Chen (2014) - Cross-cultural Comparisons of Request in Chinese and in English …

2.2 Cross-cultural Comparisons of Request in Chinese and in English …

2.2.3 Chen (2014)

Chen (2014) investigated Chinese learners’ use of request in English in terms of politeness strategies with a DCT to see if choosing an appropriate request strategy is indeed difficult for second language learners. According to the Politeness theory proposed by Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987), speakers will use their language to avoid threats in order to preserve faces, namely, politeness strategies, which can be divided into two types: positive and negative. Positive strategies focus on positive face wants of interlocutors, for instance, the utterances “Do you know what you can do to help me

build this beautiful bookshelf? Simply by passing me the hammer behind you.” (p.3) are

used to attend to a hearer’s interests. On the other hand, negative strategies put stress

on negative face wants of interlocutors. People can use hedges or questions to make request, such as“Perhaps you could pass me the hammer. and Could you pass me the

hammer?” (p.3). An application of positive politeness strategies is often used to show

friendliness whereas negative politeness strategies are often used to show deference or to create distance between interlocutors.

In addition to English data, Chen (2014) discussed Chinese politeness strategies used to make request. In Mandarin Chinese, there are linguistic strategies to show deference, which are different from those in other languages. For example, Mandarin Chinese has a construction, i.e., Verb + yixia ‘one more’ to minimize imposition and make polite request⁵, e.g., Deng yixia! ‘Wait a moment.’ It is regarded as a linguistic form to soften the intonation of sentences and to ease the tension of request.Another way for Chinese speakers to minimize imposition of request is the usage of particles, which appear after a vocative, such as a and ba. Besides, according to Zhan (1992), Mandarin Chinese speakers usually use auxiliary verbs to make a request sound optimistically. For example, to avoid FTAs in particularly strong commands, dei ‘must’

appears in the utterance Ni dei bang wo zhege mang! ‘You have to help me on this.’ In English, this usage sounds impolite⁶, but it is not the case in Chinese.

5 In actual conditions, contexts will determine the force of this usage.

6 It sometimes depends on context.

Apart from the linguistic knowledge discussed above, second language learners are said to equip with linguistic competence including pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competence in order to successfully communicate in a foreign language.

Pragmalinguistic competence refers to a speaker’s ability to perform appropriately in verbal communication (Thomas 1983). L2 learners should recognize forms and have an ability to differentiate the degrees of politeness to produce appropriate language use.

For example, Help me! Can you help me? Could you help me?, etc. Sociopragmatic competence is defined as a speaker’s ability to distinguish strategies of speech acts and

apply them based on different social or situational factors in conversations (Harlow 1990). It is common that linguistic strategies employed by a leaner’s native language differ from the usage of a second language on specific speech acts. Since second language learners have already been preoccupied by social norms attached to their native language, several studies (Wolfson 1981, Koike 1989) have indicated that they are highly likely to be influenced by their native tongue possibly, resulting in inappropriate behavior.

Previous research has also found that L2 learners could not correct their linguistic performance when exposed to second language behavior which are greatly different from their mother tongue (Siegal 1994, Du Fon 1999). L2 learners with a Chinese cultural background were thus predicted to have more difficulty in learning politeness

strategies in English than those with a similar cultural background. Aside from different culture backgrounds between English and Chinese, pragmalinguistic knowledge in these two languages is greatly different. As pointed out by Pan & Kadar (2011), politeness in Chinese is realized at the lexical / discourse level by a small talk or supportive moves; however, politeness in English is at the syntax level. To sum up, it is reasonable to assume Chinese learners may encounter difficulties in learning an appropriate way of expressing request politely in English.

2.3 Previous L2 Empirical Studies on Request

The theoretical background of request speech acts has been reviewed in Section 2.1 and cross-cultural comparisons of request in Chinese and in English have been made in Section 2.2. Since request is regarded as a speech act expressing a speaker’s desire for a hearer to do something, it is necessary to look into previous research both theoretically and empirically. In this section, four empirical studies related to second language acquisition of request (i.e., Chen & Chen 2007, Wei 2012, Han 2012, and Wen 2014) are chronologically discussed below.

2.3.1 Chen & Chen (2007)

Chen & Chen (2007) investigated request performance by 50 Taiwanese English

as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners and 14 American English NSs. All the subjects

were asked to finish a questionnaire with a written DCT, including three scenarios based on three degrees of social power. A note scenario refers to a situation where a speaker and a hearer have equal social status. An extension scenario is a low situation where a speaker has lower social status. A professor scenario is a situation where a speaker has higher social status. Following the framework of the CCSARP (Blum-Kulka et al.

