests longer.

7.1.2

Information sequencing

Let us now move on to examine the patterns of information sequencing in the learners and native speakers. Information sequencing refers to the positions in which supportive moves are placed in relation to the head act of the request (cf. 3.4.5). Four possible positions have been identified- the pre-posed, the postposed, the hi-position, and the nulL To recap briefly, the pre-posed position indicates that a supportive move is placed before the request - '!he goods are hea1'Y· Can I have another bag? [the request head-act is underlined] -and the post-posed position indicates that a supportive move is placed after the request - Can I ha.ve another bag? The goods are heavy. When no supportive moves are used, this is known as the null position; and the hi-position refers to cases in which supportive moves are used both before and after the request- The goods are heavy. Can I have another bag?! have a long way to walk. Generally speaking, the two learner groups tend to use the pre-posed position most frequently across the ten scenarios, while the native speaker group tends to make requests without using any supportive moves (see Table 7.2).

Table 7.2 The use of the four positions of supportive moves by learners and native speakers

Business n %

Null

Pre-posed

Post-posed

Bi-posi.tion

74 18.7%

136 34.4%

88 22.3%

97 24.6%

55 18.3%

90 29.9%

80 26.6%

76 25.2%

117 39.5%

69 23.3%

66 22.3%

44 14.9%

Language n %

Native n %


Null position The native speakers make requests without using any supportive moves more than twice as frequently as the two learner groups in the ten scenarios as a whole. The null position is the most frequently employed position by the native speakers (40%), but is the least commonly used by the business (19%) and language learners (18%). The native speakers did not tend to use any supportive moves in the prescribed or common service scenarios - 'Restaurant: 'Bag: 'Bank' and 'TV' - whereas the learner groups use supportive moves in all scenarios apart from 'Restaurant' (see Table 7.3 The use of the four positions of supportive moves by scenario A. Prescribed service

B. Common service

Post Restau Bag

Bank

TV

C. Small favour


Door Actress

Ref Money Police

Business null

12 34 4 9 3 5 29.396 82.996 17.996 11.496 22.096 7.796 13.296 pre-posed 9 5 8 7 23 19 19 20 11 15 22.096 12.296 20.596 20.096 56.196 48.796 50.096 50.096 26.896 37.596 96 post-posed 16 2 24 20 6 3 5 7 4 39.096 4.996 61.596 57.196 14.696 7.796 2.696 12.596 17.196 10.096 96 hi-position 4 4 3 14 13 15 23 21 9.896 11.496 7.396 35.996 34.296 37.596 56.196 52.596 96 96

Language null

6 27 9 2 8 1 2 20.796 84.496 28.196 6.996 25.896 3.196 6.796 pre-posed 5 1 9 1 16 18 17 15 3 5 17.296 3.196 28.196 3.496 51.696 56.396 56.796 50.096 10.796 17.996 96 post-posed 18 3 10 24 6 7 2 5 3 2 62.196 9.496 31.396 82.896 19.496 21.996 6.796 16.796 10.796 7.196 96 hi-position 1 4 2 1 6 9 10 22 21 3.196 12.596 6.996 3.296 18.896 30.096 33.396 78.696 75.096 96 96

Native null

12 31 20 16 12 8 10 40.096 96.996 62.596 51.696 46.296 25.896 32.396 23.396 4.096 pre-posed 2 2 7 10 9 9 11 11 6.796 3.196 6.396 22.696 38.596 29.096 29.096 36.796 25.096 44.096 96 post-posed 16 10 8 3 8 8 5 7 53.396 31.396 25.896 11.596 3.296 25.896 26.796 17.996 28.096 96 hi-position 13 4 4 16 6 3.896 41.996 12.996 13.396 57.196 24.096 96 96

131

132


Table 7.3). The two learner groups generally use supportive moves to request common services - e.g., The goods are very hea.vy, May I ask fo1· another bag? [business learner, 'Bag': underlining indicates the request head act], and Would you mind showing me how to play captions? It is useful for my English learning. [language learner, 'TV']. The native speakers, on the other hand, normally omit supportive moves in these scenarios- e.g., Could I have a.nother· bag please? [native speaker, 'Bag']. In addition, a number of the native speakers do not use supportive moves in some favour-asking scenarios such as 'Door: 'Actress' and 'Reference' (cf Table 7.3)- I was wondering ifyou would be able to W1·ite a refenmce jo1· me? [native speaker, 'Reference'] and Would you be able to tighten the screw on this door for me please? [native speaker, 'Door']. Thus, polite requests made by native speakers do not necessarily incorporate supportive moves.

Pre-posed position The pre-posed position is the second most frequently used by both the native speakers and the learners across the ten scenarios (see Table 7.2). The learner groups use the pre-posed position relatively more frequently than the native speakers (23%) do, and the business learners (34%) tend to use supportive moves in this position more often than the language learners (30%). When they use supportive moves in the favour-asking scenarios, the native speakers tend to place them in the pre-posed position - e.g., fm currently looking for some work and I was just wondering ifyou would mind being a 1-ejeree for me? [native speaker, 'Reference'] and Officer, I'm really sorry, there was just a long queue in the shop, I couldn't just leave the line, come on there I'm here now. Could you let me off? [native speaker, 'Police']. Like the native speakers, the business and language learners use the pre-posed position most commonly in the favour-asking scenarios: 51% and 51% respectively in 'Reference: 50% and 56% in 'ActresS, and 49% and 56% in 'Door'- e.g., One of the screws of the door is missing, could you help me to fix this? [business learner, 'Door']. In addition, in one common service scenario- 'TV'- business learners (56%), language learners (52%) and native speakers (39%) all tend to place their supportive moves before the request- e.g., Does this TV have captions? How do you work it? [native speaker, 'TV'] and This television has the function ofplaying caption, isn't it? Can you tell me how to play? [language learner, 'TV'].

.

Post-posed position The post-posed position is used less frequently than the pre-posed position by both learners and native speakers across the ten scenarios (see Table 7.2). All three respondent groups employ the post-posed position more frequently in the prescribed or common service scenarios than in the favour-asking scenarios; this


represents the reverse situation to their use of the pre-posed position. Supportive moves tend to be placed after the request in 'Posf, 'Bag: and 'Bank' by both learners and native speakers - e.g., Would you print out a statement of my account

balance? It's because this statement will be shown to the immigration office for my renewing student visa [language learner, 'Bank'] and I need to send this to New York. I'm not sure if it's too heavy or not [native speaker, 'Post'].

Bi-position The business (25%) and language (25%) learners use utterances with supportive moves placed both before and after the request head act much more frequently than the native speakers (15%) across the ten scenarios. The hi-position is the least frequently used of the four positions by the native speakers, and the third most commonly used by both the business and language groups. The bi -position is employed by the native speakers in two favour-asking scenarios- 'Door' and 'Money' -e.g., (23a) and (23c), and (21g) and (21h). By contrast, the two learner groups tend to use the hi-position only in 'Money -e.g., (23b), (22f), and (22g). 'Money is the only scenario in which the majority of the business (56%) and language learners (79%) as well as the native speakers (57%) employ the hi-position. (23) a.

b.

c.

I know this isn't really your area, but I was wondering ifyoua be able to fix this door tor me too. I' 11 pay you, it's just that you seem to have everything here with you. [native speaker, 'Door'] Hi, Dr. Davis. I want to consult one thing. I need $50 to buy a air ticket Can you borrow [lend] me $50? I promise you I will pay off $50 to you. [male, business learner, 'Money] Dr Davis, my dad is really sick and I'm short of $50 to fly to him. Could I please borrow $50 from you, and you'll get it back as soon as possible. [temale, native speaker, 'Money]

Conclusion The two learner groups use supportive moves more frequently than the native speaker group does. The business and language learners apologise to the hearer more often than the native speakers do, and do not use the disarming strategies that the native speakers employ. The learners tend to use supportive moves in most of their requests, while the native speakers frequently make requests without any supportive moves. When the native speakers do use supportive moves, they place them in the pre-posed position, particularly in the favour-asking scenarios. Like the native speakers, the two learner groups favour the pre-posed position in the favour-asking scenarios, and tend to shift to the post-posed position in

133


the prescribed and common service scenarios. All three respondent groups use the hi-position frequently to ask favours, particularly in the 'Money' and 'Door' scenarios. The two learner groups are similar in their choice of type and position of supportive moves across the scenarios.

7.2

Utterance length

The utterances made by the business (29.9 words) and language (29.8 words) learners are nearly twice as long as those by the native speakers ( 17.1 words) when we consider the scenarios as a whole (see Table 7.4). In other words, the business and language learners are noticeably more verbose than the native speakers in their requests. Since the distributions of the utterance lengths for the three groups are not perfectly normal (Skewness > 1.2 and Kurtosis > 1.2), the Mann-Whitney U test (a non-parametric test) is used. The two groups oflearners are found to differ significantly from the native speakers in terms of utterance length (p < .001). In all scenarios, the two learner groups tend to employ longer utterances than the native speakers (see Table 7.5). We observed a general trend in both learners and native speakers - utterance length increases from the prescribed service to Table 7.4 Utterance length by learners and native speakers

Business Language Native

Mean

Std. Deviation

29.9 29.8 17.7

16.41 18.91 10.46

Table 7.5 Utterance length by learners and native speakers by scenario B. Common service

A. Prescribed service Post Business Mean 22.5 Std. D 9.4 Language 19.7 Mean Std. D 8.7 Native Mean 13.8 Std. D 5.0

C. Small favour


Restau

Bag

Bank

TV

Door Actress

Ref

13.4 5.0

21.2 9.4

26.5 8.5

22.7 8.5

28.9 9.4

30.7 12.6

41.9 15.9

52.7 19.6

36.4 16.4

12.4 4.2

17.7 8.8

27.0 8.2

18.4 8.7

25.1 8.7

29.6 10.3

40.3 14.9

66.8 17.2

45.9 16.8

10.1 3.8

11.3 5.8

15.1 4.9

11.3 3.9

22.5 7.9

16.2 6.8

21.3 9.0

37.8 13.6

22.1 9.2

Money Police


the medium-large favour scenarios. For all respondent groups, the shortest utterances are produced in 'Restaurant: and the longest utterances are employed in 'Money: In addition, the language learners are relatively more native-like than the business learners. The language learner group's average utterance length for the ten scenarios is 0.13 words shorter than that of the business group, and in all scenarios apart from 'Money and 'Police' the language learner group's utterance lengths are closer to those of the native speaker group. A qualitative analysis reveals why the learners' utterances tend to be longer than those of the native speakers: (24) a.

b.

c.

I'm in the process of looking for jobs, and was wondering if you would mind writing me a reference. Thanks for your time. (23 words, female, native speaker, 'Reference'] I have a problem to trouble you. I am Nancy [name altered], I'm studying towards the end of a master's programme and are looking for employment. I was requested two reference letters, but I have only one now. So, can you help me for the other letter? I will be very thankful for you! [52 words, female, business learner, 'Reference'] Professor Davis, are you having time to explain me some questions? Well, since I would very like to apply for a job as now nearly the end of my master program, but the institution that of my interest requires two references. l have already written one, and it would be my honor if Professor Davis would be possible to write me some comments as my second reference. May l? [69 words, male, language learner, 'Reference']

Request (a) by the native speaker is straightforward and contains no redundancies. The speaker briefly gives the background information that she is looking for a job, and then performs the request act. She does not provide lengthy justifications for the request, and her use of supportive moves is substantially less than that of the learners in (b) and (c). The learners' utterances (b) and (c) are two to three times longer than the native speaker's utterance (a). The learners use conversation openers to initiate the topic- e.g., I have a problem to trouble you. They introduce themselves- e.g., I am Nancy- and ask whether the hearer has time- e.g., are you ha.ving time to explain me some questions?. They also tend to explain their whole job-seeking process - e.g., being near the end of their studies, needing two reference letters, and having only one in hand. They provide much more information than the native speakers do, resulting in longer utterances. In sum, the two groups oflearners are non-native-like in producing significantly longer request utterances. Overall, the language learners are only moderately more native-like than the business learners in terms of utterance length.

135

CHAPTERS

How Chinese EFL learners make requests Overall pattern & implications

In this chapter we will provide an overview of the request behaviours of Chinese EFL learners, with the aim of determining how native-like the learners are in their linguistic behaviour. We will also use the evidence gathered from our sample to address five of the questions that Kasper and Schmidt (1996) consider to be central research topics in interlanguage pragmatics. We draw on the results of our investigation and similar studies to evaluate the relative usefulness of the context-based and formulae-based approaches to interlanguage pragmatics. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the issue of native speakers as a model for 12 learners. It will be useful here to present two summary tables, since the following discussion will make extensive reference to these data (Table 8.1 and Table 8.2). Table 8.1 gives the results for the scenarios as a whole. It shows that the two groups of learners difter markedly from native speakers in terms of their use of formulae, their use of internal modifying devices such as terms of address and hi-clausal structures, and the length of their utterances. Further information about the individual scenarios is provided in Table 8.2. The same aspects of linguistic behaviour relating to requests (the rows) are covered in both tables. Table 8.2 details important findings in terms of the context-based approach used in this study.

8.1

Patterns of request behaviour: Learners and native speakers

We can now recapitulate the main findings of our investigation, sketching out an overview oflearners' request behaviours in terms of their use of strategies. formulae, and internal and external modifications, as well as utterance length. We also place our findings in the context of other studies that attempt to understand nonnative-like pragmatic behaviours by Chinese learners of English in the broader context in which linguistic and sociolinguistic factors come into play.

138


Table 8.1 An overview of request behaviour in learners and native speakers

Utterance Length words per request Strategy Categories direct

conventionally- indirect non-conv. indirect Formulae

Internal Modification Syntactic Modifier conditional hi-clausal Lexical Modifier lexical downgrader address term External Modification supportive moves per request supportive move position -null

-pre-posed -post-posed -hi-position

Business

Language

Native

29.9

29.8

17.7

31.7% 66.8% 1.5%

30.4% 68.0% 1.6%

24.3% 73.1% 2.6%

could you VP 23% could you VP 21% could I VP 12% can you VP 19% I would like 10% could you VP 10% Iwant10% would you VP 10% I wonder if 10%

44.9% 7.0%

58.2% 7.5%

61.5% 16.2%

4.2% 42.1%

3.9% 31.7%

9.7% 11.7%

1.7

1.7

1.1

18.7% 34.4% 22.3% 24.6%

18.3% 29.9% 26.6% 25.2%

39.5% 23.3% 22.3% 14.9%

A. Strategy types The two learner groups are broadly native-like in their strategy use. They are able to make use of all the strategy types em played by the native speakers in this sample, and their strategy use in the scenarios as a whole does not differ significantly from that of the native speakers (see Table 8.1). However, statistically; the two groups of learners do differ from the native speakers in their use of strategies in several individual scenarios. The EFL learning environment, where the advanced learners in this sample had spent an average of 17 years studying English and training in translation and interpreting, does not enable them to achieve nativelike strategy use. Two factors probably contribute to this- L1 transfer and 12 instruction - and these factors are discussed in more detail later in the chapter (see B. L1 interference and D. Instruction in 8.2). The language learners come slightly closer to the native pattern of strategy use than the business learners, both in the scenarios as a whole and in individual scenarios.

