他們到底想說什麼?—從文化背景與語言使用之關聯看中外師協同教學計畫

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. 他們到底想說什麼?—從文化背景與語言使用之關聯看中外師協同教學計畫. What Are They Really Trying to Say?—Examining the Relationship Between Cultural Backgrounds and Language Use in EFL Team Teaching Projects. 指導教授：常紹如 Advisor: Dr. Shau-Ju Chang 研究生：林逸凡 Yi-Fan Lin. 中華民國一百零四年七月 July 2014.

(2) 摘要. 自 2001 年開始，臺灣各地的教育局及教育部開始對外引進外籍英語教師，並搭配本地英語教師到各公立學校入班協同教學。在實施了十多年後，更多協同教學計畫將陸續施行，但這並不代表中外師之間的合作益發順暢。過去研究顯示這類協同教學計畫所產生的一類問題為中外師之間的溝通障礙，而本研究以中外師不同的文化背景為著墨點，探究這些不同文化如何影響中外師之間的溝通順暢與否。本研究主要探討何為中外師常討論的議題、以及中外師溝通中所產生的社會語用失誤。四所在臺灣實施中外師協同教學計畫的公立學校加入此研究，研究參與者總計有六位來自美國、南非、紐西蘭、加拿大、澳洲的外師，以及十四位臺灣的中師。研究者共進行了十八次的會議觀察、四十三堂課室觀察、以及二十三次的訪談。在分析了觀察紀錄、會議逐字稿語料、及訪談語料後，本研究將所發現中外師常討論的議題分為教學、行政、社交三方面。針對中外師溝通中產生的社會語用失誤，本研究依其在溝通中發生的不同時期歸為兩類。第一階段為前溝通階段，中外師在此階段會遇到的問題有「要不要說」、「要跟誰說」、「什麼時候說」、「在哪裡說」；第二階段為溝通中階段，中外師在此階段對於「如何說」這個問題使用的不同溝通策略反映在四種面向上，分別為使用的詞彙或句型、使用較易入耳的話包裝原始訊息、訊息排列方式、對話風格。社會語用失誤的發生多是因為中外師對此兩階段中的五項溝通問題有不同的考量，而本研究使用三種文化模式來解釋東西方的文化差異之處，其為集體主義與個人主義、高語境文化與低語境文化、關係趨向文化及任務趨向文化，並進一步討論此三種文化模式如何影響中外師對所遇到的五項溝通問題產生不同考量，以致誘發社會語用失誤的產生。對於提升中外師之間的跨文化溝通，本文提供了大方向的準則以及一個含有 i.

(3) 八步驟的訓練模式。藉由探討不同文化所習慣的不同語用方式是如何造成中外師之間的溝通障礙，本研究希望能改善中外師之間的溝通，並能進一步促進中外師協同教學計畫以及臺灣的英語教育。. 關鍵字: 協同教學、社會語用失誤、跨文化語用學、互動社會語言學、跨文化溝通. ii.

(4) ABSTRACT Since 2001, a growing number of public schools in Taiwan have started to recruit foreign English teachers (FETs henceforth) from native English speaking countries to team teach with local English teachers (LETs henceforth). After years of implementation, more team teaching projects will be carried out by central and local educational bureaus in Taiwan, which leads to a growing opportunity for FETs and LETs to cooperate with each other. However, some research has presented that communication between team teachers was a common problem, especially due to teachers’ differed cultural backgrounds. Therefore, research about how to improve communication between LETs and FETs from the perspective of culture is of great importance. The present study aimed to investigate the cross-cultural communication among FETs and LETs by examining what kind of common issues and sociopragmatic failures may occur in the communication of team teachers. To achieve this goal, four public schools in Taiwan with EFL team teaching programs were chosen for the current study. Six FETs from USA, South Africa, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia and fourteen LETs all born and raised in Taiwan were observed for 18 meetings and 43 classes, and interviewed for 23 times in total. Based on the observation notes and taped discourse data from the meetings and interviews, the study revealed the frequently discussed common issues from the communication of team teachers and categorized them into those regarding teaching, administration, and socializing. Many sociopragmatic failures were noted by this study, and they were found to occur when the LETs and FETs had different concerns at two stages, pre-communication stage with five dimensions, i.e., “tell it or not,” “tell it to whom,” “when to tell it,” and “where to tell it,” and during-communication stage iii.

(5) with the question “how to tell it” from four aspects, i.e., linguistic forms, sugar coating, information sequencing, and conversational styles. Cultural patterns such as individualism and collectivism, low-context culture and high -context culture, and task-oriented culture and relationship-oriented culture were used to explain why the FETs and LETs tended to behave and perceive differently toward the occurred sociopragmatic failures. Some general guidelines and an eight-step training model are provided by this study to facilitate the cross-cultural communication between FETs and LETs. By examining communication breakdown resulting from different strategies of language use preferred by various cultural norms, this study hopes to improve the communication among LETs and FETs, and further facilitate team teaching programs and English education in Taiwan.. Keywords: team teaching, sociopragmatic failures, cross-cultural pragmatics, interactional sociolinguistics, intercultural communication. iv.

(6) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On the journey of writing my thesis, sometimes I got lost in the data, and sometimes I doubted myself. But because of the guidance, help, and encouragement from many very important people, this thesis could finally be completed, and I would like to show my sincerest appreciation to all of them. I would like to express my greatest appreciation to my advisor, Professor Charlotte, Shau-Ju Chang. She has always been there guiding me to conquer every step along this difficult journey, from searching for workable topics to analyzing data, improving my writing skill, organizing the framework of the findings, carefully correcting the writing line by line, etc. She also encouraged me when I encountered various difficulties in life when writing my thesis. From her, I learned how to use a conscientious attitude to do research, and how it felt like when receiving warm help from an important friend. I was so lucky to have her as my advisor. I would also like to thank the two committee members, Professor Vincent Wu-Chang Chang, and Professor Hsi-Yao Su, for their expert and valuable advice to my thesis. In addition, Prof. Chang generously provided timely help when I was searching for sites for the study, and Professor Su’s brilliant knowledge about sociolinguistics enormously helped solidify the theoretical background of the study. I would like to extend my deep gratitude to all the participants in this study. They were willing to share their experiences to future teachers due to their hope to improve team teaching projects and English education in Taiwan. Without their trust and generous help, this study would never be done. I am also grateful for the assistance of professors and directors who were in charge of team teaching projects for their permission of my observation of their training workshops or the conduction of my study. I also want to thank team teachers who did not participate in this study but v.

(7) shared with me their experiences and comments to help me look at the study from different angles. Special thanks to Professor Fred Jyun-gwang Chen, from whom I learned how interesting the field of discourse analysis is, and Professor Hui-Chen Chan, who introduced me about the field of sociolinguistics for the first time. Finally, my sincere thanks goes to all of my classmates from the department, friends, and roommates, especially Tiffany, Robin, and Chris, for their help and encouragements along the process of the completion of my thesis. Last but not the least, I am so grateful for my supportive family, my parents and my brother, who never feel tired offering me encouragements and always have great confidence in me.. vi.

