中英文對於請求策略的言語行為之雙向研究

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文 Master’s Thesis Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 中英文對於請求策略的言語行為之雙向研究 A Bi-directional Study of Request Strategies in Chinese and English. 指導教授：陳純音博士 Advisor: Dr. Chun-yin Doris Chen 研究生：陳俐穎 Student: Li-ying Xiaoniu Chen 中華民國一百零七年七月 July, 2018.

(2) 摘要. 本研究旨在探討以中文為母語的臺灣大學生和以英文為母語的在台外國學生在中文及英文的請求語言表現。本研究有別於單向母語研究，探討受試者在母語及第二語言的請求行為的雙向表現，並分析影響請求行為的三大因素：社會地位、社會距離、以及事件負擔程度。總共有十二位的臺灣大學生及十二位英美語人士參加本研究的兩項測驗：中文版和英文版的口說言談情境填充。本研究主要發現如下：一、在中文的請求行為表現中，英文母語者與中文母語人士的使用仍大不，但在英文請求行為表現中，中文母語者的表現已相當接近英文母語人士。二、中文母語人士在其母語(中文)及第二語言(英文)的請求策略的使用表現相近，但是英文母語人士在其母語(英文)及第二語言(中文)的表現差異極明顯。三、三大影響請求策略因素中，社會距離影響中文請求策略比社會地位和事件負擔程度來得大。四、三大影響請求策略因素中，三個因素影響英文請求策略之程度相當。五、在中英文請求合併策略的使用上，不論是中文母語人士或英文母語人士都傾向使用情態策略和預備策略與其他策略合併。合併策略中兩組受試者在中文和英文的請求行為中最常使用的合併組合是預備策略＋預備策略。. 關鍵詞：第二語言習得、言語行為、請求、社會地位、社會距離、負擔程度. i.

(3) ABSTRACT. The present study investigated the use of strategies by Taiwanese college students and English-speaking students in Taiwan in making Chinese and English request. Three factors affecting the subjects’ use of request strategies were examined: social power, social distance, and the degree of imposition. Different from previous research, the present study examined the subjects’ request behavior in their native and non-native languages. A total of twelve students from Taiwanese college students and twelve English-speaking students were recruited to complete two versions (i.e., Chinese and English) of an oral discourse completion task (ODCT). The major findings are summarized, as follows: 1.. In making Chinese request, the English subjects performed quite differently from the Chinese native speakers. However, the Chinese subjects and English native speakers employed strategies similarly in making English request.. 2.. The Chinese group showed a similar tendency of using request strategies in their native (Chinese) and non-native language (English), while the English group differed greatly in Chinese and English request.. 3.. With regard to the three factors affecting the use of request strategies, social distance was found more influential than social power and the degree of imposition in making Chinese request.. 4.. The influence of the three factors was on a similar scale in the use of English request strategies.. 5. Regarding the use of combined strategies, both groups of subjects tended to combine MOOD and PREP with other strategies. Both NSC and NSE also used Type J (PREP plus PREP) the most frequently in Chinese and English.. ii.

(4) Keywords: second language acquisition, speech act, request, social power, social distance, the degree of imposition. iii.

(5) ACKNOWLEDGEMWNTS. The year of 2016 means a lot to me. I will never forget how excited I was when I received a call informing me of admission. I really cherished this opportunity to be a graduate student in NTNU. Three years later, I still cannot believe I am standing on the final stage of my life in NTNU. As Isaac Newton said, ‘If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants’, a success of a man relies on many men’s favor. First and foremost, I have to sincerely express my appreciation to my thesis advisor, Dr. Chun-Yin Doris Chen. Dr. Chen played roles of my mother, my friend, and my teacher. She not only guided me to complete my thesis step by step, but also encouraged me to go through many obstacles on the rode of life. I’ve learned many lessons from her. In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to my committee members, Dr. Jyun-Gwang Fred Chen and Dr. Rueih-Ling Sharon Fahn. Their constructive and insightful suggestions made my study more complete. Sincere gratitude is also given to my teachers that I met in NTNU. Each of them is devoted in instructing their academic knowledge to students and inspiring students to think independently. That is really helpful to me in many ways. I am grateful to all my classmates in NTNU. Many classmates gave me a hand when I needed help with my schoolwork and thesis. Besides, without their spiritual iv.

(6) support, I might not have accomplished my academic work. Lastly, I want to thank my beloved friends and family members. No words can ever be enough to be used to express my gratitude to them. I really appreciate their company and understanding. I love you all forever.. v.

