台灣中學生英語感謝行為之研究 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)國立政治大學英國語文學系碩士在職專班碩士論文. 指導教授：余明忠博士 Advisor：Dr. Ming-chung Yu. 台灣中學生英語感謝行為之研究 Investigating Interlanguage Thanking Behavior of High School Students in Taiwan. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. 研究生：盧蔚葶撰 Name：Wei-ting Lu 中華民國 103 年 7 月 July, 2014. v.

(2) 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.

(3) Investigating Interlanguage Thanking Behavior of High School Students in Taiwan. Presented to Department of English,. 學. National Chengchi University. Nat. n. al. er. io. sit. y. ‧. ‧ 國. 立. 政治大 A Master Thesis. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts. by Wei-ting Lu July, 2014.

(4) 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. ii. i n U. v.

(5) Acknowledgements I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to my advisor, Dr. Ming-chung Yu, for his guidance and patience throughout the study. He offered his insights into the thesiswriting process. Without his invaluable guidance, this study would never have been accomplished. He also exhibited a great deal of patience in explaining procedures for conducting the research. I am deeply indebted to him for his generous assistance with this research.. 立. 政治大. Many thanks also go to the other members of my committee, Dr. Chieh-yue Yeh. ‧ 國. 學. and Dr. Chen-kuan Chen for their reading of the manuscript and invaluable feedback. Finally, to my family, thank you for your unconditional love and support. Also, I. ‧. greatly appreciate all the help from the people who had participated in this study.. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. sit. Without these people, this thesis would not have been completed.. Ch. engchi. iii. i n U. v.

(6) 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. iv. i n U. v.

(7) Table of Contents. Acknowledgments........................................................................................................ iii Chinese Abstract ........................................................................................................... xi English Abstract ......................................................................................................... xiii Chapter One：Introduction........................................................................................ 1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1. 政治大. Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 3. 立. Chapter Two：Literature Review .............................................................................. 5. ‧ 國. 學. Speech Act Theory ................................................................................................. 5 Politeness Theory ................................................................................................... 7. ‧. Cultural Variability............................................................................................... 11. Nat. sit. y. Individualism and Collectivism ................................................................... 11. er. io. Independent and Interdependent Construal of Self…………………..12. al. v i n Ch Pragmatic Transfer ............................................................................................... 14 engchi U n. Low-context and High-context Cultures ...................................................... 13. Speech Act of Thanking ....................................................................................... 16 Thanking in American English .................................................................... 17 Thanking in Chinese .................................................................................... 18 Related studies on the speech act of thanking ............................................. 19 Research questions ............................................................................................... 23 Chapter Three：Methodology .................................................................................. 25 Participants ........................................................................................................... 25 Instrument ............................................................................................................ 26 Procedure ............................................................................................................. 31 v.

(8) Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 32 Coding Scheme ............................................................................................ 32 Quantitative Analysis ................................................................................... 38 Qualitative analysis ...................................................................................... 38 Reliability of Coding.................................................................................... 39 Chapter Four：Results ............................................................................................. 41 Quantitative Analysis ........................................................................................... 41 Qualitative Analysis ............................................................................................. 44 Thanking Strategies ..................................................................................... 44. 治政 Apology Strategies ....................................................................................... 48 大立 ‘Others’ Strategies ........................................................................................ 49 ‧ 國. 學. Opt Out......................................................................................................... 50 Chapter Five：Discussion ......................................................................................... 53. ‧. Comparison with Previous Studies ...................................................................... 53. y. Nat. sit. Cross-Cultural Comparison ................................................................................. 54. n. al. er. io. Pragmatic Transfer ............................................................................................... 58. i n U. v. Pragmalinguistic Failure .............................................................................. 59. Ch. engchi. Waffle Phenomenon ..................................................................................... 61 Sociopragmatic Failure ................................................................................ 62 Chapter Six：Conclusion .......................................................................................... 65 Summary of the Study ......................................................................................... 65 Pedagogical Implications ..................................................................................... 67 Limitations of the Study....................................................................................... 68 Suggestions for Future Studies ............................................................................ 68 References .................................................................................................................... 69 Appendixes .................................................................................................................. 77 vi.

(9) Appendix A The English Version of the Discourse Completion Task ................. 77 Appendix B The English Version of the Information Survey .............................. 83 Appendix C The Reading Test ............................................................................. 84 Appendix D The Chinese Version of the Discourse Completion Task ................ 91 Appendix E The Chinese Version of the Information Survey ............................. 97. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. vii. i n U. v.

(10) List of Tables Table 3.1 The Characteristics of the Three Groups………………………………………………… 26 Table 4.1 Percentages (and Raw Frequencies) of Thanking Strategies for Speaker Groups .......................................................................................................... 41 Table 4.2 Raw (and Expected) Frequencies of Thanking Strategies for Speaker Groups .......................................................................................................... 43 Table 4.3 Standardized Residuals for Thanking Strategies for Speaker Groups ......... 44 Table 4.4 Percentages (and Raw Frequencies) of Types of Thanking Strategies for. 政治大. Three Groups ............................................................................................... 45. 立. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. viii. i n U. v.

(11) List of Figures Figure 2.1 Possible strategies for doing FTAs.............................................................. 9 Figure 4.1 Graphic Representation of the Five Main Thanking Strategies by Speaker Groups…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. ix. i n U. v.

(12) 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. x. i n U. v.

(13) 國立政治大學英國語文學系碩士在職專班碩士論文提要. 論文名稱：台灣中學生英語感謝行為之研究指導教授：余明忠博士研究生：盧蔚葶. 立. 論文提要內容：. 政治大. ‧ 國. 學. 表達感謝是人際關係裡最重要的語言功能之一。能夠在英語的環境裡適當. ‧. 地表達感謝對語言學習者來說是相當重要的語言行為。本研究旨在探討中美文. y. Nat. 化差異對感謝行為的影響以及中文母語文化對外語學習的影響。受試者分為三. er. io. sit. 組：其中兩組為分別以英語和中文為母語的青少年，另一組為英語程度較佳且學習階段為國中的台灣英語學習者。在挑選受試者時，先讓受試者寫一份閱讀. al. n. v i n Ch 測驗，以區分英語能力的高低。向受試者蒐集感謝行為資料的工具為「言談情 engchi U. 境填充問卷」。本研究同時使用量化及質化分析來比較兩組母語受試者的感謝行為表現並進一步檢視台灣英語學習者是否已學會使用英語感謝行為的語用規範。本研究結果顯示：英語為母語者最常使用直接、明確的感謝策略，而最少使用間接的感謝策略如道歉及不作回應；中文為母語者則使用較多的間接感謝策略。然而，台灣英語學習者經歷語用失敗，並將中文的語用規範移轉到英語感謝行為。此外，教學誘發的失誤以及使用過多文字也導致英語學習者的感謝行為偏離英語語用規範。有鑑於此，本研究建議語言教學者應該幫助英語學習 xi.

(14) 者將注意力放在文化差異對語言表達的影響，以提高他們的語用覺察。. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. xii. i n U. v.