Table 8.2 Overview of scenario-based patterns of request behaviours A. Prescribed service Scenario

B. Common service

D. Medium &: large favour

C. Small favour

Post

Restaurant

Bag

Bank

TV

Door

Actress

Reference

Money

Police

23M 20M 14S

13 s 12 s 10 s

21M 18 s llS

27M 27M 15 s

23M 18S llS

29M 25M 22M

311 301 16 s

421 401 21M

54V1 67V1 391

361 46VL 22M

business language native Formulae

D68% D83% D69%

D81% D88% D63%

CID93% CID 100% CID 100%

D51% D52%

CID93% CID81%

CID90% CID97%

CID85% CID87%

CID71%

CID100%

CID100%

CID76% CID90% CID96%

CID60% CID55%

CID87%

CID70% CID87% CID88%

business

I want

I want

could)ltlu VP

I want

could you VP

could )ltiU VP could you VP

32%

32%

31%

26%

34%

38%

Length business language native Strategy

language

I would like

could you VP

32%

26%

I want

I would like

31%

53%

I willVP

26%

34%

canyouVP 28%

34%

I would like

could you VP

19%

28%

35%

can you VP

could you VP

would you VP could )ltiU VP

could you VP

22%

20%

23%

25%

46%

could you VP

VP

22%

could I VP 31% could I VP 19%

!:!l po

~

could)'tlu VP

19%

!need

could you VP can you VP 30%

Q >§. ::r:

would you mind native

18%

D62%

could you VP 33%

25%

would you be would you mind I wonder if 29% 63% ADJtoVP

couldlVP

dorltVP

29%

44%

23%

(}

~

"'1'1>

ti:l

"'j

t""

~ ill ~

Abbreviations: S: short utterance ( Q-19 words) CID: conventionally indirect

M: mediwn utterance (20-29 words) D: direct

1: long utterance (30-45 words)

VL: very long utterance ( > 46 words)

~

i

~

.."'

~

...

Table 8.2

t

(continued) A. Prescribed service

Scenario

Post

Restaurant


Bank

D. Medium & large favour

C. Small favour

TV

Door

Actress

Reference

Money

Police

~

-a

In-Modificat. conditional business language native hi-clausal

J

27% 28% 41%

37% 56% 44%

54% 62% 61%

56%

69% 45%

54% 66% 97%

58% 58% 84%

60% 72% 100%

37% 66% 93%

!! ...

30% 41% 7%

-i m "rj

()

e: ~

tt>

business language 3% native lex.downgr business language native 6% Ex-Modificat. s.m ./request business 1.1 language 1.0 native 0.6 s.m. position business post 39% language post 62% native post 53%

39% 59% 44%

3% 9%

10%

5% 3% 3% 2% 3%

3%

3%

10% 13% 29%

15% 23% 16%

20% 19% 72%

17% 7% 18%

3% 3% 3%

6% 29%

3% 10% 19%

18% 7% 16%

15% 3% 11%

5% 10% 10%

0.2 0.2 0.0

0.9 0.8 0.4

1.2 1.3 0.5

1.2 0.9 0.6

2.1 1.8 1.7

1.7 1.6 0.9

2.2 1.8 1.2

3.3 4.3 3.0

3.2 3.9 2.3

null 83% null 84% null 97%

post62% post31% null63%

post 57% post83% nul\ 52%

pre 56% pre 52% nuU46%

pre49% pre 56% bi42%

pre 50% pre 57% nul\32%

pre SO% pre SO% pre37%

bi56% bi79% bi57%

bi53% bi75% pre44%

Abbreviations: Ex-Modificat.: external modifications In-Modificat.: internal modifications lex. downgr: lexical downgraders s.m .: supportive move :.m./request: the ratio of supportive move per request utterance pre: pre-posed position post: post-posedposition bi: bi-position null: null position

t""'

I;

~

Chapter 8. How Chinese EFL learners make requests

B. Formulaic language Both learner groups use request formulae in a distinctively non-native-like manner. The learners have a more restricted repertoire of request formulae than the native speakers, and use a small number of formulae to cover a much wider range of situations than do native speakers. The learner groups are unable to use some of the longer and more syntactically complex formulae - such as I was wondering if, Would it be AD! if and Would you be AD! to VP- that native speakers employ to compose elaborate and deferential requests. The learners are also unable to utilise some scenario-specific formulae. Both intermediate and advanced learners alike are rather limited in their use of request formulae, and the language learners are not significantly more native-like than the business learners in this respect.

C. Internal modifications The two learner groups differ from native speakers in their use of internal modifications -both syntactic and lexical modifiers - in a number of ways.

Syntactic modifiers The business and language groups use two types of syntactic modifier- conditionals and hi-clausal structures- less frequently than the native speaker group (cf. Table 8.1). More importantly, unlike the native speakers, the learner groups do not concentrate their use of conditionals and hi-clausal structures in the favour-asking scenarios. For example, the native speaker group shows a strong preference for conditionals and hi-clausal structures in the 'Reference' scenario -I was wondering ifyou would be able to- while the two learner groups employ these syntactic modifiers significantly less frequently.

Conditionals. Statistically, the language group uses conditionals as frequently as the native speaker group does in the scenarios as a whole, while the business group uses them significantly less frequently (cf. Table 8.1). However, while the native speaker group sharply increases the use of conditionals in the favourasking scenarios, the two learner groups fail to do so (cf. Table 8.2). In all of the favour-asking scenarios apart from the 'Police' scenario, the native speaker group makes frequent use of conditionals, while the two learner groups use them consistently less frequently (cf. 6.1.1). The language group employs more conditionals than the business group, and is therefore moderately more native-like. One of the most plausible explanations for the learners' infrequent use of conditionals relates to L1 interference. Since Chinese verbs do not inflect to convey politeness

141


in the same way that English verbs do, such cross-linguistic differences can make it difficult for Chinese speakers to make effective use of English conditionals.

Bi-clausal structures. The two learner groups employ bi -clausal structures mainly in the favour-asking scenarios (apart from the 'Police' scenario), which is similar to the native speaker group (Table 8.2). However, the learner groups use hi-clausal structures less frequently than the native speakers, which is particularly noticeable in the scenarios in which the native speakers favour bi-dausal structures, such as the 'Reference' scenario. This result echoes Takahashi's (1996) observation that Japanese-speaking ESL learners seldom employ syntactically complex request formulations. particularly hi-clausal structures. Although Chinese sentences can be constructed using hi-clausal structures, unlike in English, request utterances with a hi-clausal structure do not necessarily have a greater level of politeness than requests with a mono-clausal structure. Chinese speakers may therefore not see hi-clausal structures as a useful device for conveying politeness, unlike English speakers, who tend to associate indirectness and deference with hi-clausal requests. This may explain why the learner groups do not increase their use ofbi-dausal structures in the favour-asking scenarios, where a higher level of politeness is required. We can also consider this finding that the learners use hi-clausal structures less frequently than the native speakers in light of the lexical formulations used in the learners' requests, particularly their use of request formulae. Our sample shows that learners have a restricted repertoire of formulae, and rarely use hi-clausal forms -e.g., I wonder if, Would you mind if I asked and Would it be possible ifyou -which create longer and syntactically more complex requests. The learners' lack of lexical flexibility and phraseology is probably the main reason for their infrequent use ofbi-clausal structures. Both learner groups use syntactic modifications less frequently than the native speakers do, particularly in the fuvour-asking scenarios in which the native speakers most commonly use syntactic modifications. The language group is moderately more native-like than the business group in its use of conditionals, but not inits use ofbi-clausal structures.

Lexical modifiers Our sample included two types oflexical modifiers: lexical downgraders and address terms. The learner groups use lexical downgraders infrequently in the ten scenarios, while the native speakers often make use of such terms to involve the hearer, show tentativeness, or hedge their request - e.g., look, you know, just, at all, maybe, and possibly (cf. Table 8.1). The learners tend to use address terms much more frequently than do the native speakers. Both learner groups make


non-native-like use of address terms- e.g., employing sir to address the post office cashier, the restaurant waiter and the shop assistant, and using madam to the supermarket and bank cashiers. The learners apparently lack the sociocultural knowledge to use these address terms appropriately. D. External modifications This section will examine external modifications in terms of the types of supportive moves that are used, their frequency, and the positions in which they are used.

Supportive moves The learner groups employ supportive moves not only more frequently but also in more elaborate configurations than the native speaker group. This is consistent with Bilhnyer and Varghese's (2000) finding on ESL learners and Kasper and Zhang's (1995) and Yu's (1999b) observations on Chinese speakers' request behaviours (cf. External modifications in 2.2.2). Like the native speakers, the learners often provide relevant background information to enable the hearer to understand the request situation, and try to involve the hearer before making the request. However, the two learner groups employ some of these supportive moves in a non-native-like manner: they apologise in the prescribed and common service scenarios, and specifically state that they are telling the truth when borrowing money from their professor, which the native speakers do not do. The learner groups in this sample do not use a disarming strategy that is often used by native speakers: I know this is a big ask, and I completely understand ifyou say no. The two learner groups can be said to demonstrate highly sophisticated use of supportive moves, even though their sociopragmatic knowledge is not entirely native-like. One of the probable reasons for the more frequent use of supportive moves by the learners lies in the fact that supportive moves tend to be syntactically simpler than internal modifications such as conditionals and hi-clausal structures.

Information sequencing The two learner groups tend to include supportive moves in their requests, while the native speaker group often chooses to omit them, particularly in the prescribed or common service scenarios. However, when the native speakers do use supportive moves, the positions in which they use them are similar to those of learner groups - the post-posed position is favoured in the service scenarios, while the pre-posed and hi-positions predominate in the favour-asking scenarios. Like the native speaker group, the two learner groups favour the pre-posed

143


position over the post-position in the scenarios as a whole. This provides some support for Kirkpatrick's (1991, 1992) claim that Chinese speakers prefer the pre-posed position to the post-posed, although his analysis was based on examples of letter-writing. Nevertheless, the findings of the present study do not lend support to Kirkpatrick's observation that English speakers prefer the postposed position for supportive moves- the therefore-because pattern (cf. External modifications in 2.2.1). Our results show that both the native speaker group and the learner groups use supportive moves in different positions in different scenarios: when requesting prescribed and common services, the post-posed position (the therefore-because pattern) is used frequently; when asking favours, the pre-posed and hi-positions (the because-therefore pattern in Kirkpatrick's terms) are preferred, and the speaker tends to prepare and introduce the request using various supportive moves. In this case, interlanguage variation between English and Chinese is not significant; rather, situational variation- selecting information sequencing according to the particular context -is the determining factor. Our finding also reinforces one of most important observations by Zhang ( 1995a, 1995b) concerning the differences in the modification of requests between Chinese and English- Chinese speakers emphasise the use of external modifiers rather than internal modifiers to make polite requests, whereas English speakers tend to rely on internal modifiers such as hi-clausal structures, conditionals, and lexical downgraders. E. lJtterancelength The request utterances of the two learner groups are almost twice as long as those of the native speaker group, clearly demonstrating the "waffle phenomenon" (cf. External modifications in 2.2.2). This finding echoes Zhang's (1995a, 1995b) observation that Chinese learners of English employ external modifications to a greater extent than English speakers do, reflecting a tendency to preserve their L1 use (cf. 8.2 B). The 'waffling' effect is not reduced in our advanced EFL learners, probably because they have not lived in the target speech community to fine-tune their language use (Hoffman-Hicks 1999). Edmondson and House (1991) argued that learners tend to waffle mainly because of their lack of conventionalised standard routines rather than as a result of the DCT instruments, the classroom setting and the learners' social status. They pointed out that "[c]learly, the routines are available [italics in original] inside advanced learners' interlanguage systems, but the range and appropriateness of their situational application [italics added] is not" (ibid: 285). The learners in our study


tend to confirm Edmondson and House's view in the sense that the learners lack a native-like range of request formulae, feel insecure about their communicative ability in difficult request situations, and therefore use a larger number of words as a compensatory strategy. This line of argument confirms the importance of request formulae for L2learning, and supports the value oflengthier exposure to target cultural norms to facilitate learners' internalisation of a range of speechact formulae (ibid: 285).

8.2

Basic questions about interlanguage pragmatics

In light of the empirical evidence provided by the present study, we can now revisit five of the basic questions that Kasper and Schmidt (1996) pose in regard to interlanguage pragmatics studies.

A. How can approximation to target language norms be measured? Kasper and Schmidt (1996) answer this question by focusing on how to collect data for the study of interlanguage pragmatics. They list a number of data collection methods such as discourse completion tasks, role-plays, ethnographic observations, verbal reports, and a multi-method approach (Kasper & Schmidt 1996: 155-156). However, they do not further address the problem of construct validity in the assessment of pragmatic competence, or consider which aspects of linguistic behaviour should be examined in assessing interlanguage pragmatic (ILP) competence. We have seen (cf. 2.2.2) that studies of interlanguage pragmatics have long focused on strategy types (e.g., Blum-Kulka 1989; Hassall 2001, 2003; Rose & Kasper 2001; Trosborg 1995), and that only a small number ofiLP studies, such as Achiba (2003), Billmyer and Varghese (2000), Ellis (1992), Hoffman-Hicks (1999), Rose (2000), Schmidt (1983), and Wildner-Bassett (1994), have considered the use of formulaic language. The present investigation presents empirical evidence that strongly supports the importance of an examination of formulaic language in ILP studies (cf. Chapter 5). While the learner groups use request strategies in a broadly nativelike manner, their use of formulaic language is conspicuously non-native-like (cf. 5.4). We therefore propose the consideration of both formulae use and strategy type use as core constructs in the measurement of interlanguage pragmatic competence.

145


B. Does the L1 influence 12 learning? L1 interference in L2 use presents one of the most plausible reasons for why L2 learners' pragmatic behaviours manifest their L1 characteristics. This is also known as L1 transfer (cf Pragmatic transfer in 2.2.2). The Chinese EFL learners in our sample exhibit L1 pragmatic interference on at least three levels - strategic, lexical and sociopragmatic.