(8) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHINESE ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. i ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. vii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ xi LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... xii. Page CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Rationale............................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Research Questions .............................................................................................. 3 1.4 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................... 3. CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 7. 2.1 Team Teaching ..................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Definitions of team teaching.......................................................................... 7 2.1.2 EFL team teaching in East Asian countries ................................................... 8 2.1.3 EFL team teaching in Taiwan ........................................................................ 9 2.1.3.1 Implementation .......................................................................... 9 2.1.3.2 Empirical research ................................................................... 13 2.1.3.2.1 Research focused on students ....................................... 14 2.1.3.2.2 Research focused on students and teachers .................. 15 2.1.3.2.3 Research focused on teachers ....................................... 16 2.1.3.2.3.1 Different beliefs ................................................. 17 2.1.3.2.3.2 Problematic communication .............................. 19 2.2 Language, language use, and Culture................................................................. 23 2.2.1 Communicative competence........................................................................ 24 vii.

(9) 2.2.2 Cross-cultural miscommunication ............................................................... 25 2.2.2.1 Contextualization cues ............................................................. 26 2.2.2.2 Conversational styles ............................................................... 27 2.2.2.3 Sociopragmatic failure ............................................................. 28 2.2.3 Cross-cultural pragmatics ............................................................................ 29. CHAPTER THREE. METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 31. 3.1 Rationale for the Methodology .......................................................................... 31 3.2 Sites and Participants ......................................................................................... 32 3.2.1 Sites ............................................................................................................. 32 3.2.2 Participants .................................................................................................. 34 3.3 Data Collection ................................................................................................... 35 3.3.1 Observations ................................................................................................ 35 3.3.2 Interviews .................................................................................................... 36 3.3.2 Written documents ....................................................................................... 38 3.4 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 38 3.5 Procedure ............................................................................................................ 39 3.6 Trustworthiness .................................................................................................. 39. CHAPTER FOUR. FINDINGS .............................................................................. 41. 4.1 Issues Occurred in the Communication Between LETs and FETs .................... 41 4.1.1 Issues concerning teaching .......................................................................... 42 4.1.2 Issues concerning administration................................................................. 47 4.1.3 Issues concerning socializing ...................................................................... 51 4.1.4 Analysis across the three main issues .......................................................... 55 4.2 Sociopragmatic Failures Occurred in the Communication Between LETs and FETs ......................................................................................................................... 58 4.2.1 Pre-communication stage—tell it or not, tell it to whom, when to tell people about it, and where to tell people about it............................................................. 60 4.2.1.1 Background knowledge for the observed sociopragmatic viii.

(10) failures.................................................................................................. 61 4.2.1.2 Tell it or not .............................................................................. 63 4.2.1.2.1 Tell it or not—LETs’ and FETs’ behaviors ................... 63 4.2.1.2.2 Tell it or not—LETs’ and FETs’ perceptions ................ 68 4.2.1.3 Tell it to whom ......................................................................... 71 4.2.1.3.1 Tell it to whom—LETs’ and FETs’ behaviors ............... 71 4.2.1.3.2 Tell it to whom—LETs’ and FETs’ perceptions ............ 75 4.2.1.4 When to tell people about it ..................................................... 78 4.2.1.4.1 When to tell people about it—LETs’ and FETs’ behaviors ...................................................................................... 79 4.2.1.4.2 When to tell people about it—LETs’ and FETs’ perceptions ................................................................................... 88 4.2.1.5 Where to tell people about it .................................................... 92 4.2.1.5.1 Where to tell people about it—LETs’ and FETs’ behaviors ...................................................................................... 92 4.2.1.5.2 Where to tell people about it—LETs’ and FETs’ perceptions ................................................................................... 94 4.2.1.6 Summary of the pre-communication stage .............................. 96 4.2.2 During-communication—how to tell it ....................................................... 96 4.2.2.1 Background knowledge for the observed sociopragmatic failures.................................................................................................. 97 4.2.2.2 How to tell it—LETs’ and FETs’ behaviors and perceptions ... 98 4.2.2.2.1 Linguistic forms ............................................................ 99 4.2.2.2.2 Interactional skills—sugarcoating .............................. 108 4.2.2.2.3 Interactional skills—information sequencing ............. 112 4.2.2.2.4 Interactional skills—conversational styles ................. 121 4.2.2.2.5 Summary of the during-communication stage ............ 124 4.2.3 Changes of the sociopragmatic failures………………………………….125 4.3 Discussion of the Cultural Influence on the Communication Between LETs and FETs ....................................................................................................................... 126 4.3.1 Individualism versus collectivism ............................................................. 127 4.3.2 High-context versus low-context cultures ................................................. 130 4.3.3 Task-oriented versus relationship-oriented cultures .................................. 132 4.3.4 Conflict management ................................................................................. 133 4.3.4 Facework ................................................................................................... 135 4.4 Implications ...................................................................................................... 136 ix.

(11) 4.4.1 General guidelines ..................................................................................... 137 4.4.2 An eight-steps training model.................................................................... 138. CHAPTER FIVE. CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 143. 5.1 Summary of the Major Findings ...................................................................... 143 5.2 Limitations of the Current Study and Suggestions for Future Studies ............. 146. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 149. APPENDIXES .......................................................................................................... 155 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................ 155 APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................ 156 APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................ 157 APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................ 158 APPENDIX E......................................................................................................... 160 APPENDIX F ......................................................................................................... 161. x.

(12) LIST OF TABLES. Table. Page. 2.1 Implementation of recruiting FETs from local governments…………………...11 2.2 EFL team teaching programs from non-governmental organizations…………..13 2.3 Different views between FETs and LETs on nine team teaching beliefs from S. Chen’s study……………………………………………………18 3.1 The total number of the three types of observations in the four sites…………..36 4.1 The initiators and contexts of the sub-issues regarding “teaching” in team teachers’ communication………………………………………………….43 4.2 The initiators and contexts of the sub-issues regarding “administration” in team teachers’ communication……………………………………………….48 4.3 The initiators and contexts of the sub-issues regarding “socializing” in team teachers’ communication………………………………………………….52 4.4 Different behaviors and perceptions regarding the four dimensions when performing directive acts at pre-communication stage between the LETs and FETs………….………….………….………….………….……..96 4.5 Different strategies and perceptions regarding the four aspects when performing directive acts at during-communication stage between the LETs and FETs…………………………………………………………….125 4.6 The Individualism Index Values of the cultures of FETs and LETs from the results of Hofstede’s research……………………………………………...128. xi.

(13) LIST OF FIGURES. Figure. Page. 4.1 The frequency of the occurrence of each sub-issue regarding teaching as indicated by percentage ……………………………………………47 4.2 The frequency of the occurrence of each sub-issue regarding administration as indicated by percentage ……………………………………..51 4.3 The frequency of the occurrence of each sub-issue regarding socializing as indicated by percentage …………………………………………55. xii.