(15) Abstract Thanking is one of the most important language functions in interpersonal relationships. It is also important for language learners to appropriately express gratitude in the target culture. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the expressions of gratitude by native American English speakers (NSE) and native Chinese speakers (NSC) and examine whether Taiwanese EFL adolescents had. 治政 achieved native-like performance in L2 thanking. The 大American participants were 立 teenagers in the United States. The EFL learners were given a reading test from the ‧ 國. 學. GEPT first in order to distinguish native Chinese speakers from EFL learners. Then, a. ‧. discourse completion test (DCT) was administered to all three groups: English version for the NSE and EFL learners, and the Chinese version the NSC. The quantitative and. y. Nat. er. io. sit. qualitative analyses were performed to compare both native groups’ thanking performance and further determine if EFL learners had approximated the pragmatic. n. al. Ch. norms of the target language.. engchi. i n U. v. The results showed that NSE employed explicit thanking strategies most often, but apology and ‘others’ strategies and opt-out the least often. In contrast, NSC employed indirect thanking strategies such as apology and ‘others’ strategies more frequently than their American counterparts. However, the EFL learners had experienced pragmatic failure, transferring thanking strategies from L1 pragmatic norms to English. In addition, teaching-induced errors and waffle phenomenon were responsible for the learners’ deviations from native English norms. It is suggested that language teachers may help learners develop cultural awareness by drawing their attention to the similarities and differences between thanking behavior in one’s native xiii.

(16) culture and the target culture.. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. xiv. i n U. v.

(17) CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Since the primary goal of language learning is to acquire communicative competence, second language (L2) learners need to be equipped with not only linguistic skills but also sociolinguistic competence. In order to accomplish their. 政治大. communicative goals, interlocutors may employ various speech acts in a variety of. 立. situations. Thanking is a speech act of great value in American culture. Native. ‧ 國. 學. American English speakers express gratitude in various interpersonal relationship, like family, friends, colleagues, and strangers. Expressing gratitude appropriately. ‧. enables interlocutors to maintain and enhance harmony with people. In contrast, poor. Nat. sit. y. performance in verbal expressions of gratitude can worsen interpersonal relationships. n. al. er. io. (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986).. i n U. v. In their discussion of speech acts and second language learning, Schmidt and. Ch. engchi. Richards (1980) reported Searle’s classification of speech acts: representatives, directives, commisives, expressives, and declarations. Thanking, in the category of Expressives, is defined as an illocutionary act performed by the speaker who has benefited from a past act done by the hearer. Since expressing thanks is viewed as proper manners, language learners have to learn not only how to say thanks but also to say it appropriately in a L2 community. However, expressing gratitude appropriately poses problems for nonnative speakers in cross-cultural communication. Research has indicated that L2 learners fail to express thanks in culturally-appropriate ways when expected to (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986, 1.

(18) 1993). Recent studies have shown that cross-cultural communication breakdown may result from lack of knowledge of L2 sociocultural norms (Thomas, 1983). For example, when interacting with intimates, Chinese nonnative speakers of English would internalize thanks; native speakers of American English, however, tend to express verbal gratitude (Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998). A number of studies have been done to investigate native and nonnative speakers’ thanking performance. Eisenstein and Bodman (1986) explored native American English speakers’ thanking behavior and used L1 data as a base to examine advanced ESL learners’ use of thanking strategies in the L2 community. In a similar. 治政 study involving multiple L1 groups, Bardovi-Harlig, Rose,大 and Nickels (2007) 立 investigated the influence of L1s on the learners’ expressions of gratitude. In another ‧ 國. 學. study focusing on one single L1 group, Clankie (1993) compared Japanese and. ‧. American college students’ speech act realizations of thanking through the DCT. On the other hand, in a study using the corpus data, Wong (2010) reported that the. y. Nat. sit. expressions of gratitude by Hong Kong speakers of English contained such formulaic. n. al. er. io. sequences as thanks and thank you.. i n U. v. Recently, several studies have been carried out to examine EFL learners’ use of. Ch. engchi. thanking strategies. Using the DCT, Cheng (2006) compared native Chinese speakers’ thanking behavior with that of native American English speakers and examined the effect of the length of stay in the target language community on ESL learners’ development of sociolinguistic competence. Replicating Cheng’s study, Ö zdemir & Rezvani (2010) examined the speech act of thanking among Turkish and Iranian EFL graduate students as compared to native English speakers. Also using the discourse completion questionnaire, Chang (2008) compared the thanking behavior of college students in Taiwan and in the United States, and examined EFL learners’ thanking performance in L2. In a cross-cultural study on thanking, Pishghadam and Zarei 2.

(19) (2011) compared pragmatic performance of Persian English learners with that of Chinese learners of English and native English speakers. Although many studies on nonnative speakers’ thanking behavior have focused on adult learners, little is known about teenagers’ use of thanking strategies. However, Kasper and Rose (2002) have suggested that age may influence learners’ pragmatic behavior. In this study, attempts were made to investigate the speech act of thanking performed by native American English speakers and native Chinese speakers at the secondary school level and examine Taiwanese EFL learners’ use of thanking strategies.. 立. 治政 Purpose of the Study 大. The present study, therefore, was conducted to explore cultural influences on the. ‧ 國. 學. thanking behavior of native American English speakers and native Chinese speakers. ‧. at the secondary school level. Moreover, this study was aimed to examine the Taiwanese EFL adolescents’ use of thanking strategies in order to determine whether. y. Nat. sit. their thanking performance came close to that of native American English speakers. It. n. al. er. io. is hoped that the findings of the study may provide useful information for material. i n U. v. writers to incorporate into the textbooks that teachers will adopt in order to equip EFL. Ch. engchi. learners with the ability to express gratitude appropriately in a variety of situations.. 3.

(20) 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. 4. i n U. v.

(21) CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter first reviews speech act theory and then politeness theory. Next, several cultural dimensions are presented to illustrate cultural differences. Also, the notion of pragmatic transfer is explained. Then, previous studies on the speech act of thanking are presented. Last, the research questions are put forward.. 立. 治政 Speech Act Theory 大. Speech act theory was first proposed by Austin (1962). Austin showed that words. ‧ 國. 學. can be used to get things done. Therefore, he identified three types of linguistic actions: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts. The locutionary. ‧. act is performed when the speaker says something with a certain meaning. The. Nat. sit. y. illocutionary act is performed in the utterances through which a certain illocutionary. n. al. er. io. force is achieved such as a request, a promise and a threat. The perlocutionary act is. i n U. v. performed by saying something that causes the addressee to do something. Take the. Ch. engchi. utterance “It’s cold in here!” as an example. The locutionary act is the literal sentence meaning. The illocutionary act is performed by the speaker who wants someone to close the window. And the perlocutionary act is that someone closes the window. It is the illocutionary act that have become the focus of speech act theory. Following Austin, Searle (1969) explored the concept of speech act. Speech acts are defined as basic elements for achieving illocutionary goals. Later, Searle (1979) presented a classification of illocutionary acts in terms of ‘illocutionary points’ or the speaker’s purpose in performing the act. The purpose of assertives is to involve the speaker’s commitment to the truth of a sentence (e.g. report, say, claim). The point 5.