Strategic interference Previous studies have shown that Chinese speakers tend to use direct strategies more frequently than English speakers do in their L1 (cf. Strategy types in 2.2.1). The two groups of Chinese EFL learners in our sample preserve this tendency to a certain extent- the learners use direct strategies more frequently and conventionally-indirect strategies less frequently than do the native speakers (ct~ Table 8.2). The business learners exhibit a stronger tendency to employ direct strategies than the language learners do, suggesting that a greater degree ofLl interference operates in intermediate learners than in advanced learners. We can now add the findings of the present study to Table 2.2 (cf. Strategy types in 2.2.1) to produce Table 8.3, and compare and contrast our findings with those of similar studies. It is possible to consider the results obtained by Yu (1999b) alongside those from the present investigation, because both studies investigate Chinese EFL learners' strategy use in formulating requests. The present study elicited relatively more direct strategies and fewer conventionally-indirect

Table 8.3 A comparison of studies of Chinese speakers' request strategies

Lee-Wong (1994) Chinese speakers in L1 Zhang (1995b) Chinese students in US universities in their L1

Direct

Conventionallyindirect

74.4%

19.4%

1.1%

26.4%

59.2%

9.5%

33% 14% 1%

63% 84% 87%

31.7% 30.4% 24.3%

66.8% 68.0% 73.1%

Non -conventionally indirect

Yu (1999b)

Chinese speakers in 11 Chinese EFL learners in 12 Native Americans in Ll The present study Intermediate learners Advanced learners Native English group

5% 2% 13% 1.5% 1.6% 2.6%


strategies than Yu's (1999b) study in both EFL learners and native English speakers. We can better understand such differences by looking at the types of scenario used for data elicitation in the two studies. Yu uses eight scenarios in which the speaker asks for small and large favours that the hearer has no obligation to comply with - e.g., a student asks a neighbour in his/her dormitory to help to move a heavy oak desk, or a student asks if his/her professor can postpone the final exam so that he/ she can attend a family member's wedding. By contrast, five of the ten scenarios in the present study entail prescribed ('Post' and 'Restaurant') and common ('Bag: 'Bank' and 'TV') services, in which the hearer would normally comply with the request as a part of a routine service - e.g., a post-office clerk works out the postage for a customer, or a shop assistant demonstrates how to use a certain function on a product he sells. As a whole, Yu's scenarios require a higher level of politeness than those in the present study, resulting in the greater use of indirect strategies. Apart from these differences, Yu (1999b) and the present study produce a common finding - i.e., the Chinese EFL learners noticeably increase their use of conventionally-indirect strategies and reduce their use of direct strategies in English in comparison to what Chinese speakers generally do in their L1 (cf. LeeWong 1994; Zhang 1995b). The learners thus show a stronger tendency to approximate target norms in strategy use than to retain Chinese-like directness in their requests. The present study and Yu (1999b ), which examine the foreign language learning environment in Macao and Taiwan respectively, echo the studies by Achiba (2003), Hassall (2003) and Trosborg (1995) in finding that even intermediate L2learners can approximate native speakers' strategy use by relying on a number of common formulae that pertain to conventionally-indirect strategies.

Lexical interference L1 to L2 transfer can also occur in terms of lexical choices that reflect learners' L1 origin. This type of transfer is observed in our sample -e.g., the Chinese EFL learners employ I want and I would VP much more frequently than the native English speakers. These two formulae seem to be closely related to two common Chinese expressions: ~~ wo yao 'I want' and ~~~ wo xiang yao 'I think [that I] want' in terms of semantic meaning and situational usage.~¥ Wo yao is a straightforward formula that Chinese speakers often employ to order food or ask for common services in a restaurant or shop- e.g., ~¥-ffi~:f=JF Wo yao yifen niupai 'I want a steak' or ~¥f!m/;;_Jr Wo yao ge shaozi 'I want a spoon'. ~~¥ Wo xia.ng yao is more polite than~¥ wo yao because the hedge ~m wo xiang 'I think [that]' expresses the speaker's desire for the requested goods or services - e.g., ~~¥Mmllw Wo xiang yao fong tuijian xin 'I think [I] want a reference letter'.~~¥ Wo xiangyao sounds more tentative and less imposing,

147


even though it is a direct strategy according to Blum-Kulka etal.'s (1989) classification. Chinese speakers are accustomed to using request utterances that include ~~ wo yao and ~!&!~ wo xiang yao, and therefore probably consider I want or I would like to be convenient expressions for making requests in similar situations in English-speaking contexts. Our sample shows that I want and I would like together are used by 18% of the business learners and 20% of the language learners, nearly three times the figure of 7.0% for the native speakers (cf. 5.2.2). Even some learners who have a fairly high level of reading and writing competence reported in interviews that they considered I want and I would like to be polite request expressions in the 'Bank' and 'Restaurant' scenarios. This relates to the learners' perceptions of particular social situations (see the following section on Sociopragmatic interference). Some learners even use I want to ask for a reference letter from their professor- e.g., I want to tmuble you give me the letter [male, business learner, 'Reference'] -which sounds too coercive or blunt to native English speakers. The learners' use of I want and I would like results in the more frequent use of direct strategies, which is also considered to be strategy transfer. The Chinese EFL learners also use some specific words that point to L1 interference. The learners use requests that include the word chance frequently in the 'Police' scenario - 69% in the business group and 59% in the language group e.g., Give me a chance or Can you give me a chance? The native speakers in our sample did not utilise expressions such as give [... ] chance in the requests. The Chinese expression ~~-@)~1f gei wo yige jihui 'give me a chance' is commonly used in contexts such as parking offences, to imply that the speaker acknowledges the wrong act, is willing to stop doing it, and asks the hearer to give special consideration to not imposing punishment. The learners' use of chance in the 'Police' scenario suggests the transfer of a form of social interaction that the learners are familiar with in the Chinese context to a similar situation in an English -speaking context. Help is also used frequently in the learners' requests - 22% in the business group and 22% in the language group across the ten scenarios -but is only used by 5.8% in the native speaker group. The reason that Chinese speakers tend to use help in formulating requests can be traced to their L1 sociopragmatic perspective. Helping reflects moral virtue in the Chinese language and culture, and is rooted in the Confucian value of benevolence. There is a common Chinese saying that WJA~~ zhu ren wei le 'helping others is a pleasure indeed'. From primary school onwards, Chinese students are taught that o:ffuring help to others is an important moral quality. A good Chinese person should help others when possible and be happy to do so, in line with the concepts of community and solidarity. In addition, a request for help gives the hearer a chance to show

Chapter 8. How Chinese EFL learners make requests 149

their good character, confirming the shared belief that offering help is a communal virtue. The business and language learners use help in 45% to 70% of their requests in the 'Reference', 'Money' and 'Door' scenarios, whereas the native speaker group uses it only in 12% to 22% of these scenarios. Help is a useful notion in understanding Chinese speakers' request behaviour, but it does not have the same sociopragmatic connotations in English. Although offering help may remind English speakers of the parable of the Good Samaritan, particularly in a Christian context, help often entails a sense of becoming involved in other people's business, which many native speakers of English may be reluctant to do. In short, the use of help has positive connotations in Chinese but mixed or uncertain connotations in English. The fact that the two learner groups in this sample choose to use help in their requests shows that the learners probably attach positive connotations to help, and that their L1 sociolinguistic knowledge and value system are being applied in their L2 use. Furthermore, our sample shows a number of instances of I hope [... ], which is used by 5.5% of the business learners across the ten scenarios, but only by 0.3% of the native speaker group and 0.7% of the language group. Yu (1999b) examines I hope in relation to the semantically -equivalent Chinese expression !\G1ij..~ wo xiwang, and finds that this is a typical requesting expression for the Chinese speakers but not the native English speakers in his sample. He points out that I hope expresses greater tentativeness than I want in requests, although this nuance is not reflected in strategy use. Like Yu (1999b), the present study shows that very few native speakers employ I hope [... ].

Sociopragmatic interference L1 interference in L2 also occurs at the sociopragmatic level -i.e., learners' L1 sociopragmatic knowledge influences the way they perceive social and contextual factors in 12 situations. We have seen that the learners and the native speakers in this sample differ markedly in their levels of politeness and directness in two scenarios- 'Police' and 'Bank' (cf. 01 Moon DERIVABLE in 4.2.1). This is probably because the learners perceive these two scenarios differently from native speakers. Blum-Kulka and House (1989) argued that an examination of respondents' perceptions of social and contextual factors is important to validate findings of different request behaviours across cultures, and designed "Situational Assessment Tests" for this purpose. We note the relevance of their line of argument to our interlanguage pragmatics research, and address issues relating to our respondents' perceptions of the two scenarios here. In the 'Bank' scenario, the two learner groups tend to use direct strategies, while the native speaker group employs predominantly conventionally-indirect strategies (cf. 4.3 Strategy use in scenarios). The learners frequently construct

150


requests using I want and I would like in the 'Bank' scenario -e.g., I want to get the sta.tement of my account balance [female, business learner, 'Bank']. Native speakers, on the other hand, prefer to use Could I have - e.g., Could I have a printed statement [male, native speaker, 'Bank']. It seems that the learners do not seek to behave deferentially to the bank cashier, even though they are linguistically capable of being more deferential and indirect, as can be seen in the other common service ('Bag' and 'TV') and the favour-asking scenarios. The learners probably consider it appropriate for customers to use direct language in such situations, in line with the way Chinese speakers interact with bank cashiers in the Chinese context. For example, conversations in banks in Hong Kong and Macao are normally direct and to the point, with the aim of getting the transaction done quickly. Concise and lexically economic expressions are preferred in such situations- e.g., 'ftRitli.::Pt"X: •A~~lb@llljg~ Yi dong chin man, yap lok lei goh woo-hau 'Here are five thousand dollars. Put into this account' (from Kong 1998: 5 65). In the Chinese con text, a friendly chat with the cashier is not the norm because slow handling of banking transactions is likely to provoke complaints from waiting customers. Scallon and Scallon (1991) also observe that Chinese speakers tend to address service providers in the public domain in a straightforward and instrumental manner - e.g., Two tickets to Taipei or Give me a spoon. They note that Chinese speakers often perceive service providers as out-group (j~ wai 'outer') members, who need not be treated with the same deference and indirectness as in-group (f7g nei 'inner') members- one's relatives, close friends, schoolmates, colleagues at work, and other close associates (Pan 2000; Scallon & Scallon 1991). To return to the 'Bank' scenario, the two learner groups probably perceive it as an out-group communication in which direct requests are the norm. In interviews, the learners told the investigator that they considered the bank cashier to be an out-group member. By contrast, the native speakers in this sample spoke to the cashier in a friendly and indirect manner, which is consistent with Kuiper and Findall's (2000) observation that English speakers prefer to show a considerable level of politeness and indirectness when carrying out transactions in a bank, by making polite, friendly conversation and small talk (2000: 203). In the 'Bank' scenario, the two learner groups retain their L1 sodapragmatic behaviour rather than approximating native pragmatic norms. The learners also tend to evaluate the 'Police' scenario differently from the native speakers. When asking a police officer not to give them a parking ticket, the learner groups tend to use conventionally-indirect strategies - Could you give me a chance? - whereas the native speaker group favours direct strategies - Don't give me a ticket or Stop (cf. Table 8.2). The learner groups thus express a higher level of politeness and indirectness than the native speakers do: the learners tend


to perceive a genuine need to be deferential to the police officer, given the fact that the parking offence is obvious. However, the native speakers do not perceive the situation in the same way. In response to the investigator's query about why they tend to be more direct than the learners in this scenario, the native English speakers suggested that they tend to perceive the police officer as less powerful than the learners do. The native speakers consider themselves to be more or less equal to the police officer, whereas the Chinese speakers tend to perceive that they are in a less powerful position. The native speakers also pointed out that there is normally little likelihood that the officer will agree not to write the ticket, so the motorist has little to gain by being more polite. Based on such perceptions, the native speakers do not see any real need to be deferential and indirect to the police officer, and thus prefer to use direct requests. The learners do not share this perception, and tend to rely on their L1 sociopragmatic knowledge and use a higher level of politeness and deference in their requests (cf. Table 8.2). Unfamiliarity with native request behaviours in particular social contexts is one of the most important underlying factors in learners' 11 interference at the strategic, lexical and sociopragmatic levels. Our finding matches Kasper and Schmidt's (1996) observation about 12learners, that "[their 12] sociopragmatic knowledge is not yet sufficiently developed for them to make contextually appropriate choices of strategies and linguistic forms" (Kasper & Schmidt 1996: 157).

C. Is pragmatic development in 12 similar to 11? Researchers often use Bialystok's two-dimensional model of analysis and control to delineate the differences between the paths of pragmatic development of native speakers and 12learners (e.g., Achiba 2003; Barron 2003; Dufon 1999; Gass & Selinker 2001; Hassall 2001; Kasper & Rose 2002). Bialystok (1993) observes that the pragmatic development of adult 12 learners ditrers from that of L1 children in terms of the problems or difficulties they have faced. L1 children, who experience socialisation in their mother tongue (Davies 2003), mostly need to enrich their repertoire of linguistic forms to execute a broader range of social interactions, and to be able to explicitly analyse the morpho syntactic, phonological, and semantic properties of language (Bialystok 1993: 54-55) -the "analysis of knowledge" in Bialystok's terms (ibid: 48). By contrast, adult 12 learners mainly need to improve their ability to process linguistic and extra-linguistic material in response to communicative events - the 'control of processing' in Bialystok's (1993) model. Adult 12learners tend to do better than L1 children in the analysis of knowledge, because they have the benefit of formal 12 instruction that focuses on words, sound system, and rules of sentence formation in the target language.

151

152


However, the learners' control of processing is greatly constrained by their limited experience in using the L2 in social contexts. Control of processing relates to the way interlocutors allocate their attention to "relevant and appropriate information and integrating those forms in real time" (Bialystok 1993:48). An example from Cohen and Olshtain (1993) can be used to illustrate the control of processing in L2 learners, in which a student considers a number of social and contextual factors when asking his/her teacher for a lift home (cf. 2.1.1). This shows that adult L2 learners do not "begin with a childlike naivete about the social use of language, (Bialystok 1993:47)- the learners have experienced socially-situated L1 use in various registers at different levels of politeness, and therefore understand that language use involves the sophisticated manipulation of various social and contextual factors. However, learners tend to lack L2 sociolinguistic competence. Bialystok (1993) observes that adult L2learners are not as efficient as L1 children in selecting the important contextual factors in communicative events. The learners' training in the analysis of knowledge is of little help here, in the sense that effective control of attention relates to experiencing, executing, and exercising language use in its own right. L1 children have the advantage of experiencing language use daily in social interactions at home, at school, and in the public domain. They are able to acquire appropriate conventionallinguistic behaviours in these socially-situated contexts. Their control of processing is thus more practised, developed and efficient than that ofL2learners, who often have little experience ofliving in the target speech community. Previous studies have found that adult L2 learners tend to be less able to evaluate contextual factors, retrieve relevant linguistic material, and generate socially and contextually appropriate requests, even though they have the lexical knowledge of a range of request expressions and the ability to analyse L2 grammatical structures (Bialystok 1993, 1994; DuFon 1999; Hassall2001, 2003). Our sample produces similar results. In scenarios such as 'Bank' and 'Police', the learners do not take into account the same social and contextual factors as native speakers (cf. Sociopragmatic interference above). In addition, the learners fall short of native efficiency in their control of processing in terms of producing linguistic behaviour. The learners in our sample took around 90 minutes to respond to the discourse completion tasks, noticeably longer than the less than 30 minutes taken by the native speakers. Bialystok's two-dimensional model has merit in the context of our investigation in specifying the areas in which Chinese EFL learners are less efficient.