(14) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. This chapter first delineates the background of recruiting foreign English teachers in Taiwan, presents rationale of the study and the research questions, and lastly discusses the significance of the study.. 1.1 Background English teaching in public schools in Taiwan used to be conducted only by local Taiwanese teachers. However, the situation changed in early 2001, when public schools in Taiwan started to hire foreign English teachers (FETs henceforth) from native English speaking countries to team teach with local English teachers (LETs henceforth) in the English class. After a few years of implementation, there have been a number of studies about the English team teaching programs in Taiwan. While Taiwanese government and LETs were optimistic about the benefits team teaching has brought (H. Chen, 2009; W. Chen, 2008), the results of the studies were not all positive (Chang, Chen, & Luo, 2008). As team teaching is still a rather new idea and in its experimental stage in Taiwan, understandably, lack of experience on conducting team teaching programs resulted in some problems, including a majority of FETs lacking professional teaching background, the high attrition rate of FETs, the equivocal roles for team teachers, different philosophies between team teachers, collision of personalities, and unsmooth communication between FETs and LETs are all the challenges faced up by the team teaching programs in Taiwan (e.g. Chiang, 2006; H. Chen, 2009; Hsu, 2006; Luo, 2007; Luo, 2013; S. Chen, 2009). Despite those challenges, the central and local governments in Taiwan believe that 1.

(15) the potential benefits of team teaching outweigh its downsides, and projects about recruiting FETs and promoting team teaching are actively pursued in recent years. Take two local governments as examples, there are plans to assign at least one FET to every primary school in Taipei City and every secondary school in New Taipei City in the next few years (Taipei English Teaching Resource Website [TETRW], 2011; Kuo, 2013). This unstoppable trend of conducting team teaching in English classes is translated into many opportunities for LETs to work and communicate with English teachers from a variety of other cultures, which makes such communication an important focus when researching English team teaching projects in Taiwan.. 1.2 Rationale While integrating FETs into local English curricular stands for increasing opportunities for LETs to interact with and learn from FETs, unsuccessful communication between FETs and LETs seems to be a poignant issue often troubling both parties, as suggested by the previous studies (e.g. Chiang, 2006; Hsu, 2006; Luo, 2007; S. Chen, 2009). However, there is still not enough research in Taiwan that has looked into these communication-centered issues between FETs and LETs in or outside the class. Furthermore, among the research that did tap into such issues, most employed the technique of interviewing the participants, who then recalled and recounted the unsuccessful episodes, instead of observing and recording the real and natural communication. Therefore, studies that examine the real interaction and conversations between FETs and LETs are exigently needed. In addition to insufficient studies investigating communication between FETs and LETs by authentically recording the conversation, the fact that much of our daily conversation or interaction consists of many routine speech acts makes it a good reason to adopt a cross-cultural pragmatic perspective when looking into the 2.

(16) exchanges between FETs and LETs. Different cultures have different criteria for what constitutes “appropriate” speaking; that is, the “sociopragmatic” norms in different cultures may vary from each other (Thomas, 1983). Therefore, though speaking in the same language, individuals from different cultural backgrounds may not be able to successfully decode messages from their interlocutors, for the different language use conventions they adopt. Similarly, there is collaboration and interaction between people from different cultures in English team teaching programs. By using their own accustomed sociopragmatic norms that are oblivious to the other party, FETs and LETs may experience communication bumps, if not breakdowns. Noticing this missing piece in the literature, this study aims to explore communication between FETs and LETs by analyzing the real conversations from a cross-cultural pragmatic perspective, and further discuss how communication among team teachers will be possibly influenced by their different cultural backgrounds.. 1.3 Research Questions In order to shed light on the cross-cultural communication between FETs and LETs, the present study will explore the following questions: 1. What are the common issues that occur in the communication among FETs and LETs? And how do these issues change throughout the time of their collaboration? 2. What are the common issues which easily induce the occurrence of sociopragmatic failures? What are the sociopragmatic failures that occur in the communication among FETs and LETs? And how do these failures change throughout the time of their collaboration?. 1.4 Significance of the Study By focusing on the authentic communication between FETs and LETs, the study 3.

(17) is expected to benefit policy makers of team teaching programs, team teachers, and students. First, aiming to explore the reasons of communication breakdown between team teachers, the findings of this study will provide policy makers with the reasons that hinder the interaction between FETs and LETs, and further offer solutions to policy makers when assisting team teachers to cross the communication barrier and achieve better effects of team teaching. Wolfson (1989) states that “[o]ne of the major motivations of scholars working in [interactive sociolinguistics] is to try to understand how miscommunication occurs, and, by providing these insights, to learn how it may best be avoided” (p. 157). This study hopes to give policy makers new ideas about how to prevent miscommunication between FETs and LETs when designing the programs and relevant training workshops. Since a growing number of policies regarding recruiting more FETs to Taiwan will be implemented in the near future, information regarding communication between FETs and LETs will become indispensible for policy makers. Second, the investigation of miscommunication in team teaching programs and findings is expected to facilitate communication between FETs and LETs, or language speakers from different cultures. Unlike pronunciation or grammatical errors, sociopragmatic failure is less obvious for people to perceive, so interlocutors are often unconscious of its existence. Moreover, speakers and hearers would blame the breakdown of communication not to the differed cultural perceptions but to their interactants’ rude attitudes or personalities. Some scholars have proposed similar ideas. Wolfson (1989) mentions that “[t]olerance of sociolinguistic violations is uncommon precisely because the rules are so much a part of unconscious expectations concerning proper behavior” (p. 25), and “[a]n inappropriate question or the failure to utter the customary apology, compliment, or congratulation will not be judged as an error natural to the process of language learning or, indeed, of intercultural differences, 4.

(18) but as a personal affront” (pp. 25-26). In line with this, Gumperz (1982) also comments that “[i]t is important to note that when [unawareness of the contextualization cues] happens and when a difference in interpretation is brought to a participant’s attention, it tends to be seen in attitudinal terms” (p. 132). Therefore, the findings of this study hope to raise people’s awareness about the origin of cross-cultural miscommunication, which is not because interlocutors deliberately show negative intentions towards each other, but due to their different ways to arrange the languages shaped by the cultures they grow up with. After realizing this fact, individuals, including FETs and LETs, may better interpret each other and express themselves when participating in a cross-cultural communication. Third, in addition to increasing the chance of successful communication between team teachers, it is hoped that students can also benefit from the sociocultural knowledge generated by the present study, which can be integrated into the English lessons, materials, and curriculum. The challenges that LETs encounter in their communication with FETs is very much likely the difficulties students will face in the future. By bringing up and looking into the issues that arise from LETs’ communication with native English speaking teachers from other cultures, the present study hopes to draw language educators’ attention to the significance of instructing sociocultural knowledge in English classes, which will lead to the buildup of students’ English communicative competence.. 5.

