THE INFLUENCE OF NATIVE LANGUAGE

The influence of the linguistic and cultural background of nonnative language users on their linguistic performance in a second language has been noted significant in literature (e.g., Wolfson, 1989b; Byon, 2004; Yu, 2004). On account of the distinguishing features in Chinese refusals, the interlanguage characteristics in the semantic formulas as well as the interior linguistic exercise will be inspected along the line of native language transfer in this section. The viewpoint of positive transfer to learners’ interlanguage behaviors will be extended first, followed by the interpretation of the nonnative use by learners on the premise of negative transfer.

Positive Transfer

The similarities between the first language (L1) and the target language (L2) of the learner may lead to positive transfer (Blum-Kulka, 1982; House & Kasper, 1987;

Faerch & Kasper, 1989). This is because learners may obtain pragmatic knowledge easily through the meaning-function correspondences between L1 and L2, and these linguistic means can be used in the corresponding L2 contexts with the corresponding effects. In terms of the speech act of refusal under study, Chinese and English indeed bear some resemblances in conducting this face-threatening interaction (Shih, 1986;

Liao, 1996; Hsieh & Chen, 2005a; 2005b). When the focus shifts back to the corpus of this thesis, the considerable use of certain semantic formulas and modal forms by Chinese learners of English may derive from transfer from their native language.

In terms of the semantic formulas by Chinese students, the Excuse (F1) and Regret (F2) formulas are responsible for the mainstream application. This can be attributed to the Chinese way of refusing, where these two formulas are also widely employed. In this regard, learners manage to rely on their pragmatic knowledge of these two formulas in Chinese and directly operate them without many adjustments.

Concerning the management of excuses, both the interior and exterior types are favored by Chinese and English native speakers (Hsieh & Chen, 2005b). The Chinese data cited in the following are from the corpus of Hsieh and Chen (2005b), while the English counterparts are from Turnbull and Saxton (1997)⁵. As illustrated in the authentic refusal data by Chinese native speakers in (89) and (90) and those by English native speakers in (91) and (92), the excuses, I think I am not good enough to take this job in (87) and I have to go to cram school every Saturday and Sunday morning in (88), made by learners in this study exactly fall into the interior and exterior types of excuse. The positive transfer can be inferred from the excuse interior

5 The English data of refusals given in this section are cited from Turnbull and Saxton (1997).

Following each example, the page and serial numbers are provided in parentheses for convenience of reference. Moreover, the design of the requesting situations in Turnbull and Saxton (1997) was similar to that in this study so the English data are considered compatible. For detailed description of the experiment design, please refer back to Chapter 2.

to one’s ability in (89) (i.e., yinwei wo yingwen bushi hen hao “because my English is not very good”) and those exterior to the speaker in (90) (i.e., yinwei jiu keneng yao hui jia “It’s because I may have to go home then”), (91) (i.e., I might be doin a lab of my own), and (92) (i.e., I like have to go pick up my parents from the airport).

(87) Sorry, I think I am not good enough to take this job.

(88) No, I have to go to cram school every Saturday and Sunday morning. Sorry.

(89) Keshi zhege wo youkeneng meiyoubanfa,

but this I may can’t

yinwei wo yingwen bushi hen hao.

because I English Neg. very good

“But this I may not be able to do, because my English is not very good.”

(90) Yinwei jiu keneng yao hui jia.

because then may have to go home

“It’s because I may have to go home then.”

(91) I might be doin a lab of my own at that time. (168:M71)

(92) I think um I like have to go pick up my parents from the airport. (169:M111)

Furthermore, the Excuse formulas have been argued to be the most frequently adopted face-saving strategy across all languages since they can function as a type of justification for the targeted speech act (Hassall, 2001). Learners are thereby confident in the use of the Excuse formula as a supportive move for the declining intention.

This coincidently corresponds to what Brown and Levinson (1978, p. 189) termed

‘give overwhelming reasons’, whereby learners assert the ‘compelling reasons for doing the FTA’ (viz. face-threatening speech acts such as refusal in this study).