(22) of directives is for the speaker to bring about the hearer’s action to do something (e.g. ask, order, invite). Commissives aim to commit the speaker to some future action (e.g. promise, vow, offer). The point of expressives is that the speaker produces psychological expressions about a certain situation (e.g. thank, apologize, regret). Declarations are acts which cause things to happen through uttering words (e.g. fire, resign, name). In an attempt to illustrate various kinds of illocutionary acts, Searle (1979) suggested a set of conditions for performing a given act. Take thanking as an example.. 治政 condition consists of the utterance as an expression of gratitude. 大 The preparatory 立 condition is that the past act benefits the speaker, and the speaker believes s/he have The propositional content condition is the past act done by the hearer. The essential. ‧ 國. 學. benefited from it. The sincerity condition is the speaker’s psychological state of. Past act A done by H.. Preparatory. A benefits S and S believes A benefits S.. sit. n. al. er. io. of. Sincerity condition rule Essential condition. y. Propositional content. Nat. Types. ‧. feeling grateful. Expressive (Thank). Ch. i n U. v. S feels grateful or appreciative for A.. engchi. Counts as an expression of gratitude or appreciation. (Searle, 1969, p.67). There are occasions, however, when the speaker means more than what is said. Searle (1996) identified the case where “one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another” and termed this act an indirect speech act (p.60). For example, at the dinner table, the utterance ‘Can you pass the salt?’ would be interpreted as a request rather than a question about the addressee’s abilities. In this context, the request is performed indirectly in order to show politeness (Searle, 1996). 6.

(23) Politeness Theory Grice (1975) put forward the Cooperative Principle (CP) and four conversational maxims. First, the speaker says what is meant using no more or less words than is required (the maxim of Quantity). Second, the speaker believes the truth of what s/he said based on evidence (the maxim of Quality). Third, the speaker is certain of the relevance of his/her utterance to the speech situation (the maxim of Relation). Fourth, the speaker speaks what s/he means concisely and clearly without redundancies (the maxim of Manner).. 治政 thus he proposed Politeness Principle (PP), which defines 大 politeness as minimizing 立 “the expression of impolite beliefs” and maximizing “the expression of polite beliefs” Leech (1983) argued that CP alone did not account for linguistic politeness, and. ‧ 國. 學. (p.81). There are six maxims of the PP: the Tact Maxim, the Generosity Maxim, the. ‧. Approbation Maxim, the Modesty Maxim, the Agreement Maxim, and the Sympathy Maxim, each of which operated on a different scale.. y. Nat. sit. According to Leech, the Maxims of Approbation and Modesty apply to the. n. al. er. io. illocutionary act of thanking. The Approbation Maxim refers to (a) “minimize. i n U. v. dispraise of other” and (b) “maximize praise of other” (p.132). For example, when the. Ch. engchi. speaker says ‘Thank you so much. You helped a lot.’ or ‘Thanks for helping me out. I appreciate it.’, s/he expresses politeness by maximizing praise to the hearer. On the other hand, the Modesty Maxim involves (a) “minimize praise of self” and (b) “maximize dispraise of self” (p.132). For instance, apologetic expressions may be used as thanks in utterances such as ‘Thank you, and I’m really sorry for how long that took.’ The speaker observes the Maxim of Modesty by lowering themselves to show respect for the hearer (Wang, 2009). Leech (1983) differentiated four types of illocutionary functions based on the degree of social consolidation. Thanking is categorized as ‘convivial’ because it 7.

(24) enables the speaker to attend to the hearer’s needs to be approved of, thereby contributing to the social goal of achieving harmony in personal relationships. However, Leech’s proposal is criticized for its inapplicability in linguistic communication. For example, it is difficult to determine the dimensions on which the maxims and its scales are evaluated (Fraser, 1990). Among the most widely known research on linguistic politeness is Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. Adapting from Goffman (1967), Brown and Levinson (1987) defines face as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” (p.61). There are two types of face: ‘positive face’ and ‘negative face’.. 治政 Positive face is “the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ 大 (crucially including 立 the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by ‧ 國. 學. interactants.” ; negative face is “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction—i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition”. ‧. (p.61). Generally, people in interaction will attend to others’ faces and protect their. y. Nat. sit. own faces from being damaged by others. However, some speech acts are. n. al. er. io. “intrinsically threatening to face and thus require ‘softening’” (p.24). Face-threatening. i n U. v. acts (FTAs) are differentiated according to the aspects of both interlocutors’ face threatened.. Ch. engchi. (a) The speaker threatens the hearer’s negative face by requesting, offering, or complimenting. (b) The speaker threatens the hearer’s positive face by criticizing, complaining, or disagreeing. (c) The speaker threatens his/her own negative face by thanking, accepting offers, or unwillingly promising. (d) The speaker threatens his/her own positive face by apologizing, accepting compliments, or confessing. 8.

(25) In order to communicate effectively in an attempt to prevent threats to each other’s face, the interlocutors employ different strategies for doing FTSs, including (a) to do the FTA without redressive action: e.g. ‘Answer the phone.’; (b) to do the FTA with redressive action involving positive politeness: e.g. ‘I’m terribly sorry to hear about your cat.’; (c) to do the FTA with redressive action involving negative politeness: e.g. ‘I’d kind of like to get a lift if that’s all right.’; (d) to do the FTA covertly: e.g. That isn’t a crème egg I can see you eating, is it?’ and (e) don’t do the FTA. These superstrategies can be weighted with respect to which aspect the hearer’s. 治政 while an off-record strategy is the least, the other two 大lying in between. A positive 立 politeness strategy is more threatening than a negative politeness one. face is threatened, as shown in Figure 2.1. A bald strategy is the most threatening,. ‧ 國. 學. 1. without redressive action, baldly. with redressive action 4. off record. sit. Nat. y. Do the FTA. 2. positive politeness. ‧. on record. er. io. 5. Don’t do the FTA. 3. negative politeness. al. n. v i n Figure 2.1 Possible strategies FTAs (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p.69) Cfor h edoing ngchi U Brown and Levinson (1987) claimed that an FTA is evaluated based on three situational factors: (i) social distance (D) between the speaker and the addressee; (ii) the relative power P (H, S) i.e. the extent to which the hearer exerts influence on the speaker’s actions and self-appraisal; and (iii) the absolute ranking (R) of imposition i.e. the degree to which the act threatens the interlocutor’s negative and positive face needs in terms of e.g. the rights or responsibilities to do the act in a given culture. Accordingly, the measurement of the three variables determines the speaker’s choice of strategies and the level of politeness in speech acts. 9.

(26) In spite of Brown and Levinson’s claims to the universality of their face model, several researchers have proposed culture-specific notion of face. In Hu’s (1944) view, Chinese face has two meanings: liǎn and miànzi. Liǎn denotes “the respect of the group for a man with a good moral reputation” (as cited in Mao, 1994, p.457). Miànzi represents “prestige or reputation, which is either achieved through getting on in life” or “ascribed (even imagined) by other members of one’s own community”(as cited in Mao, 1994, p.457). Mao further argued that although Brown and Levinson’s face is centered around the fulfillment of personal needs and desires, Chinese face emphasizes the relation of the individual’s actions to the community to which they. 治政 belong. In other words, the individual behaves in accordance 大with social norms in 立 order to seek public recognition of one’s social standing. Therefore, if a person’s ‧ 國. 學. behavior conforms to communal norms, s/he will gain face. Morisaki and Gudykunst. ‧. (1994) also noted that Chinese face is an ‘interdependent’ phenomenon in contrast to Brown and Levinson’s face as an ‘independent’ one.. y. Nat. sit. Arguing against the applicability of Brown and Levinson’s face model in. n. al. er. io. Chinese politeness, Gu (1990) showed that not all speech acts are considered face-. i n U. v. threatening acts in Chinese contexts where politeness encompasses denigrating self. Ch. engchi. and respecting others. A Chinese inviter’s continuously inviting the guest to dinner, for example, is polite in itself for both interlocutors. Likewise, expressions of gratitude in Chinese reflects cultural norms such as self-denigration. When a Chinese expresses his/her thanks for an American friend’s kindness in helping proofread the term paper, s/he would say ‘I’m sorry to have wasted your time in reading it.’ The apologetic utterance is considered as a sincere expression of gratitude in Chinese culture. In contrast, the American thinks that the Chinese considers his/her work a waste of time and feels unhappy. Instead, the Americans tend to respond: ‘Thank you. I appreciate your work so much (Wang, 2009). In addition, native Chinese speakers 10.