(19) 6.

(20) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW. This chapter addresses the literature concerning team teaching and the relationship between language and culture. The former examines the definition, empirical studies, and current implementation about team teaching in Taiwan. The latter comprises the introduction of communicative competence, cross-cultural pragmatics, and sociopragmatic failure.. 2.1 Team Teaching The following sections review the definition of team teaching, research about team teaching in East Asian countries, the status quo of implementation in Taiwan, and relevant research in Taiwan.. 2.1.1 Definitions of team teaching Team teaching can be two teachers, or more, teaching or preparing for a lesson in a collaborative way. The context of team teaching, meaning the place where team teaching takes place, can be in or outside the classroom. Moreover, team teaching can happen before class, when teachers plan the curriculum and lessons together, or also after class, when teachers evaluate the class and discuss how to improve it (Tajino & Tajino, 2000). In terms of the co-teachers in team teaching, the collaboration involves not only the two teachers that teach in class, but all teachers preparing and assessing classes that are taught in such a manner. One aspect of team teaching warrants our attention. According to Tajino and Tajino (2000), when the effect of two teachers teaching together achieves merely 7.

(21) “X+Y”, i.e., the teachers independently do their jobs in the class, it should be called “collective teaching,” or the weak version of team teaching. However, if teaching from the two teachers leads to the results of “XY”, i.e., a “duet” format and the interaction and collaboration between teachers is active and intensive, it is seen as the strong version of team teaching (p. 6). In the current study, it aims to observe the schools with strong version of team teaching, within which there would be more interaction and communication for the researcher to analyze.. 2.1.2 EFL team teaching in East Asian countries In East Asia, English is deemed a foreign language for learners, and most people can survive well without using any English in their lives. This means, there is little chance for students to absorb in authentic English input after class or even in class. To remedy the situation, educational policy makers started to recruit native English speakers to the classrooms to team teach with LETs in an attempt to give students the most authentic and natural input, and this kind of projects is called English as foreign language (EFL henceforth) team teaching. Back in 1987, Japanese and Hong Kong governments respectively began Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET henceforth) Program and Primary Native English-speaking Teacher (PNET henceforth) Scheme to hire native English speaking teachers to team teach with local English teachers. In 1996, Korea government also launched English Program in Korea (EPIK henceforth) in order to add native English speaking teachers to students’ English learning context. After around two decades, these EFL team teaching projects in East Asia have shown some problems. For example, native-speaker assistant English teachers in the JET Program were usually novice teachers who just graduated from college with little teaching experiences and without degrees of second language teaching 8.

(22) (Fujimoto-Adamson, 2010; Tajino & Tajino, 2000). Same problem was also found in EPIK from Korea (Carless, 2006b). Another common problem is that, although teachers in these team teaching projects are supposed to work with each other as a team, studies often discovered little collaboration between team teachers (e.g. Carless, 2006a; Carless & Walker, 2006). Despite these problems, there were still successful EFL team teaching programs in these three countries, and researchers were inquisitive about the reasons that made them successful. Some common traits were found about these team teachers in those successful programs. For example, they were sensitive about others’ feelings but willing to ignore minor tension for the sake of maintaining the harmony; their relationship with co-teachers was established both in and after class; when having differed opinions, they could still respect each other and their cultures; and finally, they had shared philosophies with their co-teachers to some extent (Carless, 2006b).. 2.1.3 EFL team teaching in Taiwan As an EFL context, Taiwan started to follow this trend of recruiting native English speaking teachers to teach English in public schools in early 2000. The central government, local governments, and non-governmental organizations have all put a lot of efforts on promoting EFL team teaching programs in Taiwan. This section presents the relevant policies and literature in Taiwan concerning the implementation of EFL team teaching programs.. 2.1.3.1 Implementation At the end of 2002, based on “Challenge 2008: Six-Year National Development 9.

(23) Plan1” proposed by Executive Yuan, the Ministry of Education (MOE henceforth) in Taiwan started to promote English team teaching between FETs and LETs (K-12 Education Administration of Ministry of Education [KEAMOE], n.d.). One of the goals of the plan was to balance English learning resource between cities and counties in Taiwan. The MOE aimed to fulfill this goal via English team teaching, and thus launched plans to recruit FETs and to distribute them primarily to schools in rural countries which had less access to educational resources. It is hoped that through recruiting FETs, the problem of deficiency of English teachers in remote areas can be alleviated (KEAMOE, 2013). Aside from the immediate implementation from the MOE, local governments, too, have begun to recruit native English speaking teachers for public schools since early 2000. A major reason for recruiting FETs was to solve the shortage of qualified LETs in primary schools, a problem resulted from the implementation of an educational reform called Nine-Year Integrated Curriculum2 in 2001. For the first time, English was incorporated into the curriculum of primary schools, and thus not enough LETs had been trained to teach in primary schools yet. Therefore, the recruitment of FETs was expected to resolve this problem, especially to those schools in remote areas. Local governments, such as Taipei City, New Taipei City, Hsinchu City, and Taichung City, to name a few, all have had policies regarding hiring FETs and promotion of team teaching. Some governments have also been helping primary and secondary schools set up “English Villages” where LETs and FETs carry out classes tailored to various situational contexts and expose students to an authentic learning The specific content of “Challenge 2008: Six-Year National Development Plan” can be retrieved from the website of National Development Council. (http://www.ndc.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0001570) 2 The detailed description about the content of Nine-Year Integrated Curriculum can be retrieved from the website of K-12 Education Administration, Ministry of Education. (http://www.k12ea.gov.tw/ap/sid17_92law.aspx) 10 1.

(24) style. Moreover, Taipei City Government in 2011 has set a goal of employing at least one FET for each primary school (TETRW, 2011); New Taipei City in 2013 has also set a goal to construct an English village for every secondary school in foreseeable future (Kuo, 2013). Detailed information about the implementation of EFL team teaching from local governments of Taiwan can be found in Table 2.1.. Table 2.1 Implementation of recruiting FETs from local governments Local governments. Time. Projects. Objectives. Hsinchu City. 2001. Recruitment of FETs to primary and secondary schools. Help all of the primary schools and some secondary schools to hire FETs (Department of Education of Hsinchu City, 2011).. New Taipei City. 2008. Establishment of New Taipei City English Wonderland. Establish New Taipei City English Wonderland in 5 schools for students grade 5 to experience camp life in English for 3 days (New Taipei City English Wonderland - Xingfu Campus, 2013).. 2014. Establishment of English Villages in secondary schools. Establish 40 English Villages in secondary schools and hire FETs to teach in 10 of them (Education Department of New Taipei City, 2014).. Taipei City. 2011. Recruitment of FETs to primary schools. Advocate the recruitment of FETs for all of the primary schools after evaluating the effect FETs bring to the English Villages (TETRW, 2011). (continued). 11.