(7) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHINESE ABSTRACT …………………………………………………..………...i ENGLISH ABSTRACT ………...………………………………….…...….…….….ii ACKONOWLEDGEMENTS ..………………………………………………...…. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ..…………………………...……………………......…. vi LIST OF TABLES ………………...……………….………………………….....viii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION………………………..……………………...1 1.1 Motivation …………………………………………………………..………..1 1.2 Research Questions ………………………………...…………………..….....8 1.3 Significance of the Study …………….……………………………………....9 1.4 Organization of the Thesis ……………………………………………..…....10. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………...…..…….11 2.1 The Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project …………………….…..11 2.2 Cross-cultural Comparisons of Request in Chinese and in English …...…....13 2.2.1 Gu (1990) ………………………………..………………………......14 2.2.2 Huang (2000) ………………………………..…………………….....16 2.2.3 Chen (2014) ………………………………..………………………...19 2.3 Previous Empirical Studies on Request ……………………………...……..22 2.3.1 Chen & Chen (2007) …………………………………..…….............22 2.3.2 Wei (2012) ………………………………….……………………......24 2.3.3 Han (2012) ………………………………..…………………….........28 2.3.4 Wen (2014) ………………………………..…………………..…......31 2.3.5 A Summary of Previous Empirical Studies ……………………..…...34 2.4 Summary of Chapter Two …………………………………..…….………...37. CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN ………………………………...…...38 3.1 Subjects …………………………..……………………………………...….38 3.2 Methods and Materials …………………………..…………………….…....40 3.3 Procedures …………………………..………………………………….…...47 3.3.1 Pilot Study……………………………………………………….…...47 3.3.2 Formal Study …………………………..……………………….……49 3.3.3 Data Analysis …………………………..…………………………….52 3.4 Summary of Chapter Three ……………………..…………….....….............54 vi.

(8) CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCSSION………………..…………........56 4.1 Single Strategy Use of Request in Each Language: NS vs. NNS ……….….56 4.2 Request Strategy Use of Each Group: L1 Version vs. L2 Version …………61 4.3 Factors Affecting Chinese Request Strategy Use by NS and NNS ………...69 4.4 Factors Affecting English Request Strategy Use by NS and NNS ………....78 4.5 Combined Strategy Use of Request in Each Language: NS vs. NNS ……....84 4.6 Summary of Chapter Four …………………………………………………..94. CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION ………………………………………………..95 5.1 Summary of the Major Findings ………………………………………….....95 5.2 Limitations of the Current Study and Suggestions for Further Research …...97. REFERENCES ………………………….…………...……………………..….......99 APPENDIX A TEST ITEMS Used in THE ODCT-C …………………………..105 APPENDIX B TEST ITEMS Used in THE ODCT-E ……….……………..…....109 APPENDIX C CONSENT FORM ………………………………………..……..113 APPENDIX D: The Chi-square Results of NSE’s Use of English Request Strategies ……………...……….………………………...…..…114 APPENDIX E: The Chi-square Results of NSE’s Use of Chinese Request Strategies ...…………………………………………..……...…115 APPENDIX F: The Chi-square Results of NSC’s Use of Chinese Request Strategies …………………………………………………...….116 APPENDIX G: The Chi-square Results of NSC’s Use of English Request Strategies ……………………………………………..……..…117. vii.

(9) LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Requesting Categorization ……………………….…………………......12 Table 2-2 Major Findings and Limitations of the Previous Studies …………….…35 Table 3-1 A Summary of the Subjects……………………….…………………......39 Table 3-2 The Experimental Design of Both Versions of the ODCT…………........43 Table 3-3 Four Types of Requests in the ODCT ……………………….……….....44 Table 3-4 Relations of Social Power & Social Distance between Characters …….44 Table 3-5 An Example Scenario in the ODCT-C ……………………….………....45 Table 3-6 An Example Scenario in the ODCT-E ……………………….…………46 Table 3-7 An Example Scenario for the Trial Question for the ODCT-C …….......50 Table 3-8 An Example Scenario for the Trial Question for the ODCT-E ………....51 Table 3-9 The Coding System of the Present Study ……………………….……...53 Table 4-1 Overall Frequency Counts of Single Strategies Used by NSE and NSC in Chinese Request …………………….……………………….....57 Table 4-2 Overall Frequency Counts of Single Strategies Used by NSC and NSE in English Request …………...……………………………..……..59 Table 4-3 Overall Frequency Counts of NSE’s Chinese and English Request Strategies ……………………………………………………….…..…...61 Table 4-4 Overall Frequency Counts of NSC’s Chinese and English Request Strategies ………………...……………………………………….…..…63 Table 4-5 The Production Sequences of Request for NSE’s and NSC’s in the ODCT-E and ODCT-C ……………………………………………….…64 Table 4-6 The p-values for NSE’s within-type Differences in their Use of Single Strategies of Request in the ODCT-E and ODCT-C ………………....…66 Table 4-7 The p-values for NSC’s within-type Differences in their Use of Single Strategies of Request in the ODCT-E and ODCT-C …………………....67 Table 4-8 NSC’s and NSE’s Use of Chinese Request Strategies concerning Social Power ………………………….…………………………..……..70 Table 4-9 NSC’s and NSE’s Use of Chinese Request Strategies concerning Social Distance ………………………………………………………….73 Table 4-10 NSC’s and NSE’s Use of in Chinese Request Strategies concerning Imposition ……………………………………………………………….76 viii.