(27) who use expressions of negation such as ‘I don’t know what I should have done without your help.’ also observe the principle of self-denigration by indicating an inability to do what has been done by the addressee and acknowledging the beneficial act as well (Qu & Shi, 2009). Cultural Variability In the study of intercultural communication, the dimension of individualismcollectivism is mainly used to examine cultural similarities and differences. Moreover, two construals of the self mediate the influence of individualism-collectivism on individuals’ communication behavior. In addition, low-context and high-context. 治政 orientations explain differences in communication styles 大 across cultures. 立 Individualism and Collectivism ‧ 國. 學. Individualism, which views the individual as unique and independent, lays. ‧. emphasis on personal needs and rights. For example, the United States, falling at the individualistic end of the individualism-collectivism continuum, places value on. y. Nat. sit. freedom and self-reliance. Thus, it is “I” identity that individualism emphasizes. n. al. er. io. (Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, & Chua, 1988). Because of the individualistic tendencies. i n U. v. toward independence, the individuals tend to attend to their own face in interpersonal. Ch. engchi. communication (Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel, 2010).. Collectivism emphasizes group goals over personal goals. People of collectivistic cultures tend to abide by group norms, thereby maintaining their belongingness in groups. Therefore, collectivism focuses on “we” identity (Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, & Chua, 1988). Taiwan, for example, is characterized as a collectivistic culture, in which people tend to preserve mutual face due to interdependence and maintenance of group harmony. However, Kim (1994) suggested that members of collectivistic cultures are likely to refrain from imposing upon others in linguistic communication.. 11.

(28) In addition, individualism-collectivism is related to what people think of themselves (Triandis, 1989). Independent and Interdependent Construal of Self People of individualistic cultures have the independent view of self (Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996). The independent self-construal refers to the self-esteem of an individual “whose behavior is organized and made meaningful primarily by reference to one’s own internal repertoire of thoughts, feelings, and action” (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, p.226). The actions of a person with an independent construal arises. 政治大. from the self, with emphasis on the need to express his/her uniqueness to others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).. 立. People of collectivistic cultures are shown to have an interdependent view of self. ‧ 國. 學. (Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996). The interdependent self-construal refers to the self-. ‧. esteem that is “determined, contingent on, and, to a large extent organized by what the actor perceives to be the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others in the relationship”. y. Nat. sit. (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, p.227). Therefore, the interdependent construal of self is. n. al. er. io. characterized by group-based actions resulting from connectedness to ingroups and. i n U. v. indirect communication. In addition, Yang (1981) noted that the Chinese tend to. Ch. engchi. engage in group-oriented behavior with a focus on others’ needs and goals, rather than individual needs and desires in order to maintain harmony among ingroups. As Gao and Ting-Toomey (1998) have shown, the Chinese self is other-oriented and thus is consistent with Chinese cultural norms such as showing modesty and humility to others. The Chinese, for example, could lower themselves by apologizing for the trouble the favor causes the benefactor as an indirect way of thanking (Huang, 2008; Wang, 2009).. 12.

(29) Low-context and High-context Cultures Hall (1976) proposed the distinction between low-context (LC) and high-context (HC) communication in terms of how meaning is primarily communicated in a given culture. According to Hall, low-context communication is used when “the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code”. In contrast, in high-context communication, “most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message.” (as cited in Gudykunst & Lee, 2003, p.18). Thus, people using low-. 治政 through verbal strategies, whereas people relying on 大high-context communication 立 tend to convey implicit messages through reliance on contextual cues (Knapp & Hall, context communication are more inclined to convey meanings directly and explicitly. ‧ 國. 學. 2010). In addition, low-context communication prevails in individualistic cultures,. ‧. while high-context communication in collectivistic cultures (Gudykunst, TingToomey, & Chua, 1988).. y. Nat. sit. Low-context cultures such as the United States emphasize direct communication,. n. al. er. io. which is consistent with Grice’s four conversational maxims because these maxims. i n U. v. involve using an appropriate number of precise and unambiguous words to reflect the. Ch. engchi. speaker’s intentions accurately (Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996). In addition, because of individualism and self-oriented face needs, the Americans tend to rely heavily on verbal behavior and use a direct style of communication in spoken interactions (Samovar, et al., 2010). Gudykunst and Matsumoto (1996) further explored how communication patterns vary among the Americans in different types of interpersonal relationships. For example, when interacting with intimates, native English speakers may shift from low-context to high-context communication. On the other hand, in high-context cultures such as Taiwan, people adopt an indirect communication style. In order to maintain group harmony, members of high13.

(30) context cultures tend to use indirect messages and are expected to make accurate inferences from the context. For HC communicatiors, what is left unsaid is embedded in the context and it is the receiver’s responsibility to understand the speaker’s intended meanings correctly. Therefore, high-context communication is characterized as receiver-oriented (Singelis & Brown, 1995). According to Gao and Ting-Toomey (1998), since a Chinese person’s self is intertwined with relations with others, the indirect mode of communication permits interlocutors to maintain harmonious relationships with ingroup members. As the Chinese expression han xu ‘含蓄’. 治政 allowing the development of the other-oriented self (Gao, 1996; 大 Gao & Ting-Toomey, 立 1998). implies, indirect communication builds on interdependence among people, thus. ‧ 國. 學. Native Chinese speakers prefer to use a variety of indirect thanking strategies. ‧. such as complimenting the addressee or object of gratitude when expressing their gratitude. According to Li (2004), choices of indirect thanking strategies may be made. y. Nat. sit. based on the assumption that direct ways of saying thanks imply that the addressee. n. al. er. io. either recognizes the speaker’s indebtedness to him/her or threatens the speaker’s face. i n U. v. by accepting gratitude from the speaker. For example, in complimenting the. Ch. engchi. interlocutor without using the word ‘thank’, the receiver not only expresses appreciation for the act of kindness but also admires the giver’s outstanding personality and exceptional capability as in nǐ tài hǎo le, wǒ jiù méi jiàn guò bǐ nǐ gèng hǎo de rén le ‘你太好了，我就沒見過比你更好的人了’ (Li, 2004; Li, 2010). Pragmatic Transfer The term ‘transfer’ refers to the use of previous knowledge in learning new material (Žegarac & Pennington, 2000). In cross-cultural communication, interlocutors may communicate on the basis of their native cultures, in which case they probably use L1 pragmatic knowledge to approach L2 communicative situations. 14.

