國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter first reviews speech act theory and then politeness theory. Next, several cultural dimensions are presented to illustrate cultural differences. Also, the notion of pragmatic transfer is explained. Then, previous studies on the speech act of thanking are presented. Last, the research questions are put forward.
Speech Act Theory
Speech act theory was first proposed by Austin (1962). Austin showed that words can be used to get things done. Therefore, he identified three types of linguistic
actions: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts. The locutionary act is performed when the speaker says something with a certain meaning. The illocutionary act is performed in the utterances through which a certain illocutionary force is achieved such as a request, a promise and a threat. The perlocutionary act is performed by saying something that causes the addressee to do something. Take the utterance “It’s cold in here!” as an example. The locutionary act is the literal sentence meaning. The illocutionary act is performed by the speaker who wants someone to close the window. And the perlocutionary act is that someone closes the window. It is the illocutionary act that have become the focus of speech act theory.
Following Austin, Searle (1969) explored the concept of speech act. Speech acts are defined as basic elements for achieving illocutionary goals. Later, Searle (1979) presented a classification of illocutionary acts in terms of ‘illocutionary points’ or the speaker’s purpose in performing the act. The purpose of assertives is to involve the speaker’s commitment to the truth of a sentence (e.g. report, say, claim). The point
‧
of directives is for the speaker to bring about the hearer’s action to do something (e.g.
ask, order, invite). Commissives aim to commit the speaker to some future action (e.g.
promise, vow, offer). The point of expressives is that the speaker produces
psychological expressions about a certain situation (e.g. thank, apologize, regret).
Declarations are acts which cause things to happen through uttering words (e.g. fire, resign, name).
In an attempt to illustrate various kinds of illocutionary acts, Searle (1979) suggested a set of conditions for performing a given act. Take thanking as an example.
The propositional content condition is the past act done by the hearer. The essential condition consists of the utterance as an expression of gratitude. The preparatory condition is that the past act benefits the speaker, and the speaker believes s/he have benefited from it. The sincerity condition is the speaker’s psychological state of feeling grateful. There are occasions, however, when the speaker means more than what is said.
Searle (1996) identified the case where “one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another” and termed this act an indirect speech act (p.60). For example, at the dinner table, the utterance ‘Can you pass the salt?’ would be
interpreted as a request rather than a question about the addressee’s abilities. In this context, the request is performed indirectly in order to show politeness (Searle, 1996).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
7
Politeness Theory
Grice (1975) put forward the Cooperative Principle (CP) and four conversational maxims. First, the speaker says what is meant using no more or less words than is required (the maxim of Quantity). Second, the speaker believes the truth of what s/he said based on evidence (the maxim of Quality). Third, the speaker is certain of the relevance of his/her utterance to the speech situation (the maxim of Relation). Fourth, the speaker speaks what s/he means concisely and clearly without redundancies (the maxim of Manner).
Leech (1983) argued that CP alone did not account for linguistic politeness, and thus he proposed Politeness Principle (PP), which defines politeness as minimizing
“the expression of impolite beliefs” and maximizing “the expression of polite beliefs”
(p.81). There are six maxims of the PP: the Tact Maxim, the Generosity Maxim, the Approbation Maxim, the Modesty Maxim, the Agreement Maxim, and the Sympathy Maxim, each of which operated on a different scale.
According to Leech, the Maxims of Approbation and Modesty apply to the illocutionary act of thanking. The Approbation Maxim refers to (a) “minimize
dispraise of other” and (b) “maximize praise of other” (p.132). For example, when the speaker says ‘Thank you so much. You helped a lot.’ or ‘Thanks for helping me out. I appreciate it.’, s/he expresses politeness by maximizing praise to the hearer. On the other hand, the Modesty Maxim involves (a) “minimize praise of self” and (b)
“maximize dispraise of self” (p.132). For instance, apologetic expressions may be used as thanks in utterances such as ‘Thank you, and I’m really sorry for how long that took.’ The speaker observes the Maxim of Modesty by lowering themselves to show respect for the hearer (Wang, 2009).
Leech (1983) differentiated four types of illocutionary functions based on the degree of social consolidation. Thanking is categorized as ‘convivial’ because it
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
8
enables the speaker to attend to the hearer’s needs to be approved of, thereby contributing to the social goal of achieving harmony in personal relationships.
However, Leech’s proposal is criticized for its inapplicability in linguistic
communication. For example, it is difficult to determine the dimensions on which the maxims and its scales are evaluated (Fraser, 1990).