(25) 2014 Establishment of English Villages in primary schools. Establish one English Village at a primary school for each of the 12 districts, and schools without English villages can go to the English Village in the same district in which their schools are located (Department of Education of Taipei City Government [DETCG], 2014).. 2014 Recruitment of FETs to primary. Help primary and secondary schools hire FETs (DETCG, 2014).. and secondary schools Taichung City. 2011. Recruitment of FETs to primary and secondary schools. 2013 Criteria for hiring FETs. Employ 21 FETs to team teach with LET in 33 primary and secondary schools (Education Bureau of Taichung City Government, 2011). Specify the rules for hiring FETs, who need degrees about language or English Language Teaching, 2-year of English teaching experience, and primary or secondary teacher certificate. (Taichung English Teaching Resource Center, 2013).. Other than the promotion from governments, public schools in Taiwan sometimes work with non-governmental organizations to hire FETs and practice co-teaching among FETs and LETs. Two renowned projects are “Albert Schweitzer Foreign English Teacher Program,” which started in 2001 with the help of Institute in Basic Life Principles (n.d.) and King Car Education Foundation, and the second one is a scholarship project called “Fulbright English Teaching Assistantships (ETA) Program” from Fulbright Taiwan Foundation of Scholarly Exchanges. These two programs have brought plenty FETs to the classrooms in Taiwan. For instance, in the school year of 2013, 56 English teaching assistants in total from the Fulbright Program were distributed to primary and secondary schools all over the country 12.

(26) (Fulbright Taiwan Foundation of Scholarly Exchanges, n.d.). More detailed description of the two programs can be referred to Table 2.2.. Table 2.2 EFL team teaching programs from non-governmental organizations Programs. Objectives. FETs’ role. Locations. Albert Schweitzer Foreign English Teacher Program3. Teach English and serve as a missionary. Leading English teachers who create and conduct classes, while LETs assist the class when. Rural counties such as Kinmen County, Nantou County, and so on. co-teaching Fulbright Teach English, English Teaching provide Taiwanese Assistantships4 students chance to. Full-time teaching assistants who mainly assist LETs. interact with native speakers, and for the assistants to gain teaching and cultural experience. Yilan County, Kaohsiung City, Taichung City, Kinmen County, and Taipei City. 2.1.3.2 Empirical research Depending on its focus, research concerning EFL team teaching programs in Taiwan can be grouped into three categories: Studies focusing on students, studies emphasizing on both students and teachers, and studies aiming at team teachers.. 3. The information was retrieved from the website of Institute in Basic Life Principles: http://iblp.org/programs/global-encounters/taiwan-tesol 4. The information was retrieved from the website of Fulbright Taiwan:. http://www.fulbright.org.tw/dispPageBox/CtEn2.aspx?ddsPageID=FOSEENGBCE& 13.

(27) 2.1.3.2.1 Research focused on students The effect of team teaching on students’ English learning motivation and attitude has caught researchers’ attention. By cross-examining FETs’ statements with classroom observation, Luo (2007) pointed out that students had been more excited and motivated because of the novelty FETs brought to the classroom. However, such effect was not found in other studies. Chiang (2006), by interviewing some students twice a semester about their learning interests after having an FET in their classes, found that students’ English learning attitudes did not improve through the participation of the FET in the classes; instead, the students started to feel dispirited after the curiosity towards the FET disappeared. In consistent with Chiang’s finding, results from Yang’s (2010) research also showed a decrease of students’ English learning attitudes and motivations. Adopting a quantitative method, Yang asked students to fill out three questionnaires in nine months. From the results of the questionnaire, it showed that students had the highest learning interest when they first met FETs, but their interests did not sustain and had receded with time. In addition to students’ learning attitudes, some researchers have also looked into the actual learning outcome of students. In Hwang’s (2005) study, the FETs she observed from the “English Schweitzer Project” in some public schools in Nantou incorporated the teaching of American cultural holidays. Students were interviewed for their understanding about the holidays they learned in the class. The results showed that the students remembered only superficial knowledge about the holidays, such as the related foods and fun activities. As for the deeper religious implications, the learning efficacy was not satisfactory.. 14.

(28) 2.1.3.2.2 Research focused on students and teachers Researchers studying EFL team teaching programs in Taiwan were also interested in the interaction between students and FETs both in and after class. Luo (2013) conducted a study to examine the classroom discourse of an EFL team teaching class in an elementary school in Hsinchu. From the discourse data of five classes, it revealed that the interaction among teachers and students in class was not natural, often dominated by FETs’ initiation of drill practice, and followed by students’ choral response, which was repetitive and imitative, and was barely uttered individually and naturally. Another study (Chiang, 2006) mentioned the amount of interaction between FETs and students. From observing eleven classes in eleven weeks, Chiang found that the interaction between students and the FET was scarce no matter in class or after class, and usually students would not talk to the FET on their initiative. When having questions or needed help, they would talk to the LET rather than ask help from the FET. Hwang (2005) also investigated the communication between FETs and students. Different from the previous research, this study focused on intercultural communication between students and FETs and how they responded to episodes of miscommunication. Four reasons for communication breakdown were found. The first reason was that the students and the FETs did not understand each other’s languages; some of the students did not comprehend the English from the FETs, and neither did the FETs know any Mandarin Chinese, which was students’ first language. Second, even though when the students spoke English, their inaccurate pronunciation sometimes had impeded the FETs’ comprehension. Third, there was the problem of misinterpretation of semantics. For instance, when the FET said “sit up,” lots of students confused it with “stand up” so they stood up (p. 100). The last cause of the 15.

(29) miscommunication can be attributed to different pragmatic usages of language by students and FETs. However, the author did not explicate on this point with providing clear and sufficient examples in her study. As for reacting to miscommunication, the FETs employed four strategies, using students’ first language, speaking in simple English, adding visual aids, or just ignoring such episodes.. 2.1.3.2.3 Research focused on teachers Team teachers, both FETs and LETs, have attracted the most attention from researchers in Taiwan, and the focus of research contains how team teaching projects have contributed to team teachers’ professional development and what issues related to team teachers have emerged from the implementation of the projects. As most studies have suggested, such EFL team teaching has benefited team teachers tremendously, especially contributing to their professional growth (H. Chen, 2009; W. Chen, 2008). Five LETs in H. Chen’s (2009) study noted their progress from the experience of working with FETs on the ability to diversify teaching activities, obtaining of multiple perspectives toward classroom management, self-reflection, and the most important of all, English oral ability. W. Chen (2008) also showed how the process of team teaching benefited not only LETs, but also FETs. After investigating four groups of team teachers in Hsinchu, W. Chen’s finding suggested that the program facilitated the FETs’ teaching skills, classroom management strategies, and their understanding about Taiwanese culture. Nevertheless, studies have also demonstrated various challenges faced by team teachers, among which different beliefs and problematic communication between team teachers appeared to be the most commonly identified themes in the literature (e.g. Chiang, 2006; H. Chen, 2009; Hsu, 2006; Luo, 2007; Luo, 2013; S. Chen, 2009), 16.