(31) As Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz (1990) pointed out, pragmatic transfer is “transfer of L1 sociocultural communicative competence in performing L2 speech acts or any other aspects of L2 conversation” in order to “achieve a particular function of language” (p.56). Kasper (1992) found that pragmatic transfer operates at both levels: ‘pragmalinguistic transfer’ and ‘sociopragmatic transfer’. Kasper (1992) identified ‘pragmalinguistic transfer’ as “the process whereby the illocutionary force or politeness value assigned to particular linguistic material in L1 influences learners’ perception and production of form-function mappings in L2.” (p. 209). Sociopragmatic transfer occurs when “the social perceptions underlying. 治政 language users’ interpretation and performance of linguistic 大 action in L2 are 立 influenced by their assessment of subjectively equivalent L1 contexts” (p.209). ‧ 國. 學. Thomas (1983) proposed the term ‘pragmatic failure’, which is responsible for. ‧. breakdowns in cross-cultural communication. Two types of ‘pragmatic failure’ are distinguished: ‘pragmalinguistic failure’ and ‘sociopragmatic failure’.. y. Nat. sit. Pragmalinguistic failure arises when a nonnative speaker interprets or produces. n. al. er. io. an utterance whose illocutionary force differs from what is conventionally assigned to. i n U. v. it in the target language. Pragmalinguistic failure can be attributed to two sources:. Ch. engchi. pragmalinguistic transfer and teaching-induced errors. Pragmalinguistic transfer refers to the influence of L1 pragmatic knowledge on speech acts realizations in L2. For example, a Chinese-speaking learner responds to a request such as ‘Can you pass the salt?’ by saying ‘No, I can’t.’ because s/he interprets it as a question. Teachinginduced errors arise from techniques for teaching pragmatic competence. For example, learners of English may wrongly associate imperatives with directive speech acts because of the emphasis placed on grammar. Thomas (1983) showed that sociopragmatic failure arises when nonnative speakers’ production of speech acts deviates from sociopragmatic norms of the target 15.

(32) language. For example, the Americans consider it offensive to ask about a person’s age, income, marital status, etc. In contrast, the Chinese feel comfortable asking such questions freely and openly because of concern for others. Furthermore, in Chinese culture, it is appropriate to repeat one’s invitation after the invitee’s initial rejection as a way of showing the inviter’s sincerity. On the contrary, the Americans would avoid the imposition on the invitee by complying with the invitee’s choice (Shih, 1999). According to Thomas (1983), for the language teacher, sociopragmatic failure is difficult to deal with because it involves sensitivity arising from having the students. 治政 Speech Act of Thanking 大立 Thanking belongs to the category of ‘expressives’. The illocutionary act is. think about their own cultural values and beliefs.. ‧ 國. 學. performed by the speaker when the hearer has done an act which benefits the speaker. ‧. and the speaker believes himself/herself to have benefited from it (Searle, 1969). Leech (1983) showed that thanking has a ‘convivial’ function; that is, showing. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. communal harmony.. sit. thanks enables the speaker to achieve the goal of establishing and sustaining. i n U. v. Coulmas (1981) showed that sincere gratitude is verbalized in response to a. Ch. engchi. benefactor’s previous action or the consequence stemming from it. The beneficial act or its outcome constitutes ‘the object of gratitude’, which can be characterized by a variety of properties such as “real versus potential; material versus immaterial; requested versus not requested; indebting versus not indebting” (p.75). In addition, interlocutors’ relationships in combination with its influence on the object of gratitude contribute to the assessment of the degree of thankfulness, which is expressed in thanking utterances. Comparing thanks and apologies, Coulmas (1981) reported that ‘apologetic thanks’ occur in situations where a person both thanks someone and apologizes for the 16.

(33) inconvenience the favor might have caused the person. For example, the beneficiary not only thanks the benefactor but also apologizes for taking up their time after being helped out with the work in class as in ‘Thank you, and I’m really sorry for how long that took’. One can see that a common characteristic shared by thanks and apologies is ‘indebtedness’. As noted by Coulmas (1981), “thanks implying the indebtedness of the recipient of the benefit closely resemble apologies where the speaker actually recognizes his indebtedness to his interlocutor” (p. 79). In addition to the function of thanking, native speakers of American English used ‘thank you’ to end a conversation (e.g. ‘That’s all, thank you’), respond to a. 治政 compliment (e.g. ‘Well thank you. I thought it was 大 quite nice.’), reject an offer (e.g. 立 ‘No, thanks.’), etc. Furthermore, the automatic expression of the ‘bald’ thank you ‧ 國. 學. occurs when the Americans pay for services provided by a taxi driver or a cashier. ‧. (Rubin, 1983 as cited in Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986). Conversely, native English speakers used longer and more elaborated expressions of gratitude when they found. y. Nat. sit. the action to be extremely beneficial or that considerable money, time or energy was. n. al. er. io. required on the part of the benefactor.. i n U. v. Thanking in American English. Ch. engchi. Expressing gratitude is an important way of showing politeness in American society. Verbal gratitude occurs in interactions among family, friends, colleagues, etc. The successful performance of thanking can establish solidarity. Inappropriate thanking behavior, however, could jeopardize the relationship between interlocutors (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986). Research has shown that the Americans use gratitude expressions extensively in their daily lives. Verbalization of gratitude takes place in response to any favor on all occasions. The word ‘thank’ occurs in most of the expressions of gratitude such as ‘thank you’, ‘thanks’, ‘thank you very much’, and ‘thanks a lot’ (Apte, 1974). Apte 17.

(34) indicated that the Americans express verbal gratitude ‘thank you’ “more often perhaps in a mechanical rather than in a sincere way” (p.85). However, Apte noted that a favor or a gift required explicit expression of gratitude as a result of Americans’ belief in equality among people. Eisenstein and Bodman (1986) observed the influence of social distance on native American English speakers’ expressions of gratitude, although their choice of language did not vary according to the interlocutors’ status. In addition, native speakers produced a range of formulaic sequences which contained semantically. 治政 consistency in their use of gratitude expressions. For example, 大 when accepting the 立 small loan, native speakers often express the intention to repay by saying ‘Thanks. I’ll routinized expressions in the DCT data. That is, native speakers showed high. ‧ 國. 學. pay you back’.. ‧. Thanking in Chinese. Expressing one’s gratitude appropriately is considered well-mannered behavior. y. Nat. sit. in Chinese society. According to Shih (1999), the most commonly used expression of. n. al. er. io. gratitude in Chinese is xièxie 謝謝. Furthermore, Li (2010) showed that in Chinese. i n U. v. culture, the apologetic formulas are used as indirect thanking strategies. For example,. Ch. engchi. bùhǎoyìsi 不好意思, which signifies the uncomfortable feelings the speaker has toward the favor, gift, or service, is a semantic formula for showing gratitude, implying that “one does not deserve such a favor or kindness” (Shih, 1999, p.72). In addition, when combined with xièxie as in bùhǎoyìsi, xièxie ‘不好意思，謝謝’, the apologetic phrase means ‘I feel grateful as well as embarrassed’. Other apologetic expressions such as duìbùqǐ 對不起 and bàoqiàn 抱歉 may also be used to indicate thankfulness as in bàoqiàn, háiyào nǐ bang wǒ ‘抱歉，還要妳幫我’. The apologetic utterance bàoqiàn 抱歉 implies that the beneficiary expresses both thanks for the favor and apologies for the trouble the benefactor goes through when combined with 18.