D. Does instruction make a difference? Textbook materials that instruct learners on making requests are an important factor in the development of their request competence. We have found that the learners in our sample rarely use elaborate request expressions. This raises the question of whether the textbook materials used by the learners incorporate syntactically complex request expressions, and how these are presented. The core textbooks used by the business learners and language learners are New Interchange Three Intermediate (Richard et al. 1998) and New Headway Intermediate (Soars & Soars 1996) respectively. One unit in New Headway (Unit 4: 35) concentrates on requests and otrers. The Grammar Reference section of this unit gives the following expressions for making requests: Can

Could Will Would

you

help me, please? pass the salt, please?

Would you mind helping me, please? Can Could

I

speak to you, please? ask you a question?

Do you mind if I open the window? Would you mind if I opened the window? This table includes syntactically complex expressions- e.g., hi-clausal structures such as Do you mind if and Would you mind if. The textbook explains that Could is (a little) more formal, while Can is (a little) more familiar, and that Could I ... ? and Could you ... ? are very useful because they can be used in many situations (Soars & Soars 1996: 148). However, the authors do not go on to detail the specific types of situation in which each expression tends to occur. In addition, various request formulations, from the straightforward to the more deferential and elaborate, are presented in short dialogues in the listening exercises for the relevant unit. These include Turn that wretched music down, will you?, Can you change them [the broken shoes]?, Do you think you could just go and see ifshe's all 1·ight?, Would you mind looking after the newspape1-s [... ]?,and You wouldn't ha.ve change for a five-pound note, would you?. Nevertheless, the language learners in our sample employ elaborate expressions such as these only infrequently in making requests.

153


The main textbook used by the business learners is New Interchange Three (intermediate), in which one unit is dedicated to requests that include modals and "if" clauses (Richard et al. 1998: 15):

Less formal requests are more direct than more formal requests. The past tense is used in an if clause when "would" is used in the main clause. "Would you mind"' can be followed by an if clause or a gerund. Less formal

More formal

Can I borrow your pencil? Could you please lend me a suit? Is it OK if I use your phone? Do you mind if I use your CD player? Would it be OK if I used your fax machine? Would you mind if I borrowed your video camera? Would you mind letting me borrow your laptop? I wonder if I could borrow $100. I was wondering if you'd mind lending me your car.

This type of instruction maps a number of commonly used request formulae onto the formality and indirectness that they express, where the formality also correlates with the seriousness of the request, as shown in the table. The learners are given information about the formality and grammatical properties (e.g., past tense, clause features) of the request expressions, which, in Bialystok's twodimensional model (1993, 1994), promotes "analysis of knowledge': The subsequent listening and speaking activities in the textbook engage the learners in hearing and producing requests in concrete situations, a form of exercising 'control of processing' according to Bialystok's analysis-control dichotomy. There are many instances of elaborate request expressions in the listening activities - for instance, an interlocutor uses I was wondering if [... ] to borrow a camera from his friend in a short telephone conversation. However, the business learners show only limited evidence in their production of requests that they have internalised these more elaborate formulations (cf. 5.2.2). To summarise, the instruction on requests that is provided in the textbooks used by the two learner groups includes a variety of request expressions - from formal to casual, and from syntactically simple to complex. However, both groups oflearners in our sample prefer to use syntactically simple expressions and rarely employ more elaborate request formulations. This echoes Kasper's (1996) doubt about the extent to which a syllabus is effective in instructing 12 pragmatics, which leads to our next question -what kind of input results in the development of pragmatic competence in learners?


E. Does type of input make a difference? It is generally acknowledged that experiencing language use in socially-situated contexts is very important in the pragmatic development of L2 learners (Gee 1999, 2004, 2005; Kasper & Rose 2002; Li 1998, 2000; Widdowson 1984, 1989). This type of exposure enables L2learners to observe linguistic behaviour in social contexts and to exercise control of processing by paying attention to key contextual factors (Bialystok 1993). Experiencing socially-situated language use also helps learners to obtain the knowledge about context-related pragmatic behaviours that is required for more balanced pragmatic development (Bialystok 1993, 1994: cf. 8.3.2). The learners in our sample have received extensive training in the analysis of language forms during their tertiary studies, which emphasise studying grammatical rules and expanding their vocabulary. Outside the classroom, they have limited opportunity to use English in their everyday lives. Researchers have noted that the classroom environment provides only limited opportunities for learners to develop sociopragmatic competence in relation to the range of social activities they will participate in (Ervin-Tripp 1976; Ellis 1992; Widdowson 1989). The learners in our sample are unfamiliar with native speakers' behaviour when requesting prescribed and common services and asking favours. It is unlikely that they have had the opportunity to observe actual situations in which native speakers ask for favours - something usually done in private conversations - e.g., requesting a reference letter, borrowing money; asking a police officer not to write a ticket, or asking a tradesperson to fix a door. To redress this problem, EFL pedagogy may draw on socially-situated learning (Lave & Wenger 1991) to enrich the presentation of native linguistic behaviours in vivid and meaningful contexts that learners can observe and internalise.

8.3

Two major approaches

Let us now evaluate the usefulness of (a) a context-based approach and (b) a formulae-based approach, based on the findings of the present investigation.

8.3.1

The context-based approach

Pragmatic competence concerns the ability of interlocutors to manipulate the use of linguistic behaviour in particular contexts. Our study shows that a contextbased approach effectively reveals that Chinese EFL learners differ markedly from

155

1S6


native speakers in terms of the variations in their linguistic behaviour across different scenarios and their perceptions of context in the given scenarios.

Varying pragmatic behaviour with context An important aspect of pragmatic competence lies in one's ability to adapt pragmatic behaviour to suit different contexts (cf. Situational variation in 2.2.2). Table 8.2 shows that the native speakers in our study modify their request behaviours significantly to suit different contexts. They use shorter utterances in the prescribed and common service scenarios, and shift to longer utterances in the favour-asking scenarios. They mostly use direct strategies in the prescribed service scenarios, but prefer conventionally-indirect strategies in the common service and favour-asking scenarios. Similarly. native speakers syntactically simpler request formulations in the service scenarios, and use syntactically more complex and elaborate formulae in the favour-asking scenarios, with frequent use of syntactic and lexical modifications. Furthermore, the native speakers tend to omit supportive moves in the prescribed and common service scenarios, but include them when asking for favours. The learners in our sample do not vary their use of request strategies according to scenario to the same degree that native speakers do. Both groups oflearners are neither as direct as the native speakers in the prescribed and common service scenarios, nor as indirect in the favour-asking scenarios. The learners' use of request formulae is less varied than that of the native speakers both in type and in scenario-based shifts. When we look at the individual scenarios, we see that the learners in our sample do not concentrate their use of internal modifications in the favour-asking scenarios. A context-based investigation effectively captures the learners' non-native-like variation of linguistic behaviour according to the scenario, and shows that the language learner group is only slightly more nativelike than the business group in terms of situational variation.

Perception ofsocial factors in context The scenario-based approach also allows salient and meaningful social factors to emerge in specific contexts, revealing how they relate to interlocutors' pragmatic behaviour. Our sample shows that the factors that are significant in determining interlocutors' level of politeness can differ from the three key factors that Brown and Levinson (1987) use in their politeness theory - the relative power of the hearer over the speaker, the social distance between the two, and the level of imposition involved in performing the request. For example, in the 'Police' scenario the police officer is apparently the more powerful party, with the authority to issue or not issue a ticket to the motorist. The level of imposition in the motorist's request is high, given the fact that he/she has clearly committed the parking


offence. The social distance between the motorist and the police officer is not close. Based on Brown and Levinson's (1987) model therefore, all three factors suggest that the motorist should use a high level of politeness and deference in his/ her request (cf. Politeness-determining factors in 2.1.4). Contrary to this prediction, the native speakers behave with only a moderate level of politeness, making rather short and direct requests, showing a strong preference for imperatives and rarely employing syntactic and lexical mitigating modifiers (cf. Table 8.2). Such behaviour is explained by the fact that native speakers consider it very unlikely that the officer will agree not to issue a ticket, and the fact that native speakers normally do not have a high opinion of parking officers (cf. Sociopragrnatic interference in 8.2 B). These factors can be seen to be more important than considerations of power, distance and imposition in this context. Methodologically, the scenario-based interview is useful in probing the interlocutors' perceptions of the most important factors in determining their behaviour in a given context.

Appropriating patterns ofpragmatic behaviour in context We support the view that L2learners' most effective appropriation of native pragmatic norms occurs in specific contexts. In other words, without the insights that can be gained from particular contexts, learners will find it difficult to approximate native pragmatic behaviour (cf. 2.3.1). Let us take the learners in our study as an example. The most noticeable pragmatic differences between the learners and the native speakers are that the two learner groups use 6-7% more direct strategies than native speakers do, 11-13% more Could you VP, 3-17% fewer conditionals, 5-6% fewer lexical modifiers, and 1.6 times more supportive modifiers (cf. Table 8.1). However, simply pointing these differences out to learners is not sufficient to allow them to adjust their linguistic behaviour towards native norms - the learners need to know the specific context in which they should make a particular type of change. For example, even though the learners tend to use more direct strategies than the native speakers across the ten scenarios, they actually need to increase their use of direct strategies in the prescribed and common service scenarios and significantly reduce their use of such strategies in the favour-asking scenarios to make their strategy use closer to native norms. Context presents a crucially important linguistic and social environment for L2 learning. There are at least two levels of pragmatic appropriation for L2 learners to appreciate- context-based perception and context-based production of linguistic behaviour. First of all, L2 learners need to gain access to the contextual factors native speakers normally take into account, and be able to process these factors with native-like efficiency. Native speakers socialise in their speech communities and acquire knowledge of conventional linguistic behaviour from recurring social contexts. However, L2 learners have only restricted or piecemeal

157

158


access to this type of knowledge. For example, Chinese EFL learners may not fully appreciate that English speakers tend to behave in a fairly polite manner and often make small talk with cashiers or clerks in a banking situation (cf Sociopragmatic interference in 8.2 B). Such context-based knowledge enables learners to become sensitised to the manner and style of conversations in the banking context in English-speaking communities, so that they can note the differences from their own L1 practice. Secondly, L2 learners need to approximate native speakers' production of pragmatic behaviour, especially the particular pragmatic behaviours that are tied to recurrent social contexts. For example, in the 'Money' scenario, the native speakers frequently employ supportive moves to acknowledge that their request is an imposition and to disarm the hearer- e.g., I know this is a big ask, and I completely understand ifyou say no (21h). Here, the speaker behaves in a considerate and deferential manner in making the request, in the hope that the hearer will be considerate in return (cf. 7.1.1). The knowledge that this type of supportive move is used in certain scenarios may be valuable input for L2 pragmatic development. Researchers have recognised that frequent exposure to the target norms of language use is crucial for interlanguage pragmatic development, in which both quantity and quality of input are required (Ellis 2002; Kasper & Rose 2002; Klein et al. 1995) (cf. Limitations ofL2learning environment in 2.2.2). Furthermore, the context-based approach has merit in revealing patterns of request behaviour in specific scenarios (see Table 8.2). For example, in the 'Reference' scenario, an instance of favour asking, the native speakers tend to employ conventionally-indirect strategies and generally use syntactic modifications such as conditionals and hi-clausal structures. The formula I was wondering if is commonly used in this scenario. Although many native speakers use supportive moves (e.g., stating the reason/s for the request) and place these before the request, a substantial proportion of them do not use any supportive moves. In addition, the native speakers' request utterances are not necessarily particularly long. Therefore, the patterns of request behaviour associated with the individual scenarios demonstrate how the native speakers manipulate the language - i.e., the norms of language use (cf 2.1.2). The following are two utterances by native speakers: (25) a.

b.

I have a favour to ask, and you may not have time, which is fine. I'm applying for a job at xxx and they've requested a written reference. I was hoping you would be willing to write one for me. [female, native speaker, 'Reference'] I was wondering if I could ask a favour of you. I'm looking for a job. Would it be at all possible if you could write me a reference letter? [female, native speaker, 'Reference']


In (25), the native speakers use longer and syntactically more complex formulaic expressions to perform their requests: I was hoping you would be willing to and Would it be at all possible if you could. The syntactic modifiers include the hiclausal structure (e.g., the main clause I was hoping and the subordinate clause you would be willing to), and conditionals such as (vou) would and (ifyou) could. The request strategies pertain to the 07 QuERY PREPARATORY of the conventionally indirect type. The native speakers in (25) employ supportive moves to engage the hearer before making their request (I have a favour to ask) and to disarm the hearer (you may not have time which is fine) (cf. 7.1.1 Supportive moves). We also find lexical modifiers such as at all in Would it be a.t a.ll possible in (b). The native speakers therefore express politeness and deference to the professor through various aspects of their request behaviour - conventionally indirect strategies, syntactically complex and longer formulae, and frequent use of syntactic and lexical modifications and different types of supportive moves. These pragmatic features establish a pattern that shows how native speakers construct polite requests in favour-asking scenarios such as the 'Reference' scenario. The learner groups' linguistic behaviour differs from that of the native speakers in the 'Reference' scenario in various ways. Although the two learner groups tend to favour conventionally-indirect strategies, the business group uses them substantially less than the native speaker group. Both learner groups employ syntactic modifications less frequently than the native speakers do. The learners do not tend to use I was wondering if, preferring Could you VP and Would you VP. The learners use external modifications as a default in this scenario, unlike the native speaker group, which considers them optional (cf. Table 7.3). Finally. the learners' utterances are twice as long as those of the native speakers. Taken together, these discrepancies suggest that the learners probably need to modify their patterns of linguistic behaviour towards native norms.