(10) Table 4-11 The Effect of the Three Factors on the Subjects’ Use of Chinese Request Strategies ……………………..……………………….……….77 Table 4-12 NSC’s and NSE’s Use of English Request Strategies concerning Social Power ………………………………………………………….....79 Table 4-13 NSC’s and NSE’s Use of English Request Strategies concerning Social Distance ………………………………………………………….81 Table 4-14 NSC’s and NSE’s Use of English Request Strategies concerning Imposition …………………………………………………………….....82 Table 4-15 The Effect of the Three Factors on the Subjects’ Use of English Request Strategies …………………………………..……………..........82 Table 4-16 Subjects’ Overall Types of Combined Strategies of Request ……….....84 Table 4-17 Frequency Counts and Examples of NSC’s and NSE’s Combined Strategies in Chinese Request ……………………………………..........86 Table 4-18 Frequency Counts and Examples of NSE’s and NSC’s Combined Strategies in English Request …………………………...……………....90 .. ix.

(11) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Motivation Requests are commonly used in our daily life, since we all need others’ help sometimes. Searle (1969) defines a request as a directive act, which is performed to get the hearer to do an act. Based on the work by Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984), requests consist of three segments –an address term, a head act, and an adjunct to a head act, as can be seen in (1).. (1) John, can you lend me your paper? I will buy you a drink.. In the above example, the utterance Can you lend me your paper? is regarded as a head act of a request, which constitutes the nucleus of the speech act and serves to realize the act. John is an address term, and the sentence I will buy you a drink is an adjunct to a head act, which is used to strengthen or support an act realized by others. A request is not merely a simple way to get help, but it is also an important way to maintain the relationship with others. Below is a real example taken from an article interviewing a manager about her experiences1. She recalled an impressing experience. 1. The example is taken from an article of an interview-Laopan zhenxin hua da pojie! Ting dong shi ju hua, congci bu taoma. ‘The understanding of boss’ real thoughts! Understanding ten utterances can avoid being insulted. ’ http://www.cheers.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5028236. 1.

(12) where her boss asked her if she usually went shopping. She was immediately confused about this question since she didn’t figure out the boss’ true meaning of the utterance. After inquiring her boss directly, she finally realized that her boss hoped she could often go shopping and buy some make-ups.. (2) Vivian, ni pingchang guang bu guangjie? ‘Vivian, do you usually go shopping?’. In (2), the boss asked the question, which seems irrelevant to job content or job performance of the employee. This made the employee lose the boss’ main point. In fact, the boss was trying to ask the employee to pay attention to her dress-up in order to maintain professional appearance. However, the utterance ni pingchang guang bu guangjie ‘Do you usually go shopping?’ seems not clear to deliver the boss’ true demand. This confusing condition shows that a proper request should be made clearly and unambiguously. In general, request strategies can be of direct or indirect types. The sentences in (3) are imperative, and they are considered a direct request since imperatives ‘necessarily include imposition on interlocutors’ actions by asking them to do things they might not have intention to do with no softening’ (Chen 2014). In contrast, those in (4), which are thought indirect, because interrogative forms are used to question the addressee’s ability of taking the action. The speaker provides the question to express his demand, and the 2.

(13) listener has the right to accept or refuse his request. It not only saves the speaker’s face but also avoids offending the listener.. (3) a. Pass me that newspaper! b. Zhe ben shu jie wo kan kan. this CL book lend I read read ‘Lend me this book.’ (4) a. Are you finished with that newspaper? b. Neng bang wo yi ba ma? can help I one ba Q ‘Can you give me a hand?’. (Dong 2009: 13) (Ding 2002: 462). (Dong 2009: 13) (Ding 2002: 46). If direct requests are used in situations where they are not supposed to be used, it is likely to lead to misunderstanding. Thus, how to make an appropriate and nonoffensive request is important. As Chen (2014) has stated, it is common for language learners to make a pragmatic error without noticing cultural differences or social settings. People interpret behavior or utterances based on their native language or culture conventions. Also, every language in different cultures has its own way to appropriately make requests in context. The second language acquisition of pragmatic competence has been a popular issue since the past decades (Han 2012, Chen 2014). Several studies have contributed to the request performance in the field of second language acquisition, including languages such as English, Greek, German, French, Hebrew, Russian, Vietnamese, and. 2. These examples taken from Ding (2002) are originally in Chinese. 3.