(30) as reviewed in the following two sections.. 2.1.3.2.3.1 Different beliefs In terms of different beliefs, team teachers have different opinions about what team teaching program is and what kind of roles FETs and LETs should play. The first type of disagreement from FETs and LETs is their non concordant beliefs and expectations about “EFL team teaching” or even their own teaching philosophy. S. Chen (2009) found that FETs and LETs tended to have different opinions on nine items of team teaching beliefs, including definition of team teaching, teacher’s role, preferred classroom dynamics, teaching styles, pedagogy preference, purpose of evaluation, attitudes towards work, speech style, and social preference (see Table 2.3). Chiang (2006), by interviewing one FET and one LET about their beliefs of team teaching, also found that while the FET treated the team teaching classes simply as jobs to be finished, the LETs intended to bring about more effects out of EFL team teaching. The LET hoped that students could be motivated to learn English, gain an international perspective, respect various cultures, and use English in a more authentic way after receiving instruction from FETs; in addition, the LET also expected their teaching skills, teamwork ability, and English proficiency could be improved as well via participating in the team teaching project. From Chiang’s research, it could be inferred that the LET set higher goals and had a lot more expectations for team teaching than the FET counterpart. When having dissimilar expectations of what they can fulfill of the job, LETs and FETs may be likely to encounter disagreements, if not arguments.. 17.

(31) Table 2.3 Different views between FETs and LETs on nine team teaching beliefs from S. Chen’s study Team teaching beliefs. FETs. LETs. 1.. Definition of team teaching. Actively collaborate with each other. Passively complement with each other. 2.. Teacher’s role. Actor. Supporter. 3.. Preferred classroom dynamics. Respect. “Moci” (unspoken understanding). 4.. Teaching style. Exaggerating. Calm. 5.. Pedagogy preference. Playing games. Lecturing. 6.. Purpose of evaluation. For students. For students and parents. 7.. Attitudes towards work. For money. For improvement. 8.. Speech style. Direct. Indirect. 9.. Social preference. Professional relationship. Personal relationship. In addition to the difference between FETs and LETs in their beliefs for team teaching, another mismatch of thinking is that different team teaching groups in EFL team teaching projects in Taiwan have different perceptions about the roles of FETs and LETs. In other words, there is not yet a reached consensus about the roles of FETs and LETs among the schools conducting EFL team teaching. Unlike the JET Program in Japan which specifically addresses the role of FETs as “Assistant Language Teachers5”, team teaching programs in Taiwan do not specifically prescribe the expected roles of both FETs and LETs yet. Some teams were observed endowing FETs a more important role and let classes be dominated by FETs (e.g. Chiang, 2006; H. Chen, 2009; Luo, 2007). However, for other teams, LETs were given more power and classes were LET-dominated (e.g. H. Chen, 2009; Hsu, 2006). Thus, uncertain and unsecure feelings were often experienced by the teachers in EFL team teaching 5. The name is used on the official website of JET Program. http://www.jetprogramme.org/index.html 18.

(32) projects in Taiwan (H. Chen, 2009). The different role perceptions between FETs and LETs are also captured in Hsu’s (2006) study, in which twelve roles played by four FETs and four LETs were identified, i.e., silence, manager, initiator, model, classroom monitor, demonstrator, grammar translator, co-presenter, English instructor, half-group teacher, teacher assistant, and one-on-one tutor. Obvious differences between various teams were found. In some of the teams, the FETs tended to play only demonstrator or teacher assistant and the classes were dominated by the LETs while FETs only demonstrated the pronunciation of vocabulary; in other teams, the FETs played more roles and the classes were more equally dominated by both parties. The fact that the different types of roles these four pairs of teachers had played illustrates their inconsistent recognitions of the responsibilities and duties of FETs and LETs. In line with this, Chiang’s (2006) study also presented the frustration that the LET had gone through because of the equivocal or unequal status between the team teachers. Similarly, research from H. Chen (2009) pointed out that the five participants in her study from different teams, though all LETs, had dissonant perceptions of the roles they should play in the team teaching program. The five LETs all made a reference to the bewilderment they experienced due to the unclear role and job description of FETs.One thing worth noting is that the above studies have put more emphasis on exploring the perspective of LETs, leaving FETs’ perceptions of team teachers’ roles and responsibilities relatively unexplored.. 2.1.3.2.3.2 Problematic communication The second critical challenge for LETs and FETs is communication between them. Previous studies have shown that effective team teaching usually results from 19.

(33) smooth communication between team teachers (Hsu, 2006; S. Chen, 2009). Nonetheless, the chance of developing satisfying communication is quite scarce. Research has repeatedly pointed out the scarcity of interaction between FETs and LETs no matter in or after class. Chiang (2006) observed little interaction between the FET and the LET in class from her research. Coupled with this finding, Luo found (2007, 2013) that there was a lack of conversation between co-teachers in class, and the FETs seldom really co-teach with the LETs, for sometimes there could be up to the amount of eighteen Taiwanese teachers for them to collaborate with. In the program, FETs had different Taiwanese partners in various classes, and some of them were even not English teachers but homeroom teachers whose English ability was limited. Hence, it was a burden for the FETs to establish a satisfactory relationship with each partner. Even after class, little communication was discovered. In Chiang’s (2006) study, the FET admitted that he indeed had little interaction with the LET no matter inside or outside of classroom, and from the researcher’s observation, their interaction after class occurred merely during the meeting. Aside from lacking communication, for team teachers that did interact with each other, their communication was not free of any problems. In Hsu’s (2006) study, two teams could be described by the statement “lack of clear communication between the two team teachers” (pp. 101-102), and sometimes the team teachers could not successfully get their ideas across to their co-teachers. In addition, some team teachers had frustrating conversations with their partners. Some LETs commented that their opinions were usually not accepted by FETs, and it was a great challenge for them to persuade their foreign fellow teachers, who were often opinionated and refuse to change their views (Luo, 2007; S. Chen, 2009). There were also voices from FETs that the indirect way of communication from their LETs often led them to confusion, while the LETs complained that the direct communication style of the FETs often hurt 20.