As for the Regret formulas in various speech acts, they are universal in maintaining the face want as well (Byon, 2004). By apologizing, learners point out their reluctance to impose the noncompliance on the requester and thereby the imposition of the act of refusing can be eased off. Brown and Levinson (1978, p.189) termed this as ‘beg forgiveness’, by means of which ‘H (hearer) should cancel the debt implicit in the FTA’ and facework can thus be done. Even in learners’ native language, Chinese speakers do likewise in the act of refusing, which can be seen in (95) and (96) given by Hsieh and Chen (2004; 2005b).

(93) Sorry, I don’t like to clean the classroom.

(94) I’m sorry about that I didn’t take this job because the working time doesn’t suit my schedule.

(95) Hen baoqian, wo meiyou yiyuan.

very sorry I no willingness

“I’m very sorry. I am not willing to (take this job).”

(96) Na wo xian gen ni shuo baoqian haole.

then I temporarily to you say sorry then

“Then for the moment let me say sorry to you then.”

In addition, the feasible forms in English either in the lexical level (e.g., sorry) or those in the phrasal level (e.g., I’m sorry) also account for the popular use of the Regret formulas by learners, as in (93) (i.e., sorry) and (94) (i.e., I’m sorry about that…). Such formal simplicity in apologies can reach the politeness end easily and thereby learners are less likely to be discouraged by considerations of formal complexity in selecting this formula.

Positive transfer also occurs in the case of modality. When it comes to modal forms, epistemic, and dynamic modalities are the most preferred types of Internal modification. This is in line with what was found in Hsieh and Chen (2005a) that Chinese epistemic modals were adopted to lower the probability or certainty of the unwanted proposition (i.e., the intended declination or the identified hindrance). Cases of positive transfer of this kind are extracted from the Chinese and English refusal responses in Hsieh and Chen (2005a) for comparison with learners’ data in this study:

(97) Sorry, I think that my English ability is not good enough to read 8 websites within one hour.

(98) I’m sorry but I’m afraid that my writing ability won’t enable me to do such a job.

(99) a. Jiushi… wo jiari keneng jiu mei banfa.

it is I weekend may then no way

“It’s that… I may not be able to make it on weekends then.”

b. I probably wouldn’t be available, no. (169:M136)

The use of the epistemic modal keneng ‘may’ in (99a) and probably and wouldn’t in (99b) convey the sense of uncertainty toward the proposition of the noncompliance. Other examples include yinggai ‘probably’, haoxiang ‘seem’, and wo pa ‘I am afraid’ in Chinese and might, I’m not sure, and I guess in English. Positive transfer also takes effect in learners interlanguage in the case of epistemic modality, as can be seen in I think (97), I’m afraid, and the modal auxiliary won’t in (98).

An additional modal form both widely-adopted in Chinese and English as Internal modification is the Dynamic modality. Learners in this case most of the

time utilize the subtype that has the interpretation of capacity, which are shown as can’t in (100). This dynamic modal use also appear in native Chinese and English speakers’ data, such as meibanfa ‘can’t’ in (101a) and can’t in (101b).

(100) I’m sorry I can’t.

(101) a. En… na wo jiu miebanfa lei, dui a!

um well I then can’t PART yeah PART

“Um… well, then I can’t. Yeah.”

b. I can’t make it. (160:S41)

As can be seen from the discussion above, both use of the semantic formulas and that of the modal forms make positive contribution to the facework learners are engaged in. For one thing, they completely echo what has been advanced in the literature that positive transfer is more likely to make the foreign language communication successful (see Chapter 2 in this thesis). For another, the fact that learners substantially manipulate means similar to those in Chinese precisely reflects their attitude toward ‘playing safe’ (see Hassall, 2003). To put it differently, learners as foreign language communicators seem to worry about the communication breakdown or politeness insufficiency owing to their unsatisfactory language proficiency. Henceforth, they show a marked tendency to use those linguistic strategies they are confident with.

Negative Transfer

Negative transfer tends to derive from the discrepancy between learners’ L1 and L2 (Byon, 2004; Yu, 1999; 2004). For the languages at issue, a major difference

between Chinese and English in the act of refusal is that Chinese speakers are prone to applying the ‘off-record’ strategies termed by Brown and Levinson (1978, p. 211-227) (Chapter 2 in this thesis). This exactly contrasts to the ‘on-record’ ones (Brown &

Levinson, 1978, p. 94-95) by which English native speakers mostly employed. Such strategic variance is directly mapped into Chinese students’ use of Alternative (F5) and Avoidance formulas (F7).