(14) Japanese, etc. (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984, Iwasaki 2008, Dong 2009, Bella 2012, Nguyễn & Basturkmen 2013). Moreover, more and more researchers are exploring the speech acts of second language acquisition in Chinese and English (Chen 2014, Li 2014, Wen 2014). From the results of these previous studies, it is widely believed that English native speakers have a tendency to prefer conventionally indirect requests (Can you pass me that?) but have restrictive use of imperatives (Clark & Schunk 1980, Leech 1983, Wierzbicka1985). As Clark and Schunk (1980) state, English speakers tend to make requests indirectly and generally avoid imperatives since they think keeping a distance from others is a way of being polite (Dong 2009). However, choosing the proper use of requests in diverse situations sometimes can be a tough task for native speakers (NSs) not to mention non-native speakers (NNSs). The following example is produced by a mother, who is a non-native speaker of English. She and her family just moved to this district a few months ago. She found her son got a good grade, but he got it without paying efforts. Thus, she rushed to the school and she was requesting the principal to improve the learning environment in school.. 4.

(15) (5) Mother: You need to make school more challenging or else; my son will fall behind. Principal: I’m sorry. There’s not much I can do about a straight-“A” student. (American drama: Fresh Off the Boat3). To a native speaker, the mother may sound too direct to the principle since the principle has a higher status no matter in communities or in education, not to say this was the first time they met. This is a typical error of intercultural communication. When two cultures are blended, conflicts often occur. It is easy for the mother, who only has little social knowledge of a new culture to overapply or underapply what she gets from her environment. With regard to Chinese, some researchers agree on the universal view that conventionally indirect requests are the most preferred by Chinese native speakers (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper 1989, Zhang & Wang 1997). Using conventionally indirect requests not only shows moderation in a conversation but also gives an addressee a choice to respond to requests (Zhang & Wang 1997). However, Yao and Qiu (2003) argue that imperatives are efficient expressions for Chinese to make requests workable, instead of indirect strategies which are universally used by most speakers. In their research, direct requests account for a large proportion of Chinese. 3. The dialogue is taken from Episode 2 (4:48) of Season 1 of Fresh Off the Boat, which describes a family that moves to a new city- Orlando, where their new life begins. 5.

(16) requests. However, a conventionally indirect strategy was produced by an Englishspeaking speaker naturally, as can be seen in (6):. (6) Ni keyi jiao wo zhongwen ma?4 you can teach I Chinese Q ‘Can you teach me Chinese?’. This example is taken from a social experiment in which two foreign men are competing for the total numbers of passersby who they are requesting to teach them Chinese on the street. According to the Chinese convention, using indirect requests in this situation may make the command too formal. This is because when interlocutors are intimate or speakers are superior to addresses, it is common for Chinese speakers to use imperatives instead of interrogatives. Lee-Wong (1994) also states that the use of directness in the form of the imperative is socially acceptable, appropriate in the Chinese culture. According to Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), requests are regarded as FaceThreatening Acts (FTAs). A FTA is an utterance that intrinsically threatens people’s face for example, showing disagreements, criticism, delivery of bad news, and requests (Duthler 2006). By making a request, a speaker encroaches on a hearer’s claim to freedom of action and freedom from forcing others to help (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain. 4. The utterance is found in a YouTube film where the foreigner, who has learned Chinese a little, asks pedestrians on the street to instruct him Chinese (2:42) in Xiaoma zai niu yue Xiaoma is in New York. 6.

(17) 1984). It is commonly convinced that when addresses are different, different request strategies would be chosen (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984, Wei 2012, Wen 2014). Such parameters include social power, social distance, imposition, and so on. Social power is defined as “the degree to which the hearer can impose his own plans and his own self-evaluation at the expense of the speaker’s plans and selfevaluation” (Brown & Levinson 1987:77). Communicating with parents stands for a lower social power condition. On the contrary, if interlocutors are the speaker’s little brothers or sisters, then the speaker owns higher social power. Previous studies have found that social power is indeed an influential factor that affects patterns of participants’ requesting (Han 2012, Wei 2012). Social distance (i.e., levels of familiarity, as indicated below) is defined by Duthler (2006) as the “symmetric social dimension of similarity / difference within which the speaker and hearer stand for the purposes of an act, and can refer to the frequency of interaction and the kinds of goods exchanged between the speaker and the hearer” (p.503). Conditions where speakers have a conversation with friends are regarded as a minimal social distance. However, strangers are in a greater social distance to addressees. It has been found that the degree of familiarity also has impact on the participants’ selections of requests (Wei 2012). The degree of imposition, as defined by Brown and Levinson (1987), is “a 7.