1989), Chen & Chen looked into three major categories of Blum-Kulka et al. (i.e., direct strategies, conventionally indirect strategies, and non-conventionally indirect strategies) which include nine subcategories (i.e., mood derivable, explicit performative, hedged performative, locution derivable, want statement, suggestory formula, query preparatory, strong hint, and mild hint.) ANOVA was employed to compare the total frequencies of strategy use between the Taiwanese EFL learners and the American native speakers.

Overall, for the EFL learners and English NSs, conventionally indirect strategies were used the most frequently (EFL: 71%, English NSs: 69%), followed by direct strategies (EFL: 28%, English NSs: 24%). Non-conventionally indirect strategies were rarely used (EFL: 1%, English NSs: 7%). With regard to the subcategories of strategies used, query preparatory (71%), mood derivable (11%), and want statement (11%) were the top three strategies frequently used by the EFL subjects; for the NSs, it was query preparatory (69%) that was the most frequently used, and the second commonly used

one was want statement (12%). Locution derivable was the third strategy used by the NSs (7%).

The results of Chen & Chen (2007) showed that the only situation yielding higher frequencies of direct strategies was the professor situation, supporting the influence of social power. In the note and extension situations, conventionally indirect strategies were used more frequently. The highest percentage of conventionally indirect strategies use was in the note situation (94.2% for the EFL learners and 92.9% for the NSs).

Compared with direct and conventionally indirect strategies within each group, the use of non-conventionally indirect strategies was relatively few. It was found that even though the American NSs used more non-conventionally indirect strategies than the

EFL learners. This type of strategies still occupied the least proportion on the whole of the American NSs’ production.

The results of Chen & Chen indicated that social power did have impact on the subjects’ choices of request strategies no matter whether they were Chinese EFL leaners

or native English speakers.

2.3.2 Wei (2012)

Wei (2012) examined the production of English request by 40 Chinese-speaking and 20 English-speaking college students. Data were collected from an oral DCT (ODCT) consisting of 12 scenarios and then analyzed with a chi-square method. Three

factors were involved in the study, i.e., social status, familiarity, and English proficiency. An interlocutor was higher, lower, or equal social status, and an interlocutor was familiar or unfamiliar with the speaker. The Chinese speakers were classified as a high-level or low-level group according to the results of their English oral test.

Based on the framework of Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), Wei investigated request elements, such as request strategy types, alerts, internal modifications, as well as external modifications. A request is regarded as an outcome of a request head act with optional alerts and modifications, which are used to soften or intensify the force of the request (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989). Regarding request strategies, the results of chi-square analysis showed no significant difference between the English and Chinese native speakers. Both groups tended to use conventional indirect strategies (English NSs: 86%, Chinese NSs: 85%). As for the usage of alerts, significant differences were revealed between the English and Chinese NSs. Although combinations of terms / pronoun and attention getters (English NSs: 47%, Chinese NSs: 43%) appeared most frequently in both groups, the English group (37%) used more terms / pronoun than the Chinese group (21%). On the contrary, the Chinese group (36%) produced more attention getters than the English group (16%). With respect to internal modifications, the chi-square test results showed no difference between the English and Chinese NSs. Both the two

groups tended to use more syntactic downgraders (English NSs: 74%, Chinese NSs:

78%) than lexical downgraders (English NSs: 26%, Chinese NSs: 22%). However, the chi-square analysis indicated differences in external modifications between the two groups. The English group used more preparator, grounder, and disarmer than the Chinese group (English NSs: 90% and Chinese NSs: 69%), while the Chinese group (31%) used more thankings than English native speakers (10%).

As for the effect of higher social status, no significant difference was found in request strategies and alerts in the English and Chinese groups, but significant differences were found in internal and external modifications. When a situation included a factor like equal social status, significant differences between the two groups were found in request strategies, alerts and external modifications; however, no significant difference was found in internal modifications. While an interlocutor was lower social status, significant differences between the two groups were only found in alerts, and no significant difference was found in request strategies, internal modifications, and external modifications.

Furthermore, with regard to the effect of familiarity, when the speakers were familiar, no significant difference was found in request strategies and internal modifications, and significant differences were only found in the usage of alerts and external modifications. Nevertheless, when the speakers were unfamiliar to the

interlocutor, both groups showed no significant difference in request strategies and internal modifications. Significant differences between the two groups were found in the usage of alerts and external modifications.