(34) their feelings (S. Chen, 2009). Along with the above findings were possible key factors that hinder the communication among team teachers. The one most frequently mentioned in previous studies was the English proficiency of LETs (e.g. Chiang, 2006; H. Chen, 2009; Hsu, 2006; Luo, 2007; S. Chen, 2006). Furthermore, this factor was usually proposed by LETs themselves, who were less confident because of their non-native speakers’ role, and blamed themselves as the main reason of the communication breakdown. The second factor, also derived from LETs’ point of view, concerned the professional knowledge and experiences of FETs (e.g. Chiang, 2006; H. Chen, 2009; Luo, 2007; S. Chen, 2009). Not only as a novice in a new culture, but FETs often had no training or teaching experiences regarding foreign language teaching or primary education. Due to this imbalanced background knowledge, LETs and FETs sometimes failed to reach successful communication. The third influential factor was the personality or attitude of team teachers (e.g. Chiang, 2006; Hsu, 2006; Luo, 2007; S. Chen, 2009). Team teachers believed that each individual had his or her own disposition, which in turn will influence their communication. Under this belief, adaptability, flexibility, passion, and open-mindedness all played a role in how successful their communication is. “Humility,” i.e., being humble and respectful for others, was especially mentioned by many LETs as a key factor that influence the successfulness of team teachers’ communication (S. Chen, 2009). The fourth factor was the opaque and unequal roles for FETs and LETs (Chiang, 2006; H. Chen, 2009), which has been discussed in the last section. The uncertainty of each others’ positions also resulted in miscommunication between team teachers. The fifth factor was the high attrition rate of FETs in the team teaching programs. Not willing to stay for a longer period of time, FETs usually changed their jobs as soon as their contracts had come to termination. What it meant for LETs was that they had to adapt to the working style of a new FET 21.

(35) partner every school year, or even every month in the worst scenario. It was not easy for them to establish satisfying relationship and communication with FETs under the fact that they did not have enough time to know each other (Chiang, 2006; H. Chen, 2009). The sixth factor was related to culture, either cultural differences between team teachers or team teachers’ intercultural ability (H. Chen, 2009; S. Chen, 2009). The incongruent speech styles, more direct from the cultures of FETs and more indirect from Taiwanese culture, often led to misunderstanding between team teachers. These six factors from literature evidently explain the communication breakdown between FETs and LETs, and the reasons for the miscommunication identified in previous studies. From the empirical studies reviewed in the preceding sections, it is clear that culture has exerted its influence on both challenges faced by team teachers, i.e., different beliefs and unsuccessful communication. With respect to the former challenge, it can be inferred that FETs and LETs, who were from different cultural backgrounds, tended to have different teaching beliefs and perceive their roles differently. The latter challenge has also shown how different cultural conventions of speech style resulted in the communication breakdown between FETs and LETs. Although the role of culture was frequently mentioned in previous team teaching studies, only few team teaching studies focused on exploring the role of culture. In fact, only two studies focus on exploring the relationship between culture and communication in team teaching programs (H. Chen, 2009; S. Chen, 2009). Findings from S. Chen’s study (2009) pointed out the importance of FETs and LETs’ intercultural competence, which would decide the successfulness of a team. S. Chen further renamed the term “EFL team teaching” as “intercultural team teaching” (P. 182), to emphasize how FETs and LETs’ intercultural competence critically influenced a team teaching program. Another study by H. Chen (2009) explored the 22.

(36) cross-cultural communication between FETs and students. Though clear examples of breakdown resulted from cultural differences between FETs and students were not found by the author in this study, this result cannot be generalized to communication between FETs and LETs. Unlike students with limited English ability, LETs should be able to converse with FETs more frequently, and the communication would not be restricted only in class time when conversation is usually dominated by teachers, or FETs. Hence, observations regarding communication between FETs and LETs both in and after class should be able to provide useful data for exploring the role of culture in team teaching program. Since culture is proved as a source of the challenges for team teachers and since there are few studies exploring the influence of culture on team teaching program, more research efforts should be devoted to exploring the role of culture in determining the successfulness of cross-cultural communication between FETs and LETs.. 2.2 Language, language use, and Culture Kramsch (1998) defines the relationship between language and culture by proclaiming that language “expresses, embodies, and symbolizes” cultural reality (p. 3). The first word “express” explains how people share their common experience, attitudes, or opinions through language. The second word “embody” shows how culture is immersed in one language. Kramsch here points out that how people use the language is significant for the group that they belong to. That means, language use is group-specific, or culture-specific; how people use a language may differ from culture to culture, so the way by which culture is embodied in the language varies as well. As for the last word “symbolize”, it means that when sensing others using the language in a similar way as they do, people identify themselves with the interlocutors as in the 23.

(37) same social or cultural group. From the above three statements by Kramsch, the intricate relationship between language and culture is shown. It also displays how culture shapes the form and usage of a language, and conversely, how one language realizes and affects the culture it belongs to.. 2.2.1 Communicative competence The relationship between language, language use, and culture is extremely complex. To explore how language use and culture are related to each other, the meaning of language use needs to be clarified. To be able to use one language is not only about acquiring grammatical competence, but also about gaining “communicative competence,” which is an improved theory proposed by Hymes (1966) against the notions of “competence” and “performance” contended by Chomsky (1965). It seems impossible for Hymes that “a person who chooses occasions and sentences suitably, but is master only of fully grammatical sentences[;]” for him, “some occasions call for being appropriately ungrammatical” (p. 60). Rather than perceiving an individual as having merely linguistic competence and linguistic performance in a homogeneous community where the role of sociocultural factors is absent, Hymes proposes another framework to supplement the significant value of language use in different contexts. Four aspects can be used to evaluate an utterance from Hymes’s notion of communicative competence. The first one is systemic possibility, or whether it is grammatically or formally “possible.” The second concern is whether the sentence is “feasible” in terms of psycholinguistic perspective regarding brain or memory process. Next consideration discusses whether the utterance is “appropriate” concerning the contextual features, such as who the interlocutors are, and when and where the 24.

(38) conversation happens in what manner. The last aspect is about whether this utterance actually occurs, or is “done” by people. A sentence can be possible, feasible, and appropriate, but still not used by speakers at the same time, for it is not a conventional expression (pp. 65-67). The development of the idea of communicative competence has shed light on the process of human communication. When an individual communicates with others, it is not only about constructing the grammatically correct linguistic structure, but being able to demonstrate appropriate language use.. 2.2.2 Cross-cultural miscommunication The set of criteria of language use, or pragmatic and sociocultural norms, which influence the communicative competence of a person, may vary from culture to culture. The fact that each culture has its own norms of language use has been repeatedly proved in contrastive pragmatic research. For example, to reply to a compliment, Americans tend to accept it as they follow the agreement maxim, but people from Chinese culture would possibly reject it in order to comply with modesty maxim (Leech, 1983). In line with this idea, Wolfson (1989) describes that when a speaker and a hearer are from different cultural backgrounds but both have fluent English abilities, “although they may think that they are speaking the same language, analysis demonstrates that rules for speech behavior and its interpretation are not necessarily shared” (p. 156). As a consequence, there are potential barriers for people from different cultural backgrounds to communicate with one another. Aside from the problems arising from surface linguistic production such as unclear pronunciation or lack of lexical or syntactic knowledge of a language, the potential barriers from bearing dissonant norms of language use in mind may lead the interlocutors to faulty 25.