(18) culturally and situationally defined ranking of impositions by the degree to which they are considered to interfere with an agent’s wants of self-determination or of approval” (p.77). Speakers may assess the degree of imposition associated with FTAs. It is expected that requests for permissions will be less direct than requests for actions (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984). Since request act is an indispensable capability in human reaction, the application of making request of a second language is vital as its usage in a native language. Also, as previous studies mentioned, interlocutors’ social power, social distance and the degree of imposition of requests were all potential variables that may affect subjects’ request realization, these three factors were in the current study. Therefore, the present studies focused on the factors affecting the employment of Chinese and English NS in making Chinese request and English request.. 1.2 Research Questions To analyze native speakers’ and non-native speakers’ use of requests in Chinese and in English, the researcher will address the following four research questions: 1) Do the non-native speakers of Chinese and English use the same types of request strategies as the native speakers do? 2) Do the participants make a similar requesting pattern in their native language and in a non-native language? 3) How do variables (i.e., social power, social distance, and the degree of 8.

(19) imposition) affect Chinese strategies used by native and non-native speakers? 4) How do the three factors influence the choice of request strategies of non-native speakers and native speakers in making English request? 5) How do the subjects employ combined strategies in Chinese and English request? The first question aims at comparing the requestive performance between NSs and NNSs. The second question focuses on the subjects’ own request production in their native language and second language. The third and the fourth questions deal with the influence of variables on request speech acts. The last question concerns the subjects’ usage of combined strategies in making Chinese and English request.. 1.3 Significance of the Study Previous research on request speech acts lays emphasis on request behavior in English (e.g. Brown & Levinson 1987, Trosborg 1995). Though Han (2012) investigated English request modifications made by English native speakers and Chinese learners of English, he did not examine their Chinese request behavior. Little research has examined the performance of requests in both Chinese and English with a bi-directional approach. However, how an individual manifests his pragmatic competence in a native language and a second language should not be neglected. This present study is based on an analysis of requests in English and Chinese. Therefore, the ways of making requests in these two languages were investigated. To our knowledge, there has been more qualitative than quantitative research on 9.

(20) requests in the literature (Hong 1999, Al-gahtani & Roever 2011, Lundell & Erman 2012, Wen 2014). Therefore, the present study aims to bi-directionally analyze Chinese and English requests in a quantitative way. In addition, since most qualitative studies are concerned with higher or lower interlocutors, equal interlocutors were included in the current study. In the present study, both cultural differences and situational contexts were investigated. The interaction of interlocutors’ social factors and events with different degrees of imposition were also be highlighted. It is hoped that the findings of the current study would shed light on crosslinguistic influences of pragmatic competence in English and Chinese.. 1.4 Organization of the Thesis This proposal is organized as follows. Chapter Two introduces the research associated with politeness theory, and an essential project related to request speech acts and reviews some cross-cultural empirical studies of making a request. Chapter Three describes the research design and discusses the expected findings of the present study. Chapter Four displays and discusses the results. Lastly, Chapter Five summarizes the major findings and discusses the limitations of the present study.. 10.

(21) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW. In this chapter, both theoretical and empirical studies related to the background of request behavior were discussed. Section 2.1 presents a model of Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (i.e., CCSARP), which was the framework of the present study, and Section 2.2 reviews three cross-cultural studies of request in Chinese and in English. In Section 2.3, four empirical studies on second language acquisition of request are reviewed. Finally, a brief summary of this chapter is provided in Section 2.4.. 2.1 The Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project For in-depth research of a speech act of request, it is necessary to look into the investigation of the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) conducted by Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984). This project has been used as a mean to interculturally examine realization patterns of speech acts. The focus of the project is to compare the speech acts of request and apology across languages, and to establish the patterns between NSs and non-native speakers NNSs. A total of 400 undergraduate students were recruited in the project, including eight languages, for instance, Australian English, American English, British English, Canadian French, Danish, German, Hebrew, and Russian. The instrument used in this study was a discourse completion task (henceforth DCT), composed of incomplete discourse sequences 11.

(22) eliciting requestive acts with different social parameters, such as social distance (+ / -) and dominance (+ / -). Eight items were designed for eliciting a request and apology, respectively. Table 2-1 presents the three main categories defined on the basis of general theoretical considerations and Blum-Kulka & Olshtain’s previous work. According to strategies the subjects employed to make request1 in different languages, the scheme which includes some sub-categories is further modified as follows: Table 2-1 Requesting Categorization2 Directness. Strategy types. Examples. The most direct level. Mood derivable. Leave me alone.. Explicit performatives. Aveksex lo lehaxnot kan et haoto. ‘I'm asking you not to park the car here.’. Hedged. Tisma, hayiti roca levakes mimxa. performative. setakdim et haharcaa selxa besavua. ‘I would like you to give your lecture a week earlier.’. Locution derivable. Madam, you'll have to move your car.. Scope stating. I really wish you'd stop bothering me.. Conventionally indirect level. Nonconventionally indirect level. 1. Language specific Why don't you get lost? suggestory formula Reference to preparatory conditions. Could you clean up the kitchen, please?. Strong hints. You've left this kitchen in a right mess.. Mild hints. I'm a nun.. Since the main focus of the present study is on request behavior, an analysis of apology conducted by Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984) was discussed in this paper. 2 This table is compiled by the researcher by adding the information of directness (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984:201) into Blum-Kulka & Olshtain’s table (1984:202). 12.

(23) Blum-Kulka & Olshtain’s (1984) results revealed that conventionally indirect strategies were preferred by both native and non-native speakers of English, but the participants’ way of expressing request varied among different language groups. According to Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, language may be distinct in a range of options included in the repertoire, in the degree to which these options are realized or in the manner in which they combine to realize the speech act. By further analysis of data across languages, sub-classifications may be constructed within the dimension. In conclusion, the phenomena captured by the analysis of the CCSARP is regarded as a potential candidate for universality.. 2.2 Cross-cultural Comparisons of Request in Chinese and in English Since the focus of the present study is to bi-directionally investigate how performance of request differ in Chinese and English, reading earlier cross-cultural studies of request in the two languages can provide a model for the research design of the present study. As mentioned by Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984), particular linguistic features may exist in different languages. Thus, Section 2.2 reviewed three studies to discuss a speech act of request in Chinese and English.. 13.

(24) 2.2.1 Gu (1990) Gu (1990) commented on the shortcoming in Leech’s (1977, 1983) study. For example, Leech’s Generosity Maxim and Tact Maxim are self-contradictory, as in (1) (p.244):. (1) A: I can drop you in town if you like. B: It's very kind of you, but it will cause you some inconvenience, won't it? A: No, not at all. I'm going in that direction. B: Thank you very much.. By Tact Maxim, A is maximizing benefit to B; by Generosity Maxim, A is maximizing cost to himself. In both cases, A is polite. However, A replies, “No, not at all. I'm going in that direction,” which means A is minimizing cost to himself. This contradicts to Generosity Maxim, which requires A to maximize cost to himself. This illustrates that the use of minimization is different from minimization discussed by Leech. This minimization refers to the minimization functioning at the conversational level and it regulates speech behavior. In other words, it does not alter the nature of the cost at the motivational level. A's cost of offering B a lift is not minimized by A's replies. To Gu, speech-regulating minimization is used to make it easier for B to accept A's offer, which however is not well-discussed in Leech’s study. In Chinese culture, speech-regulating minimization of cost not only makes it easier for a hearer to accept an offer, but also shows a speaker's sincerity. Failure to observe speech-regulating 14.

(25) minimization of cost may make a politeness analysis go wrong. Thus, in order to avoid this embarrassment, Gu ignored Leech’s original distinction between self-centeredness and other-centeredness by allocating impositives under the Tact Maxim and commissives under the Generosity Maxim, which made Leech’s maxim internally more coherent. In addition, Gu (1990) argued that Brown and Levinson's (1978, 1987) model is not suitable for Chinese data. For example, a Chinese hearer (H) might express his desire that a speaker does not do it, a speaker (S) might still insist on inviting a hearer to have dinner, implying that the S would pay the H's bill. In this situation, a Chinese would think that the S's performance shows his/her sincere politeness. The Chinese negative face is not threatened in this case. However, this situation might be impolite to other culture. Apparently, the Chinese notion of negative face is different from the definition given by Brown and Levinson. Gu also pointed out that Brown and Levinson failed to go beyond the instrumental to normative function of politeness in interaction. In Chinese context, “politeness exercises its normative function in constraining individual speech acts as well as the sequence of talk exchanges” (p.242). Moreover, some essential concepts of politeness rooted in Chinese culture were discussed by Gu, such as Address Maxim, which is highly related to the politeness system in Chinese culture. The usage of inappropriate address term can be regarded as 15.

(26) a sign of rudeness. Three differences between Chinese and English address systems were discussed by Gu. One of the differences is an order of a proper name. In Chinese, a proper name is put in an order of surname + (middle name) + given name; however, in English, it is in a reverse order3. Second, some Chinese kinship terms can be extended to call people who have no familial relation. This is not the case with the English counterparts 4 . For example, yeye ‘grandpa,’ nainai ‘grandma,’ shushu ‘uncle,’ ayi ‘aunt,’ etc. Besides, in Chinese, occupational titles can be used as address terms, but English occupational titles cannot be used in the same way. In conclusion, Gu argued that politeness not only fulfils normative but also instrumental functions in interactions. Interactants can use politeness to achieve goals (e.g. redress FTAs), but at the same time they are constrained by it. Finally, politeness may be a universal phenomenon, which can be found in diverse cultures. However, there may be culture-specific and language-specific features used to express politeness.. 2.2.2 Huang (2000) An application of Blum-Kulka & Olshtain’s (1984) taxonomy of request drew the attention of Huang (2000), who observed information request behavior by Chinese. 3. A Chinese surname is a non-kin public address term, but a middle + given name and a given name are kin familial address terms. In contrast, an English surname is non-kin and private, and it cannot be used as an address term unless it is combined with other titles. A given name is a non-kin public address term. 4 However, there are some exceptions. For example, if English people try to be humorous, they may use kinship terms to call non-kin people. 16.