Drawing from socially-situated learning In terms of language pedagogy, context-based pragmatic appropriation is supported by theoretical advances in socially-situated learning (Gee 2004). Widdowson (1984, 1989) proposes that second language learning should begin with contexts - 'schemata' in his model - in which language is used. In the same vein, Gee (2004) suggests that "the bottom line is this: if any variety of language is to be learned and used, it has to be situated" [emphasis in original] (p. 117). In this light, we can now revisit the example by Cohen and Olshtain (1993), in which an ESL learner is uncertain about whether her request for a lift home sounds appropriate (cf. 2.1.1). By applying socially-situated learning, the learner can be given the opportunity to observe how native speakers request a lift, so that she can recognise and internalise the native patterns of requesting. This entails "on the

159

160


spot" learning (Gee 2005: 64), which Gee (2004) contrasts with the mere learning of content and facts that he considers to be a barrier to e:ffuctive learning: One implication that I hope this book has is this: if you want to design a learning environment, don't start with content, start with the following sorts of questions: "What experiences do I want the learners to have? What do I want them to be able to do? What information, tools, and technologies do they need?" (Gee 2004: 118)

To answer Gee's questions in the context of interlanguage pragmatics, L2learners should gain experience in observing and internalising target norms of pragmatic behaviour in socially-situated contexts. In terms of"What do I want them to be able to do?,, the learners mostly need to reach a level of pragmatic competence that enables them to deal with the types of social interaction they would commonly face in the target speech community. Socially-situated learning offers new perspectives and suggests important foci for training in interlanguage pragmatics. In sum, a context-based investigation effectively demonstrates that the learners in our sample do not vary their linguistic behaviours to the same extent that native speakers do, and that they do not perceive contextual factors in a nativelike manner. Linguistic behaviours manifest as patterns in the scenarios in our sample, suggesting that the learners need to make shifts in their use of patterns of linguistic behaviour towards native norms. The pedagogical implication is that the socially-situated context provides learners with the opportunity to observe, experience and internalise native linguistic behaviours. 8.3.2

The formulae-based approach

Our analysis has emphasised formulaic language, and has documented the use of request formulae by both the learners and the native speakers in terms of what formulae are used, how frequently they are used, and when they are used. We have found that both the learners and the native speakers rely heavily on formulae to make requests, and this lends support to Fillmore's (1976:9) observation that formulae account for a considerable proportion of our language use (cf. 2.3.2). More specifically; the present study reinforces the previously expressed view that formulae play a key role in the realisation of speech acts such as requests (Aijmer 1996) and compliments (Hoffman-Hicks 1999; Manes & Wolfson 1981). In addition, our data strongly support the argument that formulae represent a crucial aspect ofL2learning, clearly identifying an aspect oflearners' pragmatic competence that needs further attention.


This problem with the use of L2 formulae has also been noted by Kecsk.es (2000a), who goes on to argue that L2 learners' use of words and expressions in their proper context should receive the same emphasis in L2 learning as grammatical competence. In the same vein, Widdowson (1989) argues that lexis, rather than grammar, should be the main focus of L2 learning. He proposes the "genuine communicative approach" model (p. 136). In this model, language learning begins with the holistic use oflexical clusters in association with salient social contexts. By gradually expanding the types and demands of the communicative situations, learners are able to deduce grammatical rules to decompose the lexical clusters and construct more elaborate utterances. In Widdowson's view, formulae play a vital role in L2learning and should be investigated in their own right (cf. 2.3.2). We share Widdowson's view, based on the results of the present study, which suggest that formulaic language provide an important means for learners to manipulate request behaviours in response to difterent contexts. A range of pragmatic behaviours- e.g., strategy types (cf 5.4) and hi-clausal structures and conditionals (cf. 8.1 C) -interrelate with formulaic language use. In addition, the evidence gathered from previous studies and the present investigation supports the L2 learning approach proposed by Widdowson - the approximation of native-like pragmatic behaviour may be more effective if learning begins with the point of the appropriation of the speech-act formulae used by native-speakers in socially-situated contexts.

8.4

The native-speaker model revisited

In the context of our investigation, native-speaker pragmatic norms provide an important reference point for describing learners' linguistic behaviour, and serve as a valuable classroom model for learners. There is little evidence that the use of such a model will result in learners' total convergence with the native norms; in tact, the learners in our sample exhibited judicious adaptation of the native norms. Generally speaking, the learners are willing to learn about native speakers' linguistic behaviours and make use of them. For example, when the learners were told that native speakers use Could I VP most frequently to ask for a bank statement from a cashier in the 'Bank' scenario, they made an effort to use this expression. They also tended to avoid the expression I want, when they were informed that I want sounded a little too coercive to native ears. The learners generally expressed a willingness to conform to the native norm of being more polite and friendly to the bank cashier. However, the learners by no means blindly accepted all of the native speakers' linguistic behaviours. In the 'Police' scenario,

161

162


the learners revealed in the interviews that, even though they knew that native speakers would often say "give me a break!, to a parking officer, they would not use this expression because it sounded too confrontational. One of the learners suggested that she would only use this expression if she was in a bad mood. This suggests that the learners tend to make considered judgements about whether to converge with native pragmatic norms in a given intercultural communication, taking into consideration their own identity. The bottom line here is that only when learners are aware of the native pragmatic norms and conventions are they able to make informed decisions about their own pragmatic behaviours, particularly when they communicate with native speakers in target speech communities. On balance, then, the present author is inclined to retain the central role of the native-speaker model in the EFL classroom, rather than making the shift to a bilingual model particularly in the EFL context of China (cf. 3.2).

CHAPTER9

Conclusion

In this chapter, we will revisit the questionsinvestigatedin the course of this study, and suggest further research directions.

Questions for this study We can now summarise our findings in relation to the research questions outlined in Chapter 1: 1. To what extent do the two groups of Chinese EFL learners achieve native-like pragmatic behaviours in the foreign language environment in terms of strategy use, formulaic expressions, internal and external modifications, and utterance length?

The EFL learning environment in our sample did not enable the two learner groups to develop highly native-like pragmatic behaviours. The two groups of learners achieved native-like distribution of strategy types over the scenarios as a whole, but still differed significantly from native speakers in their use of request formulae, internal and external modifications, and utterance length. In several individual scenarios, the learners' request realisation patterns contrasted markedly with those of the native speakers, and the language group (the advanced learners)was relatively more native-like than the business group (the intermediate learners). The learner groups did not vary their request formulations according to the specific scenario as much as the native speaker group did, particularly in terms of the use of formulae and internal modifications. We have proposed that one of the main reasons the two learner groups did not achieve native-like request competence is that their classroom instruction focused extensively on the formal representation of language (Bialystok 1993)- in other words, the analysis of language structures and grammatical rules. The learners have little experience of observing and performing requests in various sociallysituated contexts, and are therefore not able to respond etrectively to social and contextual factors by producing linguistic behaviours in a native-like manner. In terms of Bialystok's (1993, 1994) two-dimensional model, the learners have


underdeveloped competence in their control of processing -allocating their attention efficiently to evaluate the most relevant contextual factors, retrieve linguistic materials, and produce the required speech act. The learners' control of processing differs from that of the native speakers most noticeably in the 'Bank' and 'Police' scenarios, in which they do not take into account the same contextual factors that the native speakers focus on. The learners also lack the analytical knowledge of the conventional or preferred pragmatic behaviours linked to recurrent contexts. The learners do not possess the formulaic expressions associated with these contexts in their repertoire, and tend to misinterpret the contextual factors. In short, the two learner groups use request formulae that are not as elaborate, syntactically complex, or scenario-specific as those employed by the native speakers. We conclude that the EFL learning environment in our sample did not provide the learners with sufficient quality and quantity of input (Kasper & Rose 2002) - i.e., recurrent exposure to and participation in speech-act performance in socially-situated contexts, where they can observe, practise and internalise the native patterns of pragmatic behaviours (cf 8.3.1). 2. Does the language group outperform the business group in approximating native norms? We have examined the acquisitional issues in our sample in response to BardoviHarlig's ( 1999) claim that interlanguage pragmatics studies are mostly descriptive, rather than acquisitional or developmental (p. 679). The language group outperforms the business group only slightly in terms of approximation to native norms - the two learner groups' request behaviours show more similarities than differences. Both learner groups tend to use direct strategies more frequently and conventionally-indirect strategies less frequently than the native speaker group does. Both business and language groups difter conspicuously from the native speakers in formulae use, exhibiting astonishing similarities with one another - the eight formulae used most frequently by the two learner groups are identical. Across the ten scenarios, the two learner groups employ hi-clausal structures and lexical downgraders significantly less often than the native speaker group, and address terms three to four times more frequently, exhibiting non-native-like use of si1· and madam. Unlike the native speakers, who tend to use internal modifications to express politeness and deference, the two learner groups rely mostly on external modifications - i.e., various supportive moves - making their request utterances nearly twice as long as those of the native speakers. In addition. the business and language learners both neither vary their use of formulae to a native-like extent across the ten scenarios, nor concentrate their use of syntactic modifiers, conditionals and hi-clausal structures in the

Chapter 9. Conclusion 165

favour-asking scenarios. Moreover, both learner groups tend to perceive social and contextual factors differently from the way they are perceived by the native speakers in the 'Bank' and 'Police' scenarios, indicating their non-native-like sociopragmatic competence. Nevertheless, the language group is relatively more native-like than the business group in some respects. For the ten scenarios as a whole, the language group's use of strategy types and of syntactic modifiers is closer to that of the native speaker group in occurrence frequency than that of the business group -e.g., in the use of conditionals (see Table 8.1). The language group uses complex and elaborate formulaic expressions moderately more frequently than does the business group. The language learners also use fewer address terms than the business learners, and are therefore closer to native norms in this respect. The language group differs significantly from the native speakers in the use of request strategies in fewer scenarios than the business group (cf. 4.3). In addition, the language group's use of the second most frequently used strategy type -the 05 WANT STATEMENT - does not differ significantly from that of the native speakers in terms of distribution by scenario, whereas that of the business groups does differ significantly. 3. Which of the elements of request behaviours are developed in the learner groups, and which are underdeveloped? Of all the elements of request behaviours examined in our study; the learners exhibit relatively more developed pragmatic features in terms of strategy types, conditionals, and supportive moves. The two groups of learners are broadly native-like in their use of strategy types, a pragmatic feature that can be achieved at early stages of L2 development. Conditionals are employed at a native-like high frequency in the language group, but not in the business group, suggesting that conditionals become part of learners' pragmatic behaviours when they have reached an advanced level of general language proficiency. The two learner groups employ external modifications in a sophisticated but not fully native-like manner- they use supportive moves nearly twice as frequently as the native speakers do, but fail to make use of some types of supportive move commonly used by the native speakers. In relation to several other pragmatic features, the learners have not developed near-native linguistic behaviours. Above all, request formulae are conspicuously underdeveloped in both learner groups. This is consistent with the observation of earlier studies that even advanced L2 learners have difficulty achieving a nativelike command of formulaic expressions in context (e.g., Ellis 1994; Kecskes 2003; Wray 2002). The learners' ability to use internal modifications is also not fully developed - they employ syntactic and lexical modifiers less frequently than do the


native speakers, particularly in the favour-asking scenarios. Both learner groups are verbose in their requests, falling short of the ability of the native speakers to construct requests succinctly. 4. Does the scenario-based approach have any advantages for an examination of interlanguage pragmatics? The scenario-based approach adds a special edge to our examination of interlanguage pragmatics, providing important new information. This approach reveals that the learner groups tend to differ markedly from native norms in terms of the strategy types, formulaic expressions, and internal and external modifications they use in individual scenarios, although such differences are often less evident when the scenarios are considered as a whole (cf. 8.3.1). This also indicates that the learners' pragmatic behaviour is not as context-specific as that of the native speakers. In addition, a context-based examination provides information about the learners' perceptions of social and contextual factors, extending our understanding of why the learners' request behaviour tends to differ from that of the native speakers. We strongly support the view that only in socially-situated contexts can 12 learners appreciate the way in which native speakers commonly deal with salient social and contextual factors, and appropriate native patterns of pragmatic behaviour (cf. Appropriating patterns of pragmatic behaviour in 8.3.1). To summarise, we have found that the context-based approach not only contributes to a more reliable examination of pragmatic behaviour, but also lends support to socially-situated L2learning in terms of the development of pragmatic competence. 5. Does the formulae-based approach otter any advantages for an examination of interlanguage pragmatics? The relevant literature (Edmondson 1989, 1999; House 1996; Kasper & Schmidt 1996; Widdowson 1989) and the results of the present study support the contention that formulaic expressions merit investigation in their own right. In our sample, formulaic expressions not only play a pivotal role in request performance in the native speaker and learner groups, but are also interrelated with other pragmatic features such as strategy use and syntactic and lexical modifications (cf. 8.3.2). Of all the pragmatic behaviours we examined in our sample, the two learner groups contrast most distinctly with the native speakers in their use of formulaic expressions. The request formulae in the native speakers' arsenals tend to be longer, more elaborate and more context-specific than the formulae in the learners' repertoires. We therefore argue that speech-act formulae should be one of the central constructs for assessing interlanguage pragmatic competence.

Chapter 9. Conclusion 167

Future research Some future research directions are suggested by our investigation. We have found that the foreign language environment does not allow Chinese EFL learners to achieve close approximation to native pragmatic competence. We are keenly interested to know whether a second language environment - in which 12 learners are able to observe and practise language use on a day-to-day basis in a wide range of social interactions - tends to be more favourable to interlanguage pragmatic development. A second language environment probably enables situated learning (Gee 2005; Lave & Wenger 1991), in which L2learners have a wider range of opportunities to exercise their control of processing (Bialystok 1993, 1994) -in other words, to efficiently allocate their attention to key social and contextual factors and produce linguistic behaviours. In light of the notions of "quality of exposure" (Matsumura 2001) and "quality and quantity of input" (Kasper & Rose 2002), we may question the interplay between difterent types of input and 12 pragmatic development. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, for instance, a nonnative-speaking waiter is likely to be relatively proficient and native-like in restaurant-related speech-act performance, and an 12-speaking shop assistant should be competent in speech acts associated with selling goods because of repeated exposure to commercial interactions. However, there is a real need for empirical evidence to clarify whether there is a positive correlation between quality exposure to target pragmatic norms and learners' internalisation of these norms. Another intriguing topic for further study is the in-group vs. out-group distinction in Chinese speakers. This issue relates to learners' sociopragmatic perceptions, which were not explored in depth in the present investigation. Subsequent studies can investigate the extent to which Chinese speakers maintain their in-group/out-group evaluation in second language contexts, whether this behaviour correlates with their pragmalinguistic performance, and how this behaviour develops along with their second language experience, particularly when this behaviour is in conflict with target language norms. In addition, it is evident that 12 learners' use of formulae in various speech acts -e.g., requests, compliments, refusals and apologies -deserves greater attention in cross-cultural pragmatics studies (cf. 8.3.2). It is especially important to identify native speakers' use of formulae in particular contexts- i.e., situationbound utterances (Fillmore 1979: 92; Kecskes 2003) - and to examine whether 12 learners are able to produce these formulae in social contexts and how their command of such formulae develops. Furthermore, methodologically; subsequent studies can use multiple data sources that incorporate both naturalistic data - such as ethnographic observations - and experimental data - such as discourse completion tasks, oral/written


role plays, on-taskor post-task think-aloud protocols- to attempt to obtain more reliable and comprehensive findings (Cohen 2004; Hassall2001, 2003). Finally, our investigation - in which the informants were engaged in discourse completion tasks rather than spontaneous dialogues - does not allow for the full implementation of Watts's ernie and processual approach. However, in relation to Watts's (2003) note that "Bourdieu's theory of practice suggests that what is interpretable as (im)politeness depends on the linguistic habitus of the individual and the linguistic capital that s/he is able to manipulate" (p. 160), we can attempt some preliminary observations. In terms of our study; the learners' linguistic habitus is of an interlingual and intercultural nature - consisting of elements of both their L1 and 12 - but lacks some components of Anglophone speakers' habitus - for example, in terms of their unmarked patterns of interaction ("politic behaviour, for Watts) in the 'Bank' scenario (cf. 8.2 B). Such components, when acquired, will increase the learners' linguistic capital, enabling them to offer more "linguistic payment, than is required in the target-speech community when they intend to express politeness. Future research on interlanguage pragmatics will be able to devote more attention to examining L2learners' linguistic habitus and linguistic capital, which should cast more light on their interlanguage pragmatic competence.