(35) xièxie as in xièxie, bàoqiàn bù xiǎoxīn yòng dào duàn shuǐ le ‘謝謝，抱歉不小心用到斷水了’ (Shih, 1999). Some studies have shown that verbal thanks are not expected in close relationships, since doing favors is seen as one’s obligations toward ingroup members in Chinese society. Shih (1999) indicated that in traditional Chinese culture, “appreciation and gratitude between intimate family members was assumed and thanked only internally or shown by some redressive action in the future” (p.72). Moreover, Bello, Brandau-Brown, Zhang, and Ragsdale (2010) suggested that verbal. 治政 receives it, thereby insulting the benefactor and causing 大 face loss to the interlocutors. 立 Gao and Ting-Toomey (1998) also noted that the overt verbalization of gratitude was. gratitude may imply insufficient benefits the favor provides to the person who. ‧ 國. 學. perceived as “formality, detachment, and relational distance” as it occurred among. ‧. close friends and family members (p. 74). However, nowadays family members choose to express verbal thanks for acts of kindness (Shih, 1999).. y. Nat. sit. Related studies on the speech act of thanking. n. al. er. io. A number of studies have been conducted on ESL/EFL learners’ expressions of. i n U. v. gratitude in comparison to native speakers of English and other L1 languages. In an. Ch. engchi. empirical study using production questionnaires, Eisenstein and Bodman (1986) compared the thanking performance of native Amercan English speakers with that of nonnative speakers. They reported that native speakers not only produced a considerable number of conventionalized routines but showed consistency in their selection of expressions of gratitude. For example, the routine formula “You really didn’t have to” was used often to indicate the generous act of the gift giver in referring to the nonexistent obligation. To show the depth of gratitude, native speakers used overstatements such as “You’re a life saver” and “You saved my life”.. 19.

(36) Eisenstein and Bodman (1986) also examined native speakers’ performance of the speech act of thanking in different situations. It was found that longer and elaborated thanks were expressed when native speakers felt greatly indebted. Nonetheless, when addressing status-unequals, the American participants rarely used expressions of surprise and compliments because they hoped to “preserve emotional neutrality and maintain the social distance required by the disparate roles” (p.171). In other words, short speech act sequences “sometimes reflected greater social distance between interlocutors” (p.176).. 治政 appropriately expressing gratitude. Even advanced learners大 failed to produce native立 like responses. Their utterances contained syntactic and lexical deviations such as ‘I Eisenstein and Bodman (1986) found that nonative speakers had difficulty. ‧ 國. 學. never forget you kindness.’ and ‘I’ll pay back you.’ These findings showed that L2. ‧. learners had not acquired native English norms.. In a subsequent study, Eisenstein and Bodman (1993) examined native and. y. Nat. sit. nonnative speakers’ thanking performance using various data collection instruments:. n. al. er. io. written and oral DCTs, role-plays and naturally occurring conversations. They found. i n U. v. that there was no difference in language choice among the written DCTs, role-plays and authentic discourses.. Ch. engchi. Moreover, the beneficial act is seen to destroy the balance of relationships between the thanker and the thankee. To achieve the equilibrium state of interpersonal relationships, both interlocutors engage in the development of the thanking event through conversational discourses. However, ESL/EFL had not achieved native-like thanking performance partly due to cross-cultural differences. Unlike the Americans who find it necessary to verbalize gratitude, in some non-western cultures, family members omit verbal thanks for acts of kindness considered reciprocal obligations. Another example is native 20.

(37) Chinese speakers’ gratitude expressions which reflect cultural values such as modesty in a situation where a raise is offered. In addition, the utterances in the written DCTs were found to be even longer than those in role-plays. It seemed that nonnative speakers’ verbosity was induced by the instrument DCT, though the length of their utterances in role-plays was much shorter than that by native American speakers (Edmondson & House, 1991; Kasper & BlumKulka, 1993). Also using a discourse completion questionnaire, but focusing on Chinese. 政治大 behavior and examined立 college students’ pragmatic development in ESL and EFL. learners of English, Cheng (2006) compared native and nonnative speakers’ thanking. ‧ 國. 學. contexts. The results indicated that while social status had little influence on the use of thanking strategies by native speakers of American English, it had a great impact. ‧. on that by native speakers of Chinese. On the other hand, native English speakers. sit. y. Nat. adopted different thanking strategies according to the degree to which they knew their. io. er. interlocutors, whereas native Chinese speakers showed no difference in thanking. al. performance regardless of how well they knew their interlocutors. Like Eisenstein and. n. v i n Cthat Bodman (1986), Cheng found situations produced longer h ehigh-imposition ngchi U. thanking sequences across American and Chinese participants. In addition, it was found that the length of stay in the target community not only enhanced pragmatic performance of L2 learners but reduced pragmatic transfer from L1 to L2. Chang (2008) investigated the perception and performance of the speech act of. thanking among native and nonnative speakers of English. The findings showed that native English speakers perceived greater imposition and expectation of gratitude than did native Chinese speakers. According to Chang (2008), this difference resulted from cultural orientations toward individualism and collectivism. Chang also noted that in. 21.

(38) terms of pragmatic perception, native English speakers placed emphasis on social distance, whereas native Chinese speakers were concerned with relative status. The analysis of native speakers’ thanking performance indicated that native English speakers used a greater number of thanking strategies than did native Chinese speakers as a result of their perceived high expectation of gratitude. In addition, the results for utterance length were in line with Eisenstein and Bodman’s (1986) claim that after the speaker had accepted a great favor, s/he produced lengthy thanking sequences.. 治政 performance. Even advanced level EFL learners produced 大 deviations caused by 立 pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfer. For example, most pragmalinguistic. Chang (2008) found that proficiency levels did not affect EFL learners’ thanking. ‧ 國. 學. deviations stemmed from these learners’ use of nonroutinized formulas such as the. ‧. literal translations from Chinese into the target language.. Bello, Brandau-Brown, Zhang, and Ragsdale (2010) investigated the expression. y. Nat. sit. of gratitude in close relationships among young adult Americans and Chinese. They. n. al. er. io. reported that gender was found to be insignificantly related to the differences in the. i n U. v. usage of gratitude expressions between the Chinese and Americans. However, they. Ch. engchi. found that the American participants used both verbal and nonverbal expressions of gratitude, whereas the Chinese participants showed a preference for nonverbal and indirect ways of expressing gratitude. They concluded that this difference was due to the fact that America is identified as an individualistic and low-context culture, while China a collectivistic and high-context culture. Using a discourse completion questionnaire, Pishghadam and Zarei (2012) investigated nonnative speakers’ thanking behavior in EFL contexts. They found that the EFL learners inappropriately transferred expressions of gratitude from L1 cultural norms and their thanking performance showed deviations from L2 pragmatic norms. 22.

(39) For example, Persian EFL learners literally translated L1 expressions such as ‘May God bless you.’ to indicate indebtedness. Likewise, Chinese EFL learners adopted L1 sociocultural norms when expressing gratitude in the target language. Research questions The aforementioned studies have shown cross-cultural variation in thanking behavior of speakers of different languages. Although some studies have been done on native and nonnative speakers’ gratitude expressions, little information is available on high school learners. As suggested by Kasper and Rose (2002), learners at different. 治政 to compare the thanking performance of adolescent大 students in America and Taiwan 立 and examine Taiwanese EFL learners’ expressions of gratitude in order to ascertain. age levels exhibited differences in pragmatic performance. Thus, attempts were made. ‧ 國. 學. whether their L2 speech act performance had reached target pragmatic norms.. ‧. The research questions are as follows:. 1. How do the thanking strategies used by native speakers of American English. y. Nat. sit. compare with those by native speakers of Chinese?. n. al. er. io. 2. How does the EFL learners’ thanking behavior compare to that of native English speakers?. Ch. engchi. 23. i n U. v.