Among the most widely known research on linguistic politeness is Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. Adapting from Goffman (1967), Brown and Levinson (1987) defines face as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” (p.61). There are two types of face: ‘positive face’ and ‘negative face’.
Positive face is “the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by
interactants.” ; negative face is “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction—i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition”
(p.61). Generally, people in interaction will attend to others’ faces and protect their own faces from being damaged by others. However, some speech acts are
“intrinsically threatening to face and thus require ‘softening’” (p.24). Face-threatening acts (FTAs) are differentiated according to the aspects of both interlocutors’ face threatened.
(a) The speaker threatens the hearer’s negative face by requesting, offering, or complimenting.
(b) The speaker threatens the hearer’s positive face by criticizing, complaining, or disagreeing.
(c) The speaker threatens his/her own negative face by thanking, accepting offers, or unwillingly promising.
(d) The speaker threatens his/her own positive face by apologizing, accepting compliments, or confessing.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
9
In order to communicate effectively in an attempt to prevent threats to each other’s face, the interlocutors employ different strategies for doing FTSs, including (a) to do the FTA without redressive action: e.g. ‘Answer the phone.’; (b) to do the FTA with redressive action involving positive politeness: e.g. ‘I’m terribly sorry to hear about your cat.’; (c) to do the FTA with redressive action involving negative politeness: e.g. ‘I’d kind of like to get a lift if that’s all right.’; (d) to do the FTA covertly: e.g. That isn’t a crème egg I can see you eating, is it?’ and (e) don’t do the FTA. These superstrategies can be weighted with respect to which aspect the hearer’s face is threatened, as shown in Figure 2.1. A bald strategy is the most threatening, while an off-record strategy is the least, the other two lying in between. A positive politeness strategy is more threatening than a negative politeness one.
1. without redressive action, baldly
on record 2. positive politeness Do the FTA with redressive action
4. off record 3. negative politeness 5. Don’t do the FTA
Figure 2.1 Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p.69) Brown and Levinson (1987) claimed that an FTA is evaluated based on three situational factors: (i) social distance (D) between the speaker and the addressee; (ii) the relative power P (H, S) i.e. the extent to which the hearer exerts influence on the speaker’s actions and self-appraisal; and (iii) the absolute ranking (R) of imposition i.e. the degree to which the act threatens the interlocutor’s negative and positive face needs in terms of e.g. the rights or responsibilities to do the act in a given culture.
Accordingly, the measurement of the three variables determines the speaker’s choice of strategies and the level of politeness in speech acts.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
10
In spite of Brown and Levinson’s claims to the universality of their face model, several researchers have proposed culture-specific notion of face. In Hu’s (1944) view, Chinese face has two meanings: liǎn and miànzi. Liǎn denotes “the respect of the group for a man with a good moral reputation” (as cited in Mao, 1994, p.457).
Miànzi represents “prestige or reputation, which is either achieved through getting on in life” or “ascribed (even imagined) by other members of one’s own community”(as cited in Mao, 1994, p.457). Mao further argued that although Brown and Levinson’s face is centered around the fulfillment of personal needs and desires, Chinese face emphasizes the relation of the individual’s actions to the community to which they belong. In other words, the individual behaves in accordance with social norms in order to seek public recognition of one’s social standing. Therefore, if a person’s behavior conforms to communal norms, s/he will gain face. Morisaki and Gudykunst (1994) also noted that Chinese face is an ‘interdependent’ phenomenon in contrast to Brown and Levinson’s face as an ‘independent’ one.
Arguing against the applicability of Brown and Levinson’s face model in Chinese politeness, Gu (1990) showed that not all speech acts are considered face-threatening acts in Chinese contexts where politeness encompasses denigrating self and respecting others. A Chinese inviter’s continuously inviting the guest to dinner, for example, is polite in itself for both interlocutors. Likewise, expressions of
gratitude in Chinese reflects cultural norms such as self-denigration. When a Chinese expresses his/her thanks for an American friend’s kindness in helping proofread the term paper, s/he would say ‘I’m sorry to have wasted your time in reading it.’ The apologetic utterance is considered as a sincere expression of gratitude in Chinese culture. In contrast, the American thinks that the Chinese considers his/her work a waste of time and feels unhappy. Instead, the Americans tend to respond: ‘Thank you.