For the Chinese group, the proficiency level showed no significant effect on request strategies, internal modifications, and external modifications, but significant differences were found between the high and low proficiency groups in using alerts.

Regardless of English proficiency levels, all the Chinese NSs performed more indirect strategies (high: 87%, low: 88%) than direct strategies on request strategies, more syntactic downgraders (high: 75%, low: 80%) than lexical downgraders (high: 25%, low: 20%) on internal modifications, and more preparator, grounder, and disarmer (high:

74%, low: 61%) than thankings (high: 26%, low: 39%) on external modifications.

However, significant differences were found in using alerts between the high and low proficiency groups. The high proficiency group used terms / pronoun (high: 27%, low:

15%) and combinations (high: 44%, low: 41%) of the two more frequently than the low proficiency group, who used more attention getters (high: 28%, low: 44%).

In summary, the Chinese and English NSs frequently used conventional indirect strategies. Among internal modifications, they both produced more syntactic downgraders than lexical downgraders. Some differences were found in their usage of alerts and external modifications. When social status was involved, significant

differences between the Chinese and English groups were obvious in alerts, request

strategies, internal modifications, and external modifications. Regarding the effect of familiarity, the Chinese and English native speakers’ performance on alerts and external

modifications differed significantly. Considering the performance between the high and low proficiency groups of the Chinese speakers, the results showed the subjects’

overwhelming preferences for indirect strategies, while they differed significantly in using alerts.

2.3.3 Han (2012)

Han (2012) compared the performance of request by the speakers of Mandarin Chinese and British English with two factors of social variables. In the experiment, 9 scenarios were designed according to different degrees of social power and social distance. Data were collected from 16 NSs of British English and 20 NSs of Chinese whose age was between 18 and 33. The instrument employed in the study was an open role-play task, allowing the subjects to interact naturally. As the subjects were given enough time to make request, conversational features or nonverbal items of speech were also elicited by the instrument. During the experiment, the subjects were matched in pairs randomly and their responses were recorded. Among components of request, Han (2012) put stress on request modifications.

In this study, external modifications consisted of six types (i.e., preparators,

reasons, disarmers, getting a pre-commitments, promise of reward, and cost minimizer) and internal modifications were comprised of four types (i.e., downtoners, hedges, politeness markers, and appealer).

External modifications, which often precede or follow a head act, are applied to mitigate or aggravate request. The decreasing sequence of external modifications made by the subjects was: reasons, preparators, disarmers, enquirers and getting pre-commitments, promise of reward, cost minimizer. Reasons, were used by a speaker to support request production. Preparators were produced by a speaker in order to prepare an addressee for ensuing request, but the speaker did not tell the content of the request to the addressee. Disarmers were used by a speaker to remove probable refusals. The frequency of disarmers showed approximately 50% differences between the British English NSs and the Chinese NSs. The former used the device in almost all the situations which did not seem to be driven by different social status between interlocutors, while the latter showed a low frequency rate of the device. Getting

pre-commitments were produced to help a “speaker feel s/he has a ‘safer’ ground for uttering his/her request” (p.1907) and the speaker did not expect a negative or positive

response. In terms of this device (getting pre-commitments), the British NSs performed it more than the Chinese NSs. Promise of reward was used by a speaker to increase the likelihood of a hearer’s compliance (Han 2012), and both groups showed a low

frequency rate for using this device. Cost minimizer was used by minimizing cost of a hearer to achieve request.

In addition, internal modifications, which appear in a speech act, are part of a head act and they are applied to minimize or intensify the illocutionary force of request.

Following Blum-Kulka (1985), two types of internal modifications were identified:

syntactic and lexical/phrasal downgraders. Han (2012) mainly focused on the lexical/

phrasal downgraders, which comprise a large number of mitigating devices such as downtoners, hedges, politeness markers, and appealer. With regard to the usage of internal modifiers, comparing to Chinese request, British request showed a relatively high frequency rate. More than 90% of British English request were internally modified, yet Chinese request showed only 45% of internal modifications. The most frequently used internal modifiers were downtoners, which were used to soften the impact on a hearer. Hedges, defined as adverbials, were used to avoid a precise propositional specification by speakers. It had a very low incidence of both English and Chinese request. Politeness markers were used to seek cooperation from a hearer, such as please

in English, qing and baituo ‘please,’ laojia ‘excuse me,’ xiansheng ‘Sir,’ and xiaojie

‘Miss’ in Chinese. Since polite markers were often used to represent an intimate

relationship between a speaker and a hearer, Chinese request showed a lower frequency rate than English request. Appealer was used to appeal to a hearer’s understanding and

then to stimulate a response, such as tag questions. The Chinese subjects used this type a lot, while the English subjects used it at a low frequency rate.

To summarize, British request was more internally modified, and Chinese request was more externally modified. The Chinses subjects tended to apply imperatives to express politeness, but this usage was greatly different from the English subjects. It was also found that social variables involved in Han’s study might affect the choice of lexical modifications by the speakers of British English and Chinese to some extent.

2.3.4 Wen (2014)

Wen (2014) combined the request schemes of Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Zhang (1995) to explore Chinese request produced by learners of Chinese in terms of developmental features and request strategies. A total of 48 subjects were divided into two groups: advanced and lower, according to their Chinese proficiency tests. The instrument used by Wen was a written DCT which included four scenarios based on two different levels of social status and request imposition. Extra 24 native speakers of Chinese were recruited as a baseline.

The strategies of request produced by the subjects were divided into conventionally indirect strategies and direct strategies. Overall, the results showed that the subjects used conventionally indirect strategies most frequently. Conventionally direct request strategies included imperative statements / plain statements, hedged

performatives, and want statements. Among direct strategies, imperative statements /

plain statements were the most direct ones. Plain statements showed no requestive intent but draw an interlocutor’s attention. Hedged performatives were used in

situations where illocutionary intent was explicitly stated and the illocutionary force was modified (Wen 2014). Want statements were mainly produced by the native Chinese speakers in the scenario where a speaker asked a professor for an appointment.

In contrast to English, the usage of want statements did not convey impoliteness for the Chinese subjects.

Conventionally indirect request strategies were categorized as query preparatory with modal auxiliaries such as neng ‘can’ and time availability. These two types were found in both the native speakers of Chinese and the Chinese learners. Though conventionally indirect strategies were regarded as polite means of expressing request in English, conventionally indirect strategies might not be always polite in Chinese, unless downgraders were applied. Moreover, conventionally indirect strategies in Chinese were not as many as those in English in terms of syntactic modifications since English exhibits a variety of modalities and tense.

Internal modifications were divided into two levels (i.e., syntactic level and lexical level.) Syntactic modifiers which were produced by the subjects included adverbial clauses, tag questions, and modal auxiliaries. Among these three types, the usage of tag

questions was obviously different between the native group and the non-native group.

It was found eight learners used tag-question appealers, but that none of the native speakers produced them. This indicated that the learners were not sensitive to specific functions of appealers, and thus they used question-tag appealers in diverse contexts.

For example, when an interlocutor had high status, the choice of appealers would be appropriate. However, if the situation was opposite, it would be impolite. Data also showed obvious differences in modal auxiliaries. The Chinese native speakers treated

keyi ‘can’ and neng ‘can’ the same, but the learners tended to use keyi instead of neng.

For lexical expressions, the subjects produced three types (i.e., politenesss markers, downtoners, and understaters.) In fact, the politenesss marker qing is not a preferred expression in Chinese. It was obvious that as the leaners’ proficiency level got higher, the use of qing decreased. The use of downtoners produced by the learners was limited and less than that of the native speakers. The learners primarily used ye ‘also’ which has a concrete meaning of also in English. Additionally, combinations which were

composed of downtoners and politenesss markers were mainly found in the native speakers’ production. As for understaters, the native speakers used yongyixia ‘use a bit’

and huanyixia ‘return (the book) a bit’, and the advanced group used yongyiyong ‘use a bit’ and shuoyishuo ‘speak a bit’. However, the lower level group produced none of

them.

There were two types of alerters produced by the subjects. The first type referred to an interlocutor’s name or close title and the second type involved the use of qingwen

‘excuse me.’ The use of it increased with the subjects’ proficiency. Moreover, the result

showed the learners could differentiate the social variables because both the advanced and lower groups produced more alerts in the scenarios where addressees were professors.

Supportive moves produced by the subjects included five types (i.e., grounders, preparatories, apologizing, promises, and thanking.) Grounders were the most frequent

在文檔中中英文對於請求策略的言語行為之雙向研究 (頁 29-0)