Notes

Chapter 2. Interlanguage pragmatics: A critical review t. M with Crystal (1997), the factors oflanguage user and context are the foci of Yule's ( 1996) introduction to pragmatics - he considers that pragmatics is the study of "speakers' meaning" as well as the study of"contextual meaning" (p. 3). Yule further points out that pragmatics, unlike syntax and semantics, allows specific human factors - e.g., language users' intentions, goals, presumptions, and actions - to be taken into account (p. 4). 2. Hymes (1971, 1972: 4), in response to the Chomsk:yan notion ofllnguistic competence possessed by an ideal speaker, proposes the concept of communicative competence to allow social, cultural and individual factors to be incorporated in the study oflanguage.

3· Hymes aims to establish a field in linguistks that investigates the rules of use. In this line of investigation, speakers as communicating beings play a central role (Hymes 1972: 277-278). Hymes emphasises the point that communicative beings are able to perform speech acts and participate in speech events. He aptly points out that even native speakers of a language do not possess identkal abilities to make use of different sociolinguistic features, such as various institutional and dialectical varieties, or conventional speech modes suitable in specific social contexts. The Hymesyan notion of communicative beings with different abilities is thus in contrast with the Chomsk:yan concept of ideal language users with identical linguistic competence. 4· Whether something is appropriate relates to whether an utterance is suitable to the situational context in terms of social and cultural conventions. Appropriateness is dearly relevant to pragmatics, since it attaches importance to social and contextual factors and the constraints that these invoke. Whether something is in fact done has to do with what members of a particular speech community actually say. Formulaic expressions play a key role here, since they are frequently used and become conventional in recurrent contexts: e.g., How are you? is conventionally used as a greeting, and its frequent occurrence is an important reflection of what is done in the language (cf 2.3.2 Formulae-based approach to ILP).

s.

In their view, interlocutors need to be able to use grammatical rules, maintain the coherence and cohesiveness of their text (spoken or written), apply suitable communication strategies - e.g., being direct or indirect - and observe the social and cultural norms of particular speech communities.

For example, by saying It's cold in here, the speaker can indirectly ask the hearer to dose the door. The interest of the speaker here is not in describing the coldness of the room, but in making a request for the hearer to perform an action that the speaker desires - e.g., dosing the door or turning on the heater. The speaker is therefore performing a social act. Similarly, by saying I hereby christen this ship [... ],I swear [... ],I pronounce you husband and wife, and I dedare war, the speaker is performing various speech acts to affect the world 6.

References

Achiba, Machiko. 2003. Learning to Request in a Second Language: A Study of Child Interlanguage Pragmatics. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational Routines in English: Com•ention and Creativity. London: Longman. Angelis, Paul and Henderson, Thelma (eds.). 1989. Selected papers from the proceedings of the BAAVAAAL joint seminar "Communicative Competence Re1'isited." University of Warwick. 8-10 July 1988: Applied Linguistics 10(2). Austin, John. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bardovi- Harlig, Kathleen. 1999. "Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics." Language Learning 49 (4): 677-713. Bardovi- Harlig, Kathleen and Hartford, Beverly S. 1996. "Input in an institutional setting." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18 (2): 171-188. Barron, Anne. 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Bayley, Robert and Langman, Juliet. 2004. "Variation in the group and the individual: Evidence from second language acquisition." IRAL 42 (4): 303-318. Bayley, Robert and Regan, Vera. 2004. "Introduction: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence." Joun1al ofSocioli11guisNcs8 (3): 323-338. Beal., Christine. 1994. "Keeping the peace: A cross-cultural comparison of questions andrequests in Australian English and French." Multilingua 13 (112): 35-58. Beebe. Leslie M. 1995. "Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence." In Georgetown U11iversity Rou11d Table on Language and Linguistics, James E. Alatis, Carolyn Strahle, Brent Gallenberger and Maggie Ronkin (eds.), 154-168. Baltimore, MD: Georgetown University Press. Beebe. Leslie M. and Cummings, Martha C. 1996. "Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance." In Speech Acts across Cultures: Challe11ges to Communication in a Second Language, Susan Gass and Joyce Neu (eds.), 65-86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Beebe. Leslie M. and Takahashi. Tomoko. 1989. "Do you have a bag? Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition." In Variation in Seco11d Language Acquisition: Discourse, Pragmatics and Communicatio11, Susan Gass, Carolyn Madden, Dennis Preston and Larry Selinker (eds.), 103-125. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Beebe. Leslie M., Takahashi, Tomoko and Ul!ss-Weltz, Robin. 1990. "Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals." In Developing Commu11icative Compete11ce in Second La11guage, Robin Scarcella, Elaine S. Andersen and Stephen Krashen (eds.), 55-73. New York: Newbury House. Bialystok. Ellen. 1993. "Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence." In Interlanguage Pragmatics, Gabriele Kasper and Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), 43-56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

172


Bialystok. Ellen. 1994. "Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiencof.' Studies 111 Second Language Acquisition 16: 156-168. Billmyer, Kristine and Varghese, Manka 2000. "Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests." Applied Linguistics 21 (4): 517-552. Block. David. 2003. The Social Turn In Second Language Acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana 1982. "Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language." Applied Linguistics 3 (1): 29-59. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. "Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?" Journal ofPragmaNcs 11 (2): 131-146. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1989. "Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in directness." In Oo~Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper (eds.), 37-70. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1991. "Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests." In Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research, Robert Phillipson, Eric Kellerman. Larry Selinker, Michael Sharwood-Smith and Merrill Swain (eds.), 255-272. Clevedon. UK: Multilingual Matters. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Danet, Brenda and Gherson. Rimona 1985. "The language of requesting in Israeli society." In Language and Social Situations, Joseph P. Forgas (ed.), 113-139. New York: Springer Verlag. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and House, Juliane. 1989. "Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior." In Ooss-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Jullane House and Gabriele Kasper (eds.), 123-154. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Cmporation. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Jullane and Kasper, Gabriele. 1989a. "Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: an introductory overview." In Ooss-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests a11d Apologies, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper (eds.), 1-34. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele (eds.). 1989b. Ooss-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests a11d Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Olshtain. E1ite. 1984. "Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP)." Applied Linguistics 5 (3): 196-213. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Olshtain, Elite. 1986. "Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure." Studies in Second La11guage Acquisitlo11 8 (2): 165-179. Bousfield, Derek and Locher, Miriam A 2008. Impoliteness in Language: Studie.s on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bouton, Lawrence F. 1994. "Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught." Joun1al ofPragmatics 22: 157-167. Bouton, Lawrence F. 1999. "Developing non-native speaker skills in interpreting conversational implicatures in English: Explicit teaching can ease the process." In Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning, Eli Hinkel (ed.), 47-70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boxer, Diana 2004. "Studying speaking to inform second language learning: A conceptual overview." In Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning, Diana Boxer and Andrew D. Cohen (eds.), 3-24. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

References

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1978. "Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena." In Questio11s and Polite11ess: Strategie.s in Social Interactio11, Esther Goody (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals In Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Byon. Andrew S. 2004. "Soctopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: Pedagogical settings." Journal of PragmaNcs 36: 1673-1704. Canale, Michael. 1983. "From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy." In Language and Communication, Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt (eds.), 2-27. London: Longman. Canale, Michael and Swain, MerrUL 1980. "Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing." Applied Linguistics 1: 1-47. Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, Michael. 1997. Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chen, Ping. 1999. Modern Chinese: History and Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clyne, Michael, Ball, Martin and Neil, Deborah. 1991. "Intercultural communication at work in Australia: Complaints and apologies in turns." Multilingua 10 (3): 251-273. Clyne, Michael and Sharifian. Farzad. 2008. "English as an International Language: Challenges and Possibilities." Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 31 (3): 28.1-28.6. Cohen, Andrew D. 2004. ~sessing speech acts in a second language." In Studying speaking to Inform Second Language Learning, Diana Boxer and Andrew D. Cohen (eds.), 302-327. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cohen, Andrew D. and Olshtain, Elite. 1993. "The production of speech acts by EFL learners." TESOL Quarterly27 (1): 33-56. Collentine, Joseph and Freed, Barbara F. 2004. "Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition." Studies in Second La11guage Acquisitio11 26: 153-171. Cook, Misty and Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2002. "The Development of Comprehension in Interlanguage Pragmatics: The Case of Request Strategies in English." Australian Review ofApplied Li11guisNcs 25 (1): 19-39. Cook, Vivian J. 1977. "Cognitive processes in second language learning." IRAL 15 (1 ): 73-90. Cook, Vivian J. 1988. "Cognitive processing and second language learning." Polyglot 9 (microfiche 2). Coulmas, F. 1979. "0 n the sodolinguistic relevance of routine formulae." Journal ofPragmatics 3:239-266.

Coulmas, Florian (ed.). 1981. Conversational Routine: Explorations i11 Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton. Crystal, David. 1997. The Cambridge E11cyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davies, Alan. 2003. The Native Speaker: .M,vth and Reality. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DeCock, Sylvie, Granger, Sylviane, Leech, Geoffrey and McEnery, Tony. 1998. ~ automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners." In Learner English on Computer, Sylviane Granger (ed.), 67-79. London: Longman. DuFon, Margaret 1999. The acquisition of linguistic politeness in Indonesian as a second language by Sojourners in naturalistic interactions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii

173

174


Edmondson, Willis. 1981. Spoke11 Discourse: A Model for A11arysis. London: Longman. Edmondson, Willis. 1989. "Discourse production, routines and language learning." In Englisch als Zweitsprache, Bernhard Kettemann (ed. ), 287-302. 'llibingen: Gunter Nar.t: Edmondson, Willis. 1999. Twelve Lectures on Second Language Acquisition. 'lliblngen: Gunter Narr. Edmondson, Willis and House, Juliane. 1991. "Do learners talk too much? The waffie phenomenon in interlanguage pragmatics." In Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research: A Commemorative Volume for Claus Frerch, Robert Phillipson, Eric Kellerman, Larry Selinker, Michael Sharwood-Smith and Merrill Swain (eds.), 273-287. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Edmondson, Willis, House, Juliane, Kasper, Gabriele and Stemmer, Brigitte. 1984. "Learning the pragmatics of discourse: A project report" Applied IJnguistics 5 (2): 113-127. Eelen, Gino. 2001. A Critique ofPoliteness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing. Elder, Catherine and Harding, Luke. 2008. "Language testing and English as an International Language: Constraints and contributions." Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 31 (3): 34.1-34.11.

Ellis, Nick C. 2002. "Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition" Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (2): 143-188. Ellis, Rod. 1985. Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Rod. 1992. "Learning to communicate in the classroom." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14: 1-23. Ellis, Rod. 1994. The Study of Seco11d Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ervin-Tripp. Susan. 1976. "Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives." Language in Society 5 (1): 25-66. Ervin-Tripp. Susan. 1987. "Talk that talk." Co11temporary Psyclwlogy 32: 935-936. Ervin-Tripp. Susan. 1996. "Context in language." In Social Interaction, Social Context, and La1!guage, Dan Slobin, Julie Gerhardt, Amy Kyratzis and Jiansheng Guo (eds.), 21-26. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Faerch, Claus and Kasper, Gabriele. 1989. "Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization." In Cro~ Cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologie.s, Shoshana BlumKulka, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper (eds.), 221-247. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation Felix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar. 2005. "Indirectness and politeness in Mexican requests." In Selected proceedings of the 7th 1fzspa11ic Linguistic Symposium, David Eddington (ed.), 66-78. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project Fillmore, Charles. 1976. "The need for a frame semantics within linguistics." Statistical Methods in Li11gulstlcs 12: 5-29. Fillmore, Charles. 1979. "On fluency." In Individual Differences in Language Ability and La1!guage Behavior, Charles Fillmore, Daniel Kempler and WilliamS.- Y. Wang (eds.), 85-102. London: Academic Press. Firth, Alan. 2009. "The lingua franca factor." Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2): 147-170. Firth, Alan and Wagner, Johannes. 1997. "On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research." The Modern Language Journal81 (3): 285-300. Forgas, Joseph P. (ed.). 1985. Language and Social Situations. New York: Springer Verlag. Freeman. Donald and Johnson. Karen E. 1998. "Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base teacher education" TESOL Quarterly 32 (3): 397-417.

References

Fukushima, Saeko. 1996. "Request strategies in British English and Japanese." Language Science.s 18 (3/4): 671-688. Fukushima, Saeko. 2000. Requests and Culture. Bern: Peter Lang. Gao, Hong. 1999. "Features of request strategies in Chinese." Lund University Working Paper. Garcia, Carmen. 1992. "Refusing an invitation: A case study of Peruvian style." Hispanic Linguistics 5 (112): 207-243. Gass, Susan. 1997. Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gass, Susan. 1998. ~pies and oranges: Or, why apples are not orange and don't need to be A response to Firth and Wagner." The Modern Language Journal82 (1): 83-90. Gass, Susan and Selinker, Larry. 2001. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbawn Associates. Gee, James Paul 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge. Gee, James Paul. 2004. Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. London: Routledge. Gee, James Paul. 2005. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Gleason, Jean B. 1982. "Converging evidence for linguistic theory from the study of aphasia and child language." In Exceptional Language and Linguistics, Loraine Obler and Ll.ze Menn (eds.), 347-356. New York: Academic Press. Goffman, Erving. 1967.Interaction Ritual: Essays In Face to Face Behavior. Chicago: Aldine. Goldschmidt, Myra M. 1998. "Do me a favor: A descriptive analysis of favor asking sequences in American English." Journal of Pragmatics 29 (2): 129-153. Granger, Sylviane. 1998. "Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae." In Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, A Cowie (ed..), 145-160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grice, Paul 197 5. "Logic and conversation." In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, Peter Cole andJerryMorgan (eds.), 41-58. New York: Academic Press. Gu. Yueguo. 1990. "Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese." Journal of Pragmatics 14 (2): 237-257. Gumperz, John J. 1982. "Contextualization conventions." In Discourse Strategie.s, John J. Gumperz (ed..),139-155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hartford, Beverly S. and Bardovi-Hartig, Kathleen. 1992. "Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics." In Pragmatics and La11guage Lean1i11g (Vol. 3), Lawrence F. Bouton and Yamuna Kachru (eds.), 33-52. Urbana: DElL: University of lllinois Press. Hassall, Tim. 1997. Requests by Australian learners oflndonesian. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Australian National University. Hassall, Tim. 2001. "Modifying requests in a second language." IRAL 39 (4): 259-283. Hassall, Tim. 2003. "Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian." Journal of Pragmatics 35 (12): 1903-1928. Hoffman-Hicks, Sheila. 1999. The longitudinal development of French foreign language pragmatic competence: Evidence from study abroad participants. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Indiana University.