I appreciate your work so much (Wang, 2009). In addition, native Chinese speakers
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
11
who use expressions of negation such as ‘I don’t know what I should have done without your help.’ also observe the principle of self-denigration by indicating an inability to do what has been done by the addressee and acknowledging the beneficial act as well (Qu & Shi, 2009).
Cultural Variability
In the study of intercultural communication, the dimension of individualism-collectivism is mainly used to examine cultural similarities and differences. Moreover, two construals of the self mediate the influence of individualism-collectivism on individuals’ communication behavior. In addition, low-context and high-context orientations explain differences in communication styles across cultures.
Individualism and Collectivism
Individualism, which views the individual as unique and independent, lays emphasis on personal needs and rights. For example, the United States, falling at the individualistic end of the individualism-collectivism continuum, places value on freedom and self-reliance. Thus, it is “I” identity that individualism emphasizes (Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, & Chua, 1988). Because of the individualistic tendencies toward independence, the individuals tend to attend to their own face in interpersonal communication (Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel, 2010).
Collectivism emphasizes group goals over personal goals. People of collectivistic cultures tend to abide by group norms, thereby maintaining their belongingness in groups. Therefore, collectivism focuses on “we” identity (Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey,
& Chua, 1988). Taiwan, for example, is characterized as a collectivistic culture, in which people tend to preserve mutual face due to interdependence and maintenance of group harmony. However, Kim (1994) suggested that members of collectivistic
cultures are likely to refrain from imposing upon others in linguistic communication.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
12
In addition, individualism-collectivism is related to what people think of themselves (Triandis, 1989).
Independent and Interdependent Construal of Self
People of individualistic cultures have the independent view of self (Gudykunst
& Matsumoto, 1996). The independent self-construal refers to the self-esteem of an individual “whose behavior is organized and made meaningful primarily by reference to one’s own internal repertoire of thoughts, feelings, and action” (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991, p.226). The actions of a person with an independent construal arises from the self, with emphasis on the need to express his/her uniqueness to others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
People of collectivistic cultures are shown to have an interdependent view of self (Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996). The interdependent construal refers to the self-esteem that is “determined, contingent on, and, to a large extent organized by what the actor perceives to be the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others in the relationship”
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991, p.227). Therefore, the interdependent construal of self is characterized by group-based actions resulting from connectedness to ingroups and indirect communication. In addition, Yang (1981) noted that the Chinese tend to engage in group-oriented behavior with a focus on others’ needs and goals, rather than individual needs and desires in order to maintain harmony among ingroups. As Gao and Ting-Toomey (1998) have shown, the Chinese self is other-oriented and thus is consistent with Chinese cultural norms such as showing modesty and humility to others. The Chinese, for example, could lower themselves by apologizing for the trouble the favor causes the benefactor as an indirect way of thanking (Huang, 2008;
Wang, 2009).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
13
Low-context and High-context Cultures
Hall (1976) proposed the distinction between low-context (LC) and high-context (HC) communication in terms of how meaning is primarily communicated in a given culture. According to Hall, low-context communication is used when “the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code”. In contrast, in high-context
communication, “most of the information is either in the physical context or
internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message.” (as cited in Gudykunst & Lee, 2003, p.18). Thus, people using low-context communication are more inclined to convey meanings directly and explicitly through verbal strategies, whereas people relying on high-context communication tend to convey implicit messages through reliance on contextual cues (Knapp & Hall, 2010). In addition, low-context communication prevails in individualistic cultures, while high-context communication in collectivistic cultures (Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, & Chua, 1988).
Low-context cultures such as the United States emphasize direct communication, which is consistent with Grice’s four conversational maxims because these maxims involve using an appropriate number of precise and unambiguous words to reflect the speaker’s intentions accurately (Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996). In addition, because of individualism and self-oriented face needs, the Americans tend to rely heavily on verbal behavior and use a direct style of communication in spoken interactions (Samovar, et al., 2010). Gudykunst and Matsumoto (1996) further explored how communication patterns vary among the Americans in different types of interpersonal relationships. For example, when interacting with intimates, native English speakers may shift from low-context to high-context communication.
On the other hand, in high-context cultures such as Taiwan, people adopt an indirect communication style. In order to maintain group harmony, members of
high-‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
14
context cultures tend to use indirect messages and are expected to make accurate inferences from the context. For HC communicatiors, what is left unsaid is embedded in the context and it is the receiver’s responsibility to understand the speaker’s
intended meanings correctly. Therefore, high-context communication is characterized as receiver-oriented (Singelis & Brown, 1995). According to Gao and Ting-Toomey (1998), since a Chinese person’s self is intertwined with relations with others, the indirect mode of communication permits interlocutors to maintain harmonious relationships with ingroup members. As the Chinese expression han xu ‘含蓄’
implies, indirect communication builds on interdependence among people, thus allowing the development of the other-oriented self (Gao, 1996; Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998).