(40) 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. 24. i n U. v.

(41) CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This chapter deals with the research design of the present study. First, the sampling techniques for the participants were described. Then, the selection of the instrument was presented, followed by the procedure of data collection. Finally, the construction of the coding scheme and the methods of data analysis were illustrated.. 立. 治政 Participants 大. One hundred and twenty secondary school students participated in this study: 40. ‧ 國. 學. native speakers of Chinese (NSC) or the Chinese using Chinese, 40 native speakers of American English (NSE), and 40 Taiwanese EFL learners. The sample size of 120. ‧. was established to achieve the adequate level of statistical power of .80 (Larson-Hall,. sit. y. Nat. 2010).. n. al. er. io. The American English control was from the United States and their ages ranged. i n U. v. from 13 to 18. The Chinese control was selected from northern and central Taiwan. Ch. engchi. and their average age was 15. It is suggested that L2 environment may influence L1 speakers’ native language norms (Clyne, Ball, & Neil, 1991). Therefore, in order to ensure the comparability of data obtained from the two L1 controls, all L1 participants had never lived in countries where the target language is spoken prior to this study. Ideally the participants in the NSC group were those who had never learned English. However, in reality it was not possible to find the Chinese using Chinese who had never been exposed to English in their high school years. So all Chinese participants were Chinese-speaking EFL learners in this study. Research has indicated that the learners at higher proficiency levels are more likely to produce target-like 25.

(42) responses than their lower-proficiency counterparts (Kuriscak, 2010). In order to ensure the reliability of the two sets of data, the higher-level EFL learners provided the EFL data, and the Chinese using Chinese with lower level proficiency the Chinese data. In distinguishing between the NSC group and the EFL group, a total of 310 Taiwanese learners were given a test from the GEPT Elementary reading test. Those who scored below 44 were assigned to the NSC group in order to lessen the effect of English on their L1 use, while those above eighty percent the EFL group because the DCT required “a certain level of proficiency” to complete (Barron, 2003, p.29). It is. 治政 their stay in ESL settings for any length of time (House, 1996). 大 Thus, only those who 立 had never been abroad were included in order to ensure the reliability of the EFL data. reported that EFL learners’ development of L2 pragmatic competence was related to. ‧ 國. 學. All participants completed a background information survey in order to ensure. ‧. that they met the requirements for the NSC, NSE and EFL groups, respectively. The survey included questions such as gender, nationality, birthplace, mother tongue,. y. Nat. al. n. Number Male Female Age range Age mean Test range Test mean. NSC 40 22 18 15-17 15 18-45 33. Ch. EFL learners 40 20 20 14-16 15 103-120 111. engchi. er. io. Table 3.1 The Characteristics of the Three Groups. sit. experience in traveling or living abroad, etc.. i n U. v. NSE 40 17 23 13-18 16 N/A N/A. Instrument Discourse completion test (DCT) has been known to be widely used in crosscultural and interlanguage pragmatics. DCT is a written questionnaire including situational descriptions, followed by blanks for the speech act under study. Participants need to produce their responses in the given situations (Kasper & Dahl, 26.

(43) 1991). As Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989) indicated, DCTs as data-collecting instruments have several strengths. First, a DCT enables the researcher to gather a large amount of data in a relatively short period of time. Moreover, by means of controlling contextual variables, researcher can obtain “stereotyped” responses in the individual’s speech behavior (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989, p.13). In addition, the specifically-designed situations allow the researcher to compare native and nonnative speakers’ speech act realizations.. 治政 by a number of researchers. In a study that compared 大native and nonnative speakers’ 立 requests and apologies from a DCT and a role-play, Rintell and Mitchell (1989) In spite of the above advantages of DCTs, its shortcomings have been reported. ‧ 國. 學. indicated that nonnative speakers’ oral performance significantly differed from their. ‧. written performance. They also found that both native and nonnative speakers produced more direct responses in the DCT than in the role-play, although they. y. Nat. sit. claimed that both types of data were very similar. In another comparative study of. n. al. er. io. written and spoken refusals by native English speakers, Beebe and Cummings (1996). i n U. v. reported that DCT data did not contain the range of refusal strategies or the amount of. Ch. engchi. talk that occurred in spoken interaction.. However, in their discussion of methodology in interlanguage pragmatics, Kasper and Rose (2002) proposed that DCT data may represent speakers’ use of strategies in given situations in which such contextual factors as status and social distance are controlled, thereby informing researchers about speakers’ pragmatic knowledge. Yuan (2001) also suggested that DCTs may be appropriate for gaining initial understanding of realizations of a given speech act. Since the purpose of the present study was to investigate native speakers’ thanking performance in the given situations and explore EFL learners’ production of L2 thanking sequences, the DCT 27.

(44) was considered as a suitable data-collecting instrument. In this study, the participants were all high school students, whose ages ranged from 13 to 18. The DCT was based on common situations in school life so that the participants would respond appropriately as a result of their relevance to real-life experience (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986). As the age range from 1 to 4 years does not cause status differences in American schools (Rose & Ono, 1995), the situations were all characterized as＝, which indicated status equals. Moreover, the DCT situations included imposition on the addressee to whom gratitude was expressed. Although the. 治政 imposition was specified as having two values: great (+I) and 大little (-I), which were 立 evenly distributed across the sixteen situations in this study. degree of imposition varies from person to person (Goldschmidt, 1996), the. ‧ 國. 學. Two contextual variables were controlled for in the DCT situations: familiarity. ‧. (i.e. social distance) and gender. The factor, familiarity, was selected because it was believed to be one of “very general pan-cultural social dimensions which nevertheless. y. Nat. sit. probably have ‘emic’ correlates” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p.76). Gender was. n. al. er. io. believed to play a role in speakers’ production of the speech act of thanking (Cheng, 2006).. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. According to the Bulge theory, speakers behave in similar ways when interacting with intimates and strangers at the two extremes of social distance, in contrast with their interactions with acquaintances in the middle parts (Wolfson, 1989). Given earlier findings indicating that the Chinese exhibited markedly different behavior than the Americans when expressing thanks to intimates, the situations were characterized as either +familiarity e.g. close friends or –familiarity e.g. acquaintances (Chen, 1991). The relationship of the interlocutors, strangers, was excluded. The gender variable was claimed to influence speakers’ speech act performance. Therefore, it is distributed evenly across all the situations, specified as either m (i.e. 28.