175


House. Juliane. 1989. "Politeness in English and German: The functions ofplease and bitte." In Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Reque.sts and Apologies, Shoshana IDum-Kulka, Jul!ane House and Gabriele Kasper (eds.), 96-119. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. House, Juliane. 1996. "Developing pragmatic fiuency in English as a foreign language." Studies In Second Language Acquisition 18: 225-252. House, Juli.ane. 2003a. "English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism?" Journal of Sociolinguistics 7 (4): 556-578. House, Jultane. 2003b. "Misunderstanding in intercultural university encounters." In Misunderstanding in Social Life. Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk, Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper and Steven Ross (eds.), 22-56. London: Longman House, Juliane. 2009. "Introduction: The pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca." Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2): 141-145. House, Jul!ane and Kasper, Gabriele. 1981. "Politeness markers in English and German." In Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, FlorianCoulmas (ed.), 157-185. The Hague: Mouton. House, Juli.ane and Kasper, Gabriele. 1987. "Requesting in a Foreign Language." In Perspec-

tives on Language In Performance: Studies In Linguistics, Literary Criticism, and Language Teaching and Learning: to Honour Werner Hullen on the Occasion of His Si.r:tieth Birthday, Wolfgang Lorscher and Rainer Schulze (eds.), 1250-1288. Tiibingen: Gunter Narr. House, Juliane and Vollmer, Helmut J. 1988. "Speech act performance in German: On the realization of the speech actions "request" and "apology."" Lingulstische Berichte 114 (Apr): 114-133. Hymes, Dell. 1971. "Competence and performance in linguistk theory." In Language acquisitio1!: Models and methods, Renira Huxley and Elisabeth Ingram (eds.), 3-28. London: Academic Press. Hymes, Dell. 1972. "On communkative competence." In Sociolinguistics: Selected Readi11gs, John B. Pride and Janet Holmes (eds.), 269-293. Harmondsoworth: Penguin Books. Ide, Sachiko. 1982. "Japanese sociolinguistks: Politeness and woman's language." Lingua 57: 357-385. Ide, Sachiko. 1989. "Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistk politeness." Multilingua 8 (2/3): 223-248. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006a. "Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca." TESOL Quarter~v 40 (1 ): 157-181. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006b. "Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA." International Journal of AppliedLi11guistics 16 (2): 137-162. Johnston. Bill, Kasper, Gabriele and Ross, Steven. 1998. "Effect of rejoinders in production questionnaires." Applied Linguistics 19 (2): 157-182. Kaplan. Robert B. 1966. "Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education." La11guage Lean1i'1g 16 (112): 1-20. Kasper, Gabriele. 1992. "Pragmatic Transfer." Second Language Research 8 (3): 203-231. Kasper, Gabriele. 1996. "Introduction: Interlanguage Pragmatics in SLA." Studie.s in Seco11d Language Acquisition 18 (2): 145-148. Kasper, Gabriele. 1997. ""'A" stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner." The Modern LanguageJournal81 (3): 307-312. Kasper, Gabriele. 2001. "Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development." Applied Linguistics 22 (4): 502-530.

References

Kasper, Gabriele and Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (eds.). 1993. lnterlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kasper, Gabriele and Dahl, Merete. 1991. "Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13 (2): 215-247. Kasper, Gabriele and Rose, Kenneth R. 1999. "Pragmatics and SLA." Annual Review of Applied IJngulstics 19: 81-104. Kasper, Gabriele and Rose, Kenneth R. 2001. "Pragmatics in language teaching." In PragmatIcs in Language Teaching, Kenneth R. Rose and Gabriele Kasper (eds.), 1-10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, Gabriele and Rose, Kenneth R. 2002. Pragmatic Development In a Second Language. Malden: mackwell Publishers. Kasper, Gabriele and Schmidt, Richard. 1996. "Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics." Studies In Second Language Acquisition 18 (2): 149-169. Kasper, Gabriele and Zhang, Yanyin. 1995. ""Ifs good to be a bit Chinese": Foreign students' experience of Chinese pragmatics." In Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language, Gabriele Kasper (ed.), 1-22. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Katriel, Tamar. 1986. Talking Straight: Dugri speech in Israeli Sabra Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kecskes, Istvan. 2000a. ~cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances." Journal ofPragmatics 32 (5): 605-625. Kecskes, Istvan. 2000b. "Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances in L2." 1Jnks&Letters7: 145-161. Kecskes, Istvan. 2003. Situation-Bound Utterances in Ll and L2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kim, In-Ok 2000. Relationship of onset age ofESL acquisition and extent of informal input to appropriateness and nativeness in performing four speech acts in English: A study of native Korean adult speakers of ESL. Unpublished PhD dissertation, New York University. Kim, Julie. 1995. "Could you calm down more?: Requests and Korean ESL learners." Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 11 (2): 67-82. Kirkpatrick, Andy. 1991. "Information sequencing in Mandarin letters of request" Anthropological Linguistics 33 (2): 183-203. Kirkpatrick, Andy. 1992. "Schemas, authentic texts and cross-cultural communication." Australia" Review ofApplied IJnguistics supplement 9: 101-119. Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2007. "Setting attainable and appropriate English language targets in multilingualsettings: A case for Hong Kong." Inter11ational Journal of Applied IJnguistics 17 (3): 376-391. Kirkpatrick, Andy (ed.). 2010. The Routledge Handbook of World Englishl'.s. London: Routledge. Klein, Wolfgang, Dietrich, Rainer and Noyau. Colette. 1995. "Conclusions." In The Acquisltio11 of Temporality in a Second Language, Rainer Dietrich, Wolfgang Klein and Colette Noyau (eds.), 261-280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Kobayashi. Hiroe and Rinnert, Carol 2003. "Coping with high imposition requests: High vs. low proficiency EFL students in Japan." In Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching, Alicia Martinez Flor, Esther Us6 Juan and Ana Ferndndez Guerra (eds.), 161184. Castell6 de la Plana, Spain: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. Koike, Dale A. 1989. "Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage." The Modern Language Journal73 (3): 279-289.

177

178


Kong, Kenneth C. C. 1998. "Are simple business request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business request letters." Text 18 (1): 103-141. Krashen, Stephen and Scarcella, Robin. 1978. "0 n routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance." Language Learning28 (2): 283-300. Kuiper, Koenraad and Findall, Marie. 2000. "Social rituals, formulaic speech and small talk at the supermarket checkout" In Small Talk, Justine Coupland (ed.), 183-207. Harlow, UK: Longman. Lave, Jean and Wenger, Etienne. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Le Pair, Rob. 1996. "Spanish request strategies: A cross-cultural analysis from an intercultural perspective." Language Sciences 18 (3/4): 651-670. Lee-Wong, Song MeL 1994. "Imperatives in requests: Direct or impolite-observations from Chinese." Pragmatics4 (4): 491-515. Lee-Wong, Song Mei. 2002. "Contextualizlng intercultural communication and soctopragmatic choices." Multilingua 21 (1): 79-99. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Leech, Geoffrey. 2007. "Politeness: Is there an East-West divide?" Journal ofPoliteness Research 3 (2): 167-206. Li., Duanduan. 1998. Expressing needs and wants in a second language: An ethnographic study of Chinese immigrant women's requesting behavior. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University. Li., Duanduan. 2000. "The pragmatics of making requests in the 12 workplace: A case study of language socialization." The Canadian Modern Language Review 57 (1): 58-87. Lim, Lily. 2007. "Computer assisted training for intetpreters' vocabulary preparation." In La1!guage and Language.s: Global a11d Local Tensions, Christina Gitsaki (ed..), 171-291. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publlshing. Lim, Lily. In press. "Examining students' perceptions of computer-assisted interpreter training." The b1terpreter and Tra,ISlator Trainer. LoCastro, Virginia. 2003. An Introduction to Pragmatics: Social Action for La,~guage Teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Locher, Miriam A and Watts, Richard J. 2005. "Politeness theory and relational work" Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 9-33. Lyons, John. 1996. "On competence and performance and related notions." In Performance a11d Competence in Second Language Acquisltio11, Gillian Brown, Kirsten Malmkjaer and John Williams (eds.), 11-32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manes, Joan and Wolfson, Nessa. 1981. "The compliment formula." In Conversational Routine: Explorations i11 Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, Florian Coulmas (ed.), 115-132. The Hague: Mouton. Marquez Reiter, Rosina. 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britai11 and Uruguay: A Co11trastive Study of Rel]uests and Apologies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Matsumura, Shoichi 2001. "Learning the rules of offering advice: A quantitative approach to second language socialization." Language Learning 51 (4): 635-679. Matsumura, Shoichi. 2003. "Modelling the Relationships among Interlanguage Pragmatic Development, L2 Proficiency, and Exposure to L2." Applied Linguistics 24 (4): 465-491. Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction (2nd ed..). Malden. MA: Blackwell Publishers. Mey, Jacob L. 2004. "Between culture and pragmatics: Scylla and Charybdis! The precarious condition of intercultural pragmatics." Intercultural Pragmatics 1 (1): 27-48.

References 179

Nakahama, Yuko. 1999. "Requests in Ll/L2 Japanese and American English: A crosscultural investigation of politeness." In Pragmatics and Language Lean1i11g Vol. 9, Lawrence F. Bouton (ed.), 1-29. Urbana-Champaign, IL: DtvlsionofEnglish as an International Language. Nattinger, James Rand DeCarrico, Jeanette S. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ntu, Qiang and Wolff, Martin. 2005. "English as a Foreign Language: The modern day Trojan horse?" English Tbday 21 (5): 55-60. Olshtatn, Elite and Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1985. "Crosscultural Pragmatics and the Testing of Communicative Competence." Language Testing2 (1): 16-30. Pan, Yuling. 2000. "Facework in Chinese service encounters." Journal ofAsian Pacific Communication 10 (1 ): 25-61. Pawley, Andrew and Syder, Frances. 1983. "Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nattvelike fluency." In Language and Communication, Jack Richards and Richard Schmidt (eds.), 191-225. London: Longman. Phillips, Elaine M. 1993. "Polite requests: Second language textbooks and learners of French." Foreign Language Annals 26 (3): 372-381. Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, Robert. 2008. "Forums - Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinta? English in European integration and globalisatioiL" World Englishes 27 (2): 250-267. Preston, Dennis. 2002. ~ variationist perspective on second language acquisition: Psycholinguistic concerns." In The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Robert B. Kaplan (ed.), 141-159. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, Jack C., Hull, Jonathan and Proctor, Susan. 1998. New Interchange Three: English for International Communicatio11 (Intermediate). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rinnert, Carol and Kobayashi. Hiroe. 1999. "Requestive hints in Japanese and English." journal of Pragmatics 31: 1173-1201. Rose, Kenneth R 2000. "An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22 (1): 27-67. Rose, Kenneth Rand Kasper, Gabriele (eds.). 2001. Pragmatics in La11guage Teachi11g. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rue, Yong-Ju and Zhang, Grace. 2008. Reque.st Strategie.s: A Comparative Study i11 Mandari11 Chinese and Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Savignon, Sandra. 1997. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill Schmidt, Richard. 1983. "Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult." In Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, Nessa Wolfson and Elliot]udd (eds.), 137-174. Rowley. MA: Newbury House. Schmitt, Norbert (ed.). 2004. Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Schmitt, Norbert and Carter, Ronald. 2004. "Formulaic sequences in action: An introductioiL" In Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use, Norbert Schmitt (ed.), 1-22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Scollon, Ron and Scollon, Wong Suzanne. 1991. "Topic confusion in English- Asian discourse." World Englishes 10 (2): 113-125. Scotton, Carol Myers and Bernsten, Janice. 1988. "Natural conversations as a model for textbook dialogue." Applied Linguistics 9 (4): 372-384.

180


Searle. John R. 1969. Speech acts: A11 Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, John R. 1975. "Indirect speech acts." In Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 3. speech Acts, Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds.), 59-82. New York: Academic Press. Siegal, Meryl. 1996. "The role oflearner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese." Applied Linguistics 17: 356-382. Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Soars, Liz and Soars, John. 1996. New Headway English Course (Intermediate). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Soler, Eva A. and Martinez-Flor, Alicia. 2005. "Editor's introduction to pragmatics in instructed language learning." System 33: 381-384. Suh, Jae-Suk. 1999. "Pragmatic Perception of Politeness in Requests by Korean Learners of English as a Second Language." IRAL 37 (3): 195-213. Sun, Chaofen. 2006. Chinese: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Takahashi, Satomi 1996. "Pragmatic transferability.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18 (2): 189-223. Takahashi, SatomL 2001. "The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence." In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, Kenneth R. Rose and Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tanaka, Noriko. 1988. "Politeness: Some problems for Japanese speakers of English." JALT Journa/9: 81-102. Tanaka, Shigenori and Kawade. Saiki 1982. "Politeness strategies and second language acquisition" Studies i11 Second Language Acquisition 5: 18-33. Tarone, Elaine. 2000. "Still Wrestling with 'Context' in Interlanguage Theory." Annual Rev lew of Applied Li11guistics 20: 182-198. Tarone, Elaine and Liu. Guo-qiang. 1995. "Situational context, variation, and second language acquisition theory." In Principle and Practice i11 Applied Linguistics, Guy Cook and Barbara Seidlhofer (eds.),107-124. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Terkourafi, Marina. 2008. "Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness." In Impoliteness in La11guage: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory a11d Practice, Derek Bousfield and Miriam A Locher (eds.), 45-74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Thomas, Jenny. 1983. "Cross-cultural pragmatic failure." Applied Linguistics 4: 91-112. Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interla11guage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. van Mulken, Margot 1996. "Politeness markers in French and Dutch requests." Language Science.s 18 (3/4): 689-702. Ventola, Eija. 1987. The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systemic Approach to the Semiotics of Service E11counters. London: Frances Pinter. Wang, Lidi. 2008. "The spread of English in China and its implications." Australian Review of Applied Li11guistics 31 (3): 32.1-32.4. Wang, Vincent X. 2009. "Pragmatic shifts in two translations of Fusheng Liuji: A descriptive study of request behaviour." Target 21 (2): 209-234. Warga, Muriel 2005. ""Je serais tres merciable": Formulaic vs. creatively produced speech in learners' request -closings." Canadian Journal ofApplied Linguistics 8 (1): 67-93. Watts, Richard J. 1989. "Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behavior." Multilingua 8 (2/3): 131-167.