In the exertion of alternative proposals, learners manage to attain the purpose of politeness by offering alternative resolutions of the disagreement between interlocutors, or by promising to shift this work opportunity to others. The two-fold operation of alternative formulas is both meant to turn a request into an offer and to make a suggestion into a help. This can bring less imposition to the refuser and thus coherent to the interpersonal harmony by nature. This is exactly what is characterized as one distinctive way of refusing in Chinese, namely, to ‘show goodwill’ in Hsieh and Chen (2005b). Such use of showing good intention also can be found in learners’

data. As in (102) and (103), both propose an alternative by means of the imperative suggestion (i.e., you can find another potential person and Maybe you can find a better employer than me ). Chinese realizations of this refusing style are illustrated as in (104) and (105):

(102) Oh my god, it is too rush to write eight abstracts in an hour. Sorry about inability, you can find another potential person.

(103) Sorry about that. I think it’s not the suitable work for me. Maybe you can find a better employer than me.

(104) Na… meiguanxi, wo ba zhege jihui rang chulai haole.

Well that’s alright I cause this chance give out then

“Well… that’s alright. I give this chance to others then.”

(105) Na… wo haishi ba nage gongdu de jihui liu gei

well I still cause that working Poss. chance leave to

bieren haole.

others then

“Well… then I leave this chance of working to others then.”

Another prevalent off-record use emerging in learners’ data corresponds to the Avoidance formula, which is subdivided into Topic switch and Postponement. The former usually directs the hearer’s attention to an inclination toward another job without commenting on the one under discussion, while the latter suggests that for the time being the speaker cannot make the decision so he would like to delay responding to the request. Chinese equivalents of both types of Avoidance can be found in (107), (108), (110), and (111) drawn from Hsieh and Chen (2004; 2005b). Learners also manifest both Avoidance use, as in (106) and (109).

(106) Sorry, I don’t want to take this job because I want to learn something about how to teach students.

(107) Qingwenyixia chule dasao gongdu hai you qita de ma?

excuse me besides cleaning job still there other Poss. Part.

“Excuse me. Besides the cleaning job, are there other jobs?”

(Topic switch)

(108) Wo bijiao xiang de shi nimen po zai bibi shangmian de I than like Poss. be you post on BBS on Poss.

lingwai yige e.

another one Part.

“What I prefer is another one you posted on BBS.”

(Topic switch)

(109) I have to consider it more because I think it is not like what I originally thought. I have classes in the morning, so maybe it is not appropriate for me.

(110) O…na zheyangzi… keneng…bu tai… bu tai queding oh then in this case maybe Neg. quite Neg. quite sure

ke bu keyi.

can Neg. can

“Oh…then in this case… maybe… I am not quite… not quite sure if I can.”

(Postponement)

(111) O… zheyangdehua linshi wo ye bu tai zhidao oh in this case temporarily I also Neg. quite know Part.

yao zeme huida.

should how answer

“Oh…in this case temporarily I don’t quite know how to answer either.”

(Postponement)

Though Chinese students intend these ‘off-record’ refusing strategies as face retrievers, native English interlocutors may perceive them dissimilarly in the phatic level since these are not conventional reactions in English refusals. Misunderstanding may then occur in a conversation where Chinese native speakers speaking English to native English speakers. In the first place, Chinese students’ attempts to show goodwill, to switch topics or to postpone answering may confuse their English converser since the off-record use conflicts with the expectation that there should be a

definite response. The native English listener is probably puzzled about what Chinese students intend to convey and find their responses irrelevant and weird. After the English speaker figures out that these ‘off-record’ strategies are equal to a rejection, he or she might be annoyed at the thought that he or she has been fooled away quite an amount of time and efforts processing these implicit messages. Chinese students may then risk losing both the conveyance of the illocutionary force and polite intent.

On the whole, the influence of learners’ native language is attested in the transfer of their perceptions about how to perform in given situations. Such transfer could affect positively to the extent that the linguistic and cultural correspondences are feasibly and successfully operated. However, negative effects may at times occur when learners choose to use the markers that are plausible at the linguistic level but deviant at a cultural one in the target language. Such cross-linguistic differences are hardly noticed by foreign language learners and thus lead to their non-native like responses or even communication barriers. Seen in this light, understanding between the similarities and variances may contribute to the learning and teaching of speech act communication.