(39) assessment of others’ language behaviors which will then likely result in negative evaluation of the other person. In cross-cultural pragmatic research, communication breakdown has been a key topic for researchers to explore. Miscommunication has been found from time to time between people who do not share the same cultural background because the cross-cultural pragmatic norms are differed among cultures. Three relevant ideas regarding how language speakers encounter communication breakdown because of their differed cultural backgrounds are introduced in the following three sections. 2.2.2.1 Contextualization cues Communication breakdown sometimes results from different interpretations towards the same feature of linguistic form among interlocutors from different cultures. These linguistic forms ranging from prosodic elements, lexical choices, syntactical options, formulaic expressions, conversational strategies, dialect or style choices and etc., are referred to as “contextualization cues” by Gumperz (1982). The process of giving and receiving contextualization cues is implicit and usually unnoticed by interlocutors. However, when a speaker and a hearer have different assumptions about how to interpret a specific contextualization cue, misunderstanding can happen, which usually induces inappropriate judgment of the attitudes and intentions of each other. Following is an example provided by Gumperz (1982) to illustrate how lexical forms can serve as contextualization cues. The example explains the tendency that speakers from different cultures may have different interpretation about the same word “may.” When reading a sentence “You may run all the way to the post office, but I’m sure it will be closed by the time you get there,” Indian English speakers were 26.

(40) more likely to interpret the meaning of the word “may” in the sentence as “permission” and decode the sentence as “It doesn’t matter whether or not I give you permission to go to the post office. Even if I do and if you run, you won’t make it before closing time” (p. 140). On the other hand, American English speakers were prone to see the meaning of “may” as “possibility” and explain the sentence as “It is possible that you could run to the post office, but it will be closed by the time you get there” (p. 140). Hence, when the word “may” serves as a contextualization cue in a conversation, Indian English speakers and American English speakers may interpret the meaning differently from each other and experience misunderstanding.. 2.2.2.2 Conversational styles Conversational style is another frequently mentioned key factor that causes cross-cultural communication breakdown. According to Tannen (1989, 1991, 2000, 2005), people from various ethnicities, or cultures, adopt different conversational styles when participating in conversations. As two major elements in conversational styles, pacing and pausing refer to the speed of the flow of conversation and the length of a pause between each speaking turn. People from some cultures are accustomed to “high-involvement” styles with fast pacing and short pauses to show their enthusiasm about the conversation, while people from some other cultures favor “high-considerateness” style with slow pacing and longer pauses (Tannen, 1989, p.273). The contrasting terms “high-involvement” and “high-considerate” are two relative concepts. In other words, a person can be high-involvement when talking to individuals with high-considerateness style, but he or she may become more high-considerateness when conversing with people that are used to even more high-involvement styles. When talking to people who do not share the same 27.

(41) conversational style, individuals with high-involvement style may have less tolerance of silence and overlap more at each turn-taking, whereas interlocutors using high-considerateness style wait for longer pauses and avoid overlapping. Differences in conversational styles are implicit and usually unaware by language speakers, and thus they are easily mistaken as negative attitudes of interlocutors. This explains why people with high-involvement style may be labeled as pushy, aggressive, or self-centered; conversely, people who show high-considerateness style may be termed stupid, dull, or absent-minded.. 2.2.2.3 Sociopragmatic failure To investigate cross-cultural miscommunication and the reasons for it, two types of cross-cultural pragmatic failures are identified, i.e., pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure (Thomas, 1983). The former is “basically a linguistic problem,” but the latter involves cultural assessment, and the failure “stems from cross-culturally different perceptions of what constitutes appropriate linguistic behaviour” (p, 99). In other words, individuals from various cultures do not share the same knowledge of what is an appropriate expression, and failures of communication resulted from this variation in perception is called sociopragmatic failure. The way how a Mandarin Chinese speaker greets an English speaker in a store is a good example of pragmalinguistic failure. A Taiwanese clerk may say to an English-speaking customer in English, “What do you want?” when greeting him or her in a store. The customer would probably feel surprised and see the clerk as being a little bit rude when hearing this sentence, which is actually a direct translation from Mandarin Chinese. The communication failure is resulted from inappropriate linguistic translation with little cultural influence. However, sociopragmatic failure 28.

(42) occurs due to significant cultural differences on using languages. For instance, in the novel The Joy Luck Club written by Amy Tan (1990), an American named Rich was invited to meet his girlfriend’s family, a Chinese American family. When the Chinese mom complained the dish she cooked, “Ai! The dish not salty enough, no flavor,” Rich replied, “You know, all it needs is a little soy sauce” (p. 178). The mom was offended because her complaint was just a way to show her humility, an important value in Chinese culture, rather than real criticism of her food. But for Rich, he thought his girlfriend’s mom was stating a problem, and thus honestly proposed his solution for it. Intending to explore the cultural influence on the intercultural communication between FETs and LETs, this study will focus on what sociopragmatic failures appear in LET-FET interaction, and see how they can be related to each participant’s native culture.. 2.2.3 Cross-cultural pragmatics Researchers have been interested in how different cultures produce various norms of language use. Traditionally, research which examines cross-cultural discourse and language use can be categorized into three lines, Contrastive Approach, Interlanguage Approach, and Interactive Intercultural Approach (Clyne, 1994). The first one aims at analyzing the usage of speech acts in a particular language among its native speakers, and thus no cross-cultural factors are included in this respect. The second approach adopts a second language acquisition perspective and examines the discourse of language learners in the host community. Due to the focus on language learners, Interlanguage Approach adopts the view that it is only the language learners’ responsibility to learn the norms of the host community. In contrast with this notion, 29.

(43) the last approach, also called cross-cultural pragmatics (Boxer, 2002), utilizes a more balanced perspective from sociolinguistics; that is, instead of emphasizing the language used by native speakers as the only standard, cross-cultural pragmatics investigates the discourse from language speakers who have equal status, and not to deliberately distinguish who is native speaker and who is not. When interacting with one another, individuals from two different cultures often follow different norms according to their original cultural backgrounds. Consequently, although speaking the same language which could be a lingua franca or the native language of one of the speakers, interlocutors may thus misperceive each other due to the dissonant communicative norms and criteria in their minds. It is believed that to study the failure of the cross-cultural communication between FETs and LETs, a cross-cultural pragmatic perspective should be implemented. Contrastive Approach would not be adoptable since it only focuses on the norms used by native speakers from the same culture. Nor is Interlanguage Approach applicable when examining the interaction between FETs and LETs. Although mostly FETs and LETs use English to communicate, Mandarin Chinese is the first language of the host community within which they interact, and thus English should be considered as a foreign language instead of an interlanguage for LETs when they communicate with FETs. Furthermore, communication is a two-way process, and neither FETs nor LETs should be considered inferior. Miscommunication in this case occurs due to the different cultural knowledge enacted in a conversation, so no particular side of interlocutors should be blamed as using the wrong norms. This leaves us with only cross-cultural pragmatic approach, which is suitable for analyzing communication between FETs and LETs.. 30.