References

Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watts, Richard J. 2005. "Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis"?" In Polite11ess in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (2nd rev. and expanded ed.), Richard J. Watts (ed.), xi-xlvii. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, Richard J., Ide, Sachiko and Ehlich, Konrad. 1992. "Introduction" In Politeness In Language: Studies In its History, Theory and Practice, Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), 1-17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Weinert, Regina. 1995. "The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review." Applied Linguistics 16 (2): 180-205. Widdowson, Henry G. 1984. Explorations in Applied Linguistics 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, Henry G. 1989. "Knowledge of language and ability for use." Applied Linguistics 10 (2): 128-137. Widdowson, Henry G. 1990. Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wienbicka, Anna 1985. "Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts." Journal ofPragmatlcs9: 145-178. Wienbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-Cultural PragmaNcs: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyte.t: Wienbicka, Anna. 1997. Understanding cultures through their key words: Engilsh, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiese, Richard. 1984. "Language production in foreign and native languages: Same or different?" In Second Language ProducNons, Hans Dechert, Dorothea Mohle and Manfred Raupach (eels.), 11-17. 'llibingen: Gunter Narr. Wild.ner-Bassett, Mary E. 1994. "Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: 'Polite' noises for cultural appropriateness." IRAL 32 (1): 3-17. Wolfson, Nessa. 1981. "Compliments in cross-cultural perspective." TESOL Quarterly 15 (2): 117-124. Wong-Fillmore, Lily. 1976. The second time round: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Wray, Alison 2000. "Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice." Applied Li11guistics 21 (4): 463-489. Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language a11d the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wray, Alison. 2008. Formulaic Language: Pushi11g the Bou11daries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Xie, Chaoqun and House, Juliane. 2009. "Some aspects of pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural" Pragmatics & Cognitlo11 17 (2): 421-439. Xu, Zhichang. 2010. "Chinese English: A future power?" In The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes, Andy Kirkpatrick (ed.), 282-298. London: Routledge. Yorio, Carlos A 1989. "ldiomaticity as an indkator of second language proficiency." In Bili11gualism across the Lifespa11: Aspects ofAcquisition, Maturity and Loss, Kenneth Hyltenstam and Loraine Ohler (eels.), 55-72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yu, Ming-Chung. 1999a. Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Pragmatics: Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Yu, Ming-Chung. 1999b. "Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language." Pragmatics 9 (2): 281-312.

181

182


Yule. George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yum, June Ock. 1988. "The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia." Communication Monographs 55: 374-388. Zhang, Yanyin. 1995a. "Indirectness in Chinese requesting." In Pragmatics of Chinese as a Native and Target Language, Gabriele Kasper (ed.), 69-118. Honolulu, HI: University of HawaiiPress. Zhang, Yanyin. 1995b. "Strategies in Chinese requesting." In Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language, Gabriele Kasper (ed.), 23-68. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

APPENDIX 1

The discourse completion tasks

Directions Imagine you are In an English-speaking country. Please write down what you would be likely to say In each scenario.

Scenario: You're checking out In a supermarket. The cashier has put all your goods Into one plastic bag, which turns out to be very heavy. You would prefer to have an extra bag, because otherwise the bag handles will gradually become very thin and hurt your fingers. What would you say to the cashier to askfor another bag?

Scenario: You go to a bank where you have an account. You want the teller to print out a statement of your account balance. The statement will be shown to the Immigration office when you apply to renew your student visa. What are you going to say to the teller?

1.84 Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners

Scenario: You are nearing the end of a master's programme and are looking for employment. The Institution that you are Interested In requests two reference letters. You already have one In hand, but still need another. You "Want to ask a professor of yours to provide it. You are taking his class and so far have had good results. You knock on the door of his office and he answers you with, "yes, come In please~ You enter and say, "Excuse me, Professor Davis~ "Yes~ he says and turns to you. What are you going to say next?

Scenario: You enter a post office to mail a letter to New York. Your letter Is heavy, and needs to be weighed and stamped. What are you going to say to the cashier?

Appendix 1. The discourse completion tasks

Scenario: You need to buy an air ticket In an on -campus travel agency and fly home urgently, as one of your parents Is very sick. Unfortunately, the bank Is closed, and when using the ATM machine you reach the upper limit of withdrawals for one day. You are still in need of$50, and the travel agency Is going to close soon. At this moment, you see Dr. Davis, a lecturer who has known you for two years, passing by. You decide to borrow the money from him. What are you going to say?

Scenario: You have lunch In an expensive restaurant with your boss. You want to order a beef steak. medium rare. What are you going to say to the walter?

l.Ss

1.86 Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners

Scenario: You park your car In a 5-mlnute temporary parking zone In a busy commercial area and go to buy some take-away food. You run a bit late as you have to queue In the take-away shop. When you come back to your car, to your horror, you see an officer Is about to Issue a ticket to your car. You know this will cost you dearly and "Want to persuade him to withdraw the ticket. What are you going to say?

Scenario: You have asked a company to Install security windows In your house. The measurements were taken on the first visit, and today a technidan has come to Install the screens. You offer him a large glass of water as the weather Is hot. You settle the bill and chat with him. Before he leaves, you remember that a screw Is missing from one of your doors. M. the technician has his tools with him, you 121-12.3. 129, 142-143 alternative model (fur L2 learning) 55 Australian English 21, 26, 53> 123

B because-therefore 25> 144 see also therefure-because Bialystok, E. 150-152, 154-155> 163 hi-clausal structure 24. 64. 76, So-81, 10)1115-U!h 142, 153 Blum- Kulka. S. J, 16-22, 24. 26-28, 34· 43> 61, 149 Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 15>156-157

c CCSARP (Cross-cuhural speech act realisation patterns) 16-22, 25-26, 36. 42, 53 Chinese Cantonese speabr 35> 43-44 context 148, 150 EFL learners 4o 56 politeness 13. 29, 35. 4;; 142, 15Q-151 requests (Ll) 22-25 requests (12) 4o 32-39, 1.46-151 verbs 141-142 Chinglish 56

CID (conventionally-indirect) 12, 19, 21, 23-24. 30, 34-35> 62, 77-81, 146-1.47 see also direct (strategies) and NCID classroom 32-33. 40, 54o 155 coding scheme 17-20, 22, 36, 61-65 coerdveness 12, 79> 103> 148 Cohen, A. and Olshtain, E. 34. 9-10, 152, 159 communicative competence 10, 31-32, 169 conditionals 24. 64. 113-115118-119. 141-142 context context-based 4-5.42, 44-45> 72, 81. 100, 137> 155-160, 166 context-dependent 30 context-spedfic 99. 166 naturalistic 31 soda! 1-3> 30, 43> 47 socially-situated 59. 152, 155. 159-161 contextual factors 10, 43-45> 73> 81-82, 149. 152, 169 Cross-cuhural speech act realisation patterns seeCCSARP

D DCTs (discourse completion tasks) 1jl; 57-59 deference 79.150, 15;; 159 deferential (requests) 13> 76, u;;o; u;;o; 150-151 developmental ILP 6, 29-33 developmental patterns (or paths) 5> 151. 164-165

direct (strategies) 35> 69-7;1 85> 146-147 see also CID and NCID DIRECT QUESTIONS 6J, 71-72, 8J, 85 directness 4o 18-19. 26-29. 33-34· 39· 7o. 147

see also indirectness downgrad£rs 142

64-65> 119-121,

E Edmondson, W. 18, 38, 144-145 Ellis, R. 2, 31-32 English as a fureign language (EFL) 54-56 English as a lingua franca (ELF) 54-57 equilibrium 14 exposure 23> 41-42, 51, 155> 158,167 external modifications 1.8, 25. 35> 3)1 65-66, 125-135> 138, 143-144> 159

F face 11-14, 127 face-threatening acts (FTAs) 11, 13 face-threatening situations 6o, 107 formulae 30. 32, So, 115-116, 145> 14)1 154 furmulae- based s. ;;o; 45-51. 110-111. 160-162, 166 formulaic expressions/language 20, 2,4, 2)131-32, 35-36. 42, 45-51. 63-64, 89-111, 141. 145> 160-161. 166


p

G

Gee, J. R 4~ 159-160, 167 grammatical competence 31.49

grammatical rules 31-32., 169

Japanese BFL learners 36, 41 FSL learners 4-5.31, 49> 142 politeness 37 speakers 22, 24o 26, 3;;o:. 47

H

habitus 15-16, 168 Hassa.IL T. 36, 44

K

29> 149> 151. 156-157

Kasper, G.

Hebrew 17-18, 21-22, 24o Hl!DGED PERPORMATIVES

2. 10, 25- 31, 33> 35>

40. 42. 57-58. 145> 151, 154. 164

26-28,33-34.41-43 22,

28,74 Hints 19> 27-29> 69> 82-83 House 26, 48, 6o, 149

I want 3> 9;;o:. 103. 115. 147-148, 161

illocutionary force 19-20, 28, 35. 46 intlmt 2j!.75 verbs 74 ILP (interlanguage pragmatics) 1-S, 29.42

basic questions 14¢: imperatives 29> 36, 72-73. 98 implicature 41, 46 imposing force 12, 119-120 imposition 13. 23. 26, 12~ 156, 158

indirectness 3> 18-19, 21, 24-25. 28, 45> 76, 142, 150

Kecskes, I. 47-50, 161 Kirkpatrick, A. 25> 55> 144 Korean BFL learners 37 speakers 22, 37

L Leech, G. 14o 28, 39 Lee-Wong. S. M. 4o 22-24. 29> 39· 73> 146-147 lexical modifiers see modifiers lingua franca see English as a lingua franca

M MilD HINTs 19> 27-28, 82-83 mitigations 14o 76 modifications see internal modifications, external modifications modifiers lexical 64-65> 119-11.3. 142,157

see also directness

syntactic

64. 113-119> 141,

information sequencing 20, 25.

15j!.159

38. 65-66, 130-134, 143-144

MooD DERIVABLES

in -group ( pg nm) 22., 150, 167 see also out-group input 41, 155> 158, 164. 167 instruction 151, 153-154. 163 interaction intlmsity of 41 social 1, 9-10, 31-33 verbal 16 interference 3~ 141, 146-151 interlanguage variation 29ff~

N native-speaker model

2o,

24-25- 36-3j!. 64-6s, 113-123> 141-143

politeness 11-16, 24-25- 3~ 168 Chinese see Chinese determiningfactors 13. 156-157

first- and second-order 1415

perceptions of see perceptions positive and negative 12-13. 28-29

universals 11, 13. 15 politic 14-16, 168 pragmalinguistic 39> 57-58 pragmatics cross-cultural 1, 11, 16 contrastive 22, 37

Q QUERY PREPARATORY

33. 6~

79-81, 86, 111

R

requesting 2-3. 11-13. 30, 49 Rose, K. S. 35-3~ 44 routines s. 30, 32. 48, 144 see also formulae, formulaic expressions/language

19> 27-29,

s

72-74. 8s, 149

54-5~

161-162

native-speaker norms 54-57 NCID (non-conventionallyindirect) 19> 81-83 see also direct (strategies) andCID

3Sff. internal modifications

pedagogy (12) 1-2, 10, 155. 159 perceptions of directness 26-27 of politeness 27-28 ofSBUs 50 of sociocuhural factors 28-

0 out-group (;o~ wat) 150, 167 see also in -group

SBUs(situation-bound Lltterances) 4~ 49-51 Schmidt. R. 31-32,49 Searle, J. 11, 13> 19, 24 Second language acquisition

(SLA) 2,48 sir 121-123. 128-129> 143 situational variation 16, 25-26, 38. 43-44. 144

small talk 25. 150 social context see context socially-situated (learning) 15:1. 155· 159-160

Index 199

sociolinguistic behaviours 40 competence 10, 152- 169 knowledge 12.1. 149 values 22 sociopragmatic competence 31-32, 40, 155 knowledge 57-58, 143 transfer 3l 39> 148-151 solidarity 13> 22, 28-29> 148 speech acts 11. 41, 46, 16;; 169 STRONG HINTS

27-28, 69>

82-83

studying abroad

T

Widdowson, H.

terms of address see address terms therefore-because 25> 144 see also because-therefore transfer

77-79> 86 supportive moves

2:;>;

37-39> 65-66, 125-135> 143144. 158-159

syntactic modifiers see modifiers

54-56

y yao (~) 147-148 Y11, M. C. 22-24. 34-35> 37-39>

u universals politeness see politeness speech-act (realisation behaviour) 1l 21, 24. 26

w Waftle (phenomenon)

18-19> 25>

wo xiang (~~) 24. 14 r-148 World Englishes (WEs) Wray, A. 45-46

34. 37-39, 147-148

see also interference

40-41

SUGGBSTORY FORMULA

1, 10, 4o. 159>

161.166

WANTS~TB~

38, 144 27-28,

34 -35> 6;; 75-n. 83> 85

Watts, R. 14-16, 168 Wes 31-32, 49

42. 14l 149

z Zhang, Y. 22-25> 144

Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners

Unspoken Requests

EFL Handbook

Grammatical Difficulties Encountered by Second Language Learners

EFL Teacher's Course,

Making Out in Chinese: Revised Edition (Making Out Books)

ESL-EFL Grammar SparkCharts

Researching Chinese Learners: Skills, Perceptions and Intercultural Adaptations

Making Sense: Small-Group Comprehension Lessons For English Language Learners

Making the Most of Understanding by Design

Making Origami Christmas Decorations Step by Step

BritLit: Using Literature in EFL Classrooms

Kaleidoscope: EFL activities in speaking and writing

Longman Advanced Learners' Grammar

Swahili Learners' Reference Grammar

Dictionaries and Language Learners

Language learners as ethnographers

Motivating Language Learners

Writing American Style: An ESL EFL Handbook

Dreamweaver 4 for Visual Learners

Helping English Language Learners Succeed

Practical Ideas for Efl Teachers. Методическое пособие

Writing American Style: An ESL EFL Handbook

Korean grammar for international learners

Activating Vocabulary: For ESOL Learners

Preparing Learners for e-Learning

Chinese and Chinese Mestizos of Manila (Chinese Overseas)

Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese

Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners

Unspoken Requests

EFL Handbook

Grammatical Difficulties Encountered by Second Language Learners

EFL Teacher's Course,

Making Out in Chinese: Revised Edition (Making Out Books)

ESL-EFL Grammar SparkCharts

Researching Chinese Learners: Skills, Perceptions and Intercultural Adaptations

Making Sense: Small-Group Comprehension Lessons For English Language Learners

Making the Most of Understanding by Design

Making Origami Christmas Decorations Step by Step

BritLit: Using Literature in EFL Classrooms

Kaleidoscope: EFL activities in speaking and writing

Longman Advanced Learners' Grammar

Swahili Learners' Reference Grammar

Dictionaries and Language Learners

Language learners as ethnographers

Motivating Language Learners

Writing American Style: An ESL EFL Handbook

Dreamweaver 4 for Visual Learners

Helping English Language Learners Succeed

Practical Ideas for Efl Teachers. Методическое пособие

Writing American Style: An ESL EFL Handbook

Korean grammar for international learners

Activating Vocabulary: For ESOL Learners

Preparing Learners for e-Learning

Chinese and Chinese Mestizos of Manila (Chinese Overseas)

Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese

Recommend Documents