Native Chinese speakers prefer to use a variety of indirect thanking strategies such as complimenting the addressee or object of gratitude when expressing their gratitude. According to Li (2004), choices of indirect thanking strategies may be made based on the assumption that direct ways of saying thanks imply that the addressee either recognizes the speaker’s indebtedness to him/her or threatens the speaker’s face by accepting gratitude from the speaker. For example, in complimenting the
interlocutor without using the word ‘thank’, the receiver not only expresses appreciation for the act of kindness but also admires the giver’s outstanding personality and exceptional capability as in nǐ tài hǎo le, wǒ jiù méi jiàn guò bǐ nǐ gèng hǎo de rén le ‘你太好了，我就沒見過比你更好的人了’ (Li, 2004; Li, 2010).
Pragmatic Transfer
The term ‘transfer’ refers to the use of previous knowledge in learning new material (Žegarac & Pennington, 2000). In cross-cultural communication,
interlocutors may communicate on the basis of their native cultures, in which case they probably use L1 pragmatic knowledge to approach L2 communicative situations.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
15
As Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz (1990) pointed out, pragmatic transfer is
“transfer of L1 sociocultural communicative competence in performing L2 speech acts or any other aspects of L2 conversation” in order to “achieve a particular function of language” (p.56). Kasper (1992) found that pragmatic transfer operates at both levels: ‘pragmalinguistic transfer’ and ‘sociopragmatic transfer’.
Kasper (1992) identified ‘pragmalinguistic transfer’ as “the process whereby the illocutionary force or politeness value assigned to particular linguistic material in L1 influences learners’ perception and production of form-function mappings in L2.” (p.
209). Sociopragmatic transfer occurs when “the social perceptions underlying language users’ interpretation and performance of linguistic action in L2 are influenced by their assessment of subjectively equivalent L1 contexts” (p.209).
Thomas (1983) proposed the term ‘pragmatic failure’, which is responsible for breakdowns in cross-cultural communication. Two types of ‘pragmatic failure’ are distinguished: ‘pragmalinguistic failure’ and ‘sociopragmatic failure’.
Pragmalinguistic failure arises when a nonnative speaker interprets or produces an utterance whose illocutionary force differs from what is conventionally assigned to it in the target language. Pragmalinguistic failure can be attributed to two sources:
pragmalinguistic transfer and teaching-induced errors. Pragmalinguistic transfer refers to the influence of L1 pragmatic knowledge on speech acts realizations in L2. For example, a Chinese-speaking learner responds to a request such as ‘Can you pass the salt?’ by saying ‘No, I can’t.’ because s/he interprets it as a question. Teaching-induced errors arise from techniques for teaching pragmatic competence. For
example, learners of English may wrongly associate imperatives with directive speech acts because of the emphasis placed on grammar.
Thomas (1983) showed that sociopragmatic failure arises when nonnative speakers’ production of speech acts deviates from sociopragmatic norms of the target
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
16
language. For example, the Americans consider it offensive to ask about a person’s age, income, marital status, etc. In contrast, the Chinese feel comfortable asking such questions freely and openly because of concern for others. Furthermore, in Chinese culture, it is appropriate to repeat one’s invitation after the invitee’s initial rejection as a way of showing the inviter’s sincerity. On the contrary, the Americans would avoid the imposition on the invitee by complying with the invitee’s choice (Shih, 1999).
According to Thomas (1983), for the language teacher, sociopragmatic failure is difficult to deal with because it involves sensitivity arising from having the students think about their own cultural values and beliefs.
Speech Act of Thanking
Thanking belongs to the category of ‘expressives’. The illocutionary act is performed by the speaker when the hearer has done an act which benefits the speaker and the speaker believes himself/herself to have benefited from it (Searle, 1969).
Leech (1983) showed that thanking has a ‘convivial’ function; that is, showing thanks enables the speaker to achieve the goal of establishing and sustaining
communal harmony.
Coulmas (1981) showed that sincere gratitude is verbalized in response to a
Coulmas (1981) showed that sincere gratitude is verbalized in response to a