(27) speakers when negotiating with Americans in English. She mainly examined the effect of culture on a person’s use of request types by conducting series of in-depth interviews with 19 experienced negotiators who had represented the Taiwan government to negotiate with Americans participating in interviews. These subjects were asked to look over a list of Kim and Wilson’s (1994) scheme of 12 types of information request tactics, and then they were asked to answer three research questions. In negotiation, questions refer to getting and giving information, gaining attention, prodding the other side to think about a particular issue, and bringing about a conclusion (Zemke 1980). Among them, questions about getting information were asked the most frequently. Therefore, questioning was treated as a type of request to include more diversified forms of information request behavior. According to the Politeness Theory (Brown & Levinson 1978, 1987), making request is a face-threatening act for both a speaker and a hearer. As for negotiations, participants also have face concerns about interlocutors’ autonomy and approval (Wilson & Putnam 1990, Wilson 1992). Thus, participants need to be sensitive to social variables and make appropriate forms of information request. The scheme of the study was adopted from Kim and Wilson’s (1994) classification, which not only includes a classification system constructed from a theoretical background but also concerns cross-cultural diversity. According to Kim and Wilson, 17.

(28) request strategies are categorized into three main types containing 12 mutually exclusive tactics. Hint is comprised of Mild Hint, Strong Hint, and Syntactic Downgraders. Query includes Permission, Ability Query-Preparatory, Willingness Query-Preparatory, Suggestory, and Question Hint. Direct Statement contains Want, Performative, Obligation, and Imperative. Kim et al. (1998) further add a strategy of Silence to Kim and Wilson’s classification system. As opposite to most cross-cultural studies, which indicate Chinese prefer indirect forms, results of Huang’s (2000) research showed that Chinese used direct forms more frequently, which is the least direct one of the direct category. For the strategy of Direct Statement, ten interviewees used the least direct one (for example, they primarily used the least direct one, i.e., Want) among the four expressions in this category. Regarding the strategy of Silence, it has been found that Chinese show a preference for this strategy in the cross-cultural literature. However, in Huang’s study the Chinese subjects were found to have a negative opinion and express unwillingness to use it. To these subjects, remaining silent was thought as a way to make the other side believe a negotiator was unwilling to make concessions; therefore, these interviewees considered that asking questions was the best way to make the other side disclose more about their negotiating goals. Huang’s results also showed the Chinese subjects depended on situational factors 18.

(29) when selecting their request strategies. For example, the strategy of Silence was only suitable for the more powerful side. In other words, a strong nation can afford the cost of negative responses from a weak nation. Hence, remaining silent was found to be an ineffective information request strategy for Taiwan’s representatives. Moreover, negotiators’ perceived competence might be another determinant factor affecting effectiveness of strategies. It was found that “the more competent the other side judged the negotiator, the more positively one attributed the negotiator’s silence” (Huang 2000:118). Taiwan’s representatives were often perceived as less competent by American counterparts due to their actual utterances. As a result, Huang’s findings were against the results of previous research.. 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 19.

(30) 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 6. In actual conditions, contexts will determine the force of this usage. It sometimes depends on context. 20.

(31) 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 21.

(32) 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 22.

(33) 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 23.

(34) 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 24.

(35) 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 25.

(36) 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 26.

(37) 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 27.

(38) 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, 28.

(39) 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 precommitments, 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 precommitments 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 29.

(40) 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 30.

(41) 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 31.

(42) 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 32.

(43) 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. 33.

(44) 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 type. The results illustrated that the production of the advanced group was close that of the native group. The learner group produced more and varied supportive moves in the scenarios where they had a high degree of imposition. As a result, the data revealed that either the advanced- or lower-level leaners were aware of sociopragmatic differences. When the learners’ proficiency increased, they detected sociopragmatic variables more precisely and they were more capable of using a greater variety of strategies.. 2.3.5 A Summary of Previous L2 Empirical Studies To sum up, each empirical study has contributed to the request behavior in the field of second language acquisition. The major findings and limitations of these four studies reviewed in Section 2.3 are presented in Table 2-2. 34.