(45) male) or f (i.e. female). To sum up, each variable had two values, making up eight combinations. In order to enhance the reliability of the data, each combination included two situations. Thus, the DCT consisted of sixteen situations. The participants would imagine themselves in the given situations in which they were grateful to someone who had done something beneficial for them and respond immediately. In addition to verbal responses, the choice of opting out (i.e. not performing the speech act) and the reason for it were given in each situation in order to identify the realities of the participants’ speech act. 治政 The DCT situations in the present study were adapted 大 from those used in 立 Cheng’s (2006) and Hinkel’s (1992) studies of thanking behavior. The researcher had performance.. ‧ 國. 學. also consulted a number of native speakers of English and Chinese to determine. ‧. whether these situations were common in high school life in both Taiwan and the United States. After that, modifications were made to make the situations culturally. y. Nat. sit. equivalent and plausible for both NSCs and NSEs.. n. al. er. io. NSCs and NSEs completed the DCT in their native language, i.e. Chinese and. i n U. v. English, respectively. In order to achieve linguistic equivalence in the DCT, back. Ch. engchi. translation was employed (Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973). The researcher translated Chinese, L1, into English, L2. Another proficient Chinese-English speaker backtranslated English into Chinese. Differences between the two forms were discussed and modified to obtain two linguistically-equivalent questionnaires. The DCT included the following situations: 1. A student has no pen in a test and borrows a pen from a male classmate. This classmate lends him/her one. (-F, m) 2. A student has no time to buy lunch, and asks a good male friend to get some lunch for him/her. His/her friend helps to get some food. (+F, m) 29.

(46) 3. A student drops his/her papers and pens. A good male friend helps to pick them up. (+F, m) 4. A student has trouble doing math homework and asks a female classmate to help him/her. This classmate spends some time teaching him/her. (-F, f) 5. A student and his/her good male friend go out for a coffee. This student does not have enough money for his/her coffee, but his/her friend pays for it. (+F, m) 6. A student is preparing for a test. S/he asks a male classmate who often gets. 政治大. good grades to help him/her. This classmate spends an hour teaching him/her. (-F, m). 立. 7. A student asks a female classmate who sits by window to close the window. ‧ 國. 學. because it’s cold. This classmate does that for him/her. (-F, f). ‧. 8. A student missed classes due to illness. S/he borrows notes from a good female friend. His/her friend lends the notes to him/her. (+F, f). y. Nat. sit. 9. A student receives a birthday present from his/her good female friend. (+F, f). n. al. er. io. 10. A student is told to have dropped his/her wallet on the bus by a female classmate. (-F, f). Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 11. A student is going to walk to another building for his/her class. It’s raining heavily, so s/he asks a good female friend if they can walk together under an umbrella of this friend’s. The friend agrees to share the umbrella. (+F, f) 12. A student asks a good female friend when to hand in English homework. This friend tells him/her the deadline. (+F, f) 13. A student are walking to the classroom with several things in both hands. A good male friend helps him/her carry them. (+F, m) 14. A student borrows a CD by his/her favorite singer from a female classmate. This classmate agrees to let the student keep it for a few days. (-F, f) 30.

(47) 15. A student is in a computer lab. S/he cannot use the computer by following what the teacher says. S/he asks a male classmate for help. This classmate tells him/her what to do. (-F, m) 16. A student asks a male classmate who is going to the office to hand in your homework. This classmate agrees to bring it to the teacher. (-F, m) Procedure The DCT was piloted with 4 Taiwanese junior high school students and 5 American high school students. They were asked to rate 20 situations based on such. 治政 suggestions about a given situation. Based on their 大 feedback, a few situations were 立 deleted and the combinations of contextual variables were altered. For example, a questions as experience in a given situation, the degree of gratefulness and. ‧ 國. 學. school bus situation was omitted because it was not familiar to all students. In the. ‧. umbrella situation, the value of low familiarity was changed to high familiarity. Finally, 16 cross-culturally equivalent and common situations were devised for the. sit. y. Nat. main study.. n. al. er. io. Twenty native speakers of American English were chosen from several English. i n U. v. learning websites. The researchers contacted the American participants by email to. Ch. engchi. ask whether they agreed to participate in the study. If yes, they took the online questionnaire, followed by the background information survey. About 60 native American English speakers had responded to the questionnaire. The incomplete and invalid ones were deleted. In the main study, all Taiwanese learners took a test from the GEPT Elementary reading test first. The overall score is 120, and the score range was divided into three sections. The low level was below 44, the mid level between 45-101, and the high level above 102. The reading test was intended to differentiate the Chinese using Chinese from the EFL learners. Those who scored below 44 were assigned to the NSC 31.

(48) group, and those above 102 the EFL group. The Chinese version of the DCT was administered to the NSC group. The English version of the DCT was administered to the EFL and NSE group. After completing the DCT, the participants filled out a background information survey. It took the participants about 17 minutes to complete the DCT and the background survey. Data Analysis Coding Scheme. 治政 classifications of thanking strategies (Cheng, 2006; Eisenstein 大 & Bodman, 1986, 立 1993; Li, 2004; Li, 2010; Li, 2008), the coding scheme contained five main strategies: Each response was coded into one of the main strategies. Based on previous. ‧ 國. 學. Thanking, Apology, Others, Opt out and Combination. Each thanking sequence. ‧. consists of a head act, which is optionally preceded or followed by a number of semantic components. The head act is the minimal unit that can realize the speech act. y. Nat. sit. of thanking (Blum-Kulka, et al., 1989) and consists of a single lexical item such as. n. al. er. io. thank, thanks or appreciate. For example, in this sequence ‘Thank you so much. I. i n U. v. promise I’ll repay you somehow.’, ‘Thank you so much’ is identified as the head act. Ch. engchi. and ‘I promise I’ll repay you somehow.’ the semantic component, which states the speaker’s intent to repay the favor. All strategies were explained and presented as follows: (1) Thanking strategies: Utterances that consist of the head act, which may be followed by intensifiers such as very much and so much or by the name of the addressee to whom gratitude is expressed. The head act may also be preceded by the attention getter such as oh, wow and my god. The preceding or following semantic component(s) either indicate(s) the object of gratitude or reinforce(s) the expression of gratitude. It comprises a number of sub-strategies as follows: 32.

(49) A. Thanking: Utterances that include the head act only. For example: English: Thanks.. (S1: lending a pen; NSE). Thank you so much.. (S2: buying lunch; NSE). Oh my god thanks a lot.. (S10: notifying the owner; NSE). Thanks girl.. (S8: lending the notes; NSE). Chinese: xièxie 謝謝。. (S1: a pen; NSC). gǎnxìe nǐ la 感謝你啦!. (S2: lunch; NSC). 政治大 semantic component, which states either (a) the beneficial act or (b) the 立. B. Thanking + stating reason: Utterances that contain both the head act and the. imposition caused by the beneficial act. For example:. ‧ 國. 學. English: Thanks for letting me use your pen.. ‧. Chinese: xièxie nǐ bāng wǒ mǎi wǔ cān 謝謝你幫我買午餐。. (S1: a pen; NSE) (S2: lunch; NSC). Nat. sit. y. C. Thanking + complimenting interlocutor/object of gratitude: Utterances that contain. n. al. er. io. both the head act and the semantic component, which conveys positive emotions. i n U. v. about either (a) the addressee or (b) the object of the favor. For example:. Ch. engchi. English: Thanks! You’re a life saver.. Thanks so much. That CD is awesome. Chinese: xièxie nǐ hǎo rèxīn o 謝謝！你好熱心喔。. (S2: lunch; NSE) (S14: lending a CD; NSE) (S3: picking up things; NSC). nǐ bǐjìzuò de chāo hǎo de, xièxie 你筆記做得超好的，謝謝。 lǐwù hěn bang, xièxie 禮物很棒，謝謝。. (S8: notes; NSC). (S9: giving a birthday present; NSC). D. Thanking + stating intent to reciