The present study aimed to accomplish two major goals. One was to examine the differences between Chinese and American English correction. The other was to investigate Chinese EFL learners’ interlanguage performance on the speech act of correction. The significance of the present study is that this study has explored the neglected but important speech act of correction with a sounder research design. For example, previous studies often ignored participants’ metapragmatic assessment and seldom allowed them to opt out. This study thus also examined participants’
perception toward correction and investigated their reasons of opting out. Moreover, the present study set a stricter criterion for recruiting interlanguage data from learners of different proficiency levels who had passed standardized proficiency tests within three years. This better research design to study the vital speech act of correction would advance and enrich the research line of cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics.
The implication of the present study is two-fold: theoretical and pedagogical
implications, as discussed below.
5.2.1 Theoretical Implication
The present study has three main theoretical implications. First of all, our findings contribute to the debate between language universality and culture-specificity.
Some studies contend that there are universal rules for human beings’ speaking (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987; Chen, 2007; Grice, 1975; Leech, 1983); others suggest that there are cross-cultural variations in language use (e.g., Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; Chen, 2007; Hofstede, 1980; Lii-Shih, 1994; Trosborg, 1995; Wierzbicka, 1991;
Yu, 1999). The results of the present study summarized in the previous section (i.e., results for research questions one through five) revealed that both universality and culture-specificity coexisted in the speech act of correction in terms of perception of face-threat, the use of correction strategies, the use of external and internal modifications, and sensitivity to social status and social distance.
Secondly, the present study has advanced the understanding of the neglected speech act of correction. We have examined how people of different cultural backgrounds employed various strategies to perform correction. Besides, this study also explored how participants used many softening devices strategically to mitigate the imposition. Therefore, this study broadens the scope of cross-cultural pragmatics and interlanguage pragmatics.
Finally, the present study suggests that both qualitative and quantitative analyses should be necessary for the study of speech act behaviors. When analyzing the use of some individual strategies (i.e., threat, direct correction, indirect accusation, suggested repairs, and modified correction), we found that there were no quantitative differences among the four groups. However, further qualitative analyses demonstrated the differences among them. If we only conducted quantitative analyses, the underlying
qualitative differences remain unknown. Therefore, both quantitative and qualitative analyses are needed in the study of speech acts.
5.2.2 Pedagogical Implication
As shown in Chapter Four, learners’ correction frequently exhibited L1 negative transfer and their interlanguage development. In addition, sometimes there were American formulaic expressions and linguistic forms that were never or seldom used by our learners. These findings implied that our learners did not fully acquire the L2 linguistic repertoire. Further instructions are needed to help learners perform correction in a more native way.
In order to facilitate learners’ acquisition of L2 correction, it is important to teach learners the cross-cultural differences between Chinese and American English.
The findings of the differences discussed in the present study can be utilized to equip students with sociopragmatic knowledge. Through the instruction of cross-cultural differences, “the recognition of different values and norms embedded in speech behavior can help minimize potential cross-cultural misunderstanding as well as facilitate developing tolerance towards those who are different” (Lyuh, 1992, p. 126).
The different socio-cultural norms of speaking are frequently reflected in the pragmalinguistic forms. Our results indicated that learners’ linguistic forms differed greatly from those of American natives. Besides, there were many L2 native formulaic expressions that were seldom or never used by learners. Thus, teaching L2 pragmalinguistic forms and formulaic expressions is imperative to enrich foreign language learners’ linguistic repertoire. The present study suggests two approaches for the instruction of pragmalinguistic knowledge. One is explicit instruction, in which teachers explicitly explain how the linguistic forms are used by L2 natives to realize the speech act. The other approach is implicit instruction. In this approach, teachers
may first provide students with authentic examples of L1 and L2 native correction.
Then teachers may ask students to compare the two sets of examples and to analyze the differences of linguistic forms among the data. Through this comparison, students will have a better understanding about the cross-cultural differences in the pragmalinguistic forms.
In general, in the teaching of pragmatics, foreign language teachers must bear four basic principles in mind (Chen, 2007). First, sociopragmatic knowledge should be taught before pragmalinguistic knowledge. As discussed in the present study, most deviations of our EFL learners’ performance are reflections of their L1 socio-cultural norms of speaking. Foreign language teachers can teach learners the L2 sociopramatic first so that they will know better about how to perform their L2 speech act behaviors appropriately. Secondly, teaching contents can vary according to learners’ proficiency levels. Content for less proficient learners should focus on the sociolinguistic and pragmalinguistic forms, for which are frequently not controlled by these learners. On the other hand, contents for more proficient learners should highlight the L2 sociolinguistic norms of speaking. These learners often have a good control over their linguistic forms. What teachers have to do is to teach learners the L2 sociopragmatic knowledge so that they use their L2 properly through varying and modifying their forms in different social contexts. Thirdly, to increase learners’ repertoire of strategy use is important in teaching pragmatics. Due to their limited linguistic repertoire, learners may stick to some certain strategies and often use them repeatedly in different contexts. Instructors can increase learners’ variety of strategies through teaching other alternative individual strategies and multi-strategy patterns. Finally, offering opportunities for students to practice their output will surely benefit L2 learning (e.g., Chen, 2007; Long, 1996; Swain, 1985). At the earlier stage of teaching, teachers can provide students with DCTs to practice their learned strategies in different discourse
contexts. After their mastery of strategy use, teachers can ask students to practice their learned strategies through open-ended role plays because learners do not need more time to monitor their L2 at the later stage.