(45) Table 2-2 Major Findings and Limitations of the Previous Studies Studies. Main Findings. Limitations. Chen & Chen (2007). 1. Favored type of strategy: conventional indirect strategy 2. Factor affecting request realization: Social power. 1. Subjects: unbalanced number (50 Chinese vs. 14 Americans) 2. Task: only three scenarios in a written discoursecompletion test 3. Factors not included: social distance and imposition. Wei (2012). 1. Favored type of strategy: conventional indirect strategy 2. Factors affecting request realization: (1) Social distance (2) Social power. 1. Subjects: unbalanced number (40 Chinese vs. 20 English NS) 2. Task: only an ODCT 3. Factor not included: imposition. Han (2012). Factor affecting request realization: social distance. 1. Subjects: closely balanced number (20 Chinese vs. 16 British) 2. Task: only nine scenarios in an open-role play task 3. Factor not included: imposition. Wen (2014). 1. Favored type of strategy: conventional indirect strategy 2. Factor affecting request realization: social power. 1. Subjects: unbalanced number (24 Chinese vs. 48 CFL learners) 2. Task: only four scenarios in a written DCT 3. Factor not included: social distance. Theoretically speaking, request contains three components: an address term, a head act and an adjunct to a head act (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984). The classification of request strategies has been considered to provide a cross-linguistically valid scale of 35.

(46) directness (Searle 1975,1979, Ervin-Tripp 1976, House & Kasper 1981, Blum-Kulka 1984), and researchers have found that conventionally indirect strategies were universally the most commonly used strategies (Chen & Chen 2007, Wei 2012, Wen 2014). Wen (2014) found that in Chinese, conventionally indirect strategies might not always be polite unless downgraders were applied, which illustrated the importance of cross-linguistic pragmatics. The present study aimed at exploring linguistic distinct features in Mandarin Chinese, and variables which play a critical role in realization of speech acts were also be examined. For example, the impact of social status and social distance have been found in the previous studies of request speech acts (Chen & Chen 2007, Wei 2012, Han 2012, and Wen 2014). Chen & Chen (2007), indicating that conventional indirectness is the preferred strategy for the situation when both interlocutors have equal social status, and when the speaker is inferior to the hearer. When the speaker is superior to the hearer, the use of direct strategies is more dominant. Moreover, in Han’s study (2012), it turned out that only when the speaker and addressee are not intimate, the politeness marker qing ‘please’ might be added in Chinese. Furthermore, the present study also included imposition of request as one of the linguistic factors, since this factor cannot be excluded in L2 research. Besides, the main instrument used in the research of speech acts was a DCT in either written or oral forms. Despite some research investigated speech acts of requesting in Chinese, the 36.

(47) majority of research emphasized on strategy types in a one-way experiment, but not in a two-way design. This study thus conducted a bi-directional study to investigate the strategy types of Chinese and English request employed by Chinese- and Englishspeaking subjects quantitatively and qualitatively.. 2.4 Summary of Chapter Two In this chapter, we have reviewed theoretical and empirical studies of request in the fields of pragmatics and second language acquisition. Theoretically speaking, strategies of request can be of three major types: the most direct, the conventionally indirect, and the nonconventional indirect levels, and each level can be further divided into three subtypes in terms of the degree of directness. Peripheral modifications can be internal and external. The internal type consists of nine subtypes, and the external type is composed of six subtypes. Empirically speaking, the conventional indirect strategy has been found the most frequently used in previous literature. Among the types for mitigation in request, the grounder has been a preference. Thus, in the previous research, we have noticed that participants had a tendency to make the act of request in general. Therefore, in the following chapter, the research design of the current study was introduced in the light of the previous reviews of theoretical and empirical studies.. 37.

(48) CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN. Chapter Three introduces the research design of the present study. Section 3.1 provides the background information of the subjects, and the methods and materials are presented in Section 3.2. And Section 3.3 illustrates the experimental procedures of the study. Finally, Section 3.4 is a summary of this chapter.. 3.1 Subjects A total of 24 subjects participated in the experiment: 12 English native speakers (NSEs) and 12 Chinese native speakers (NSCs). The NSEs1, who came from the USA, England, or Australia, were recruited from the Mandarin Training Center (MTC) of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU), where they learn Chinese as a second language. To take courses in the Center, all the freshmen should take a Chinese placement test2 (i.e., a one-on-one oral interview with a teacher). Based on the results of the placement test, students are classified into three major classes - elementary, intermediate, and advanced levels, which are further categorized into nine subcategorizations. In the present study, we selected the students. 1. Due to the limited number of the subjects, we did not compare people from different English-speaking countries. 2 The placement test for those who learned Chinese before includes an oral interview and an additional written test, which assesses listening, reading, and writing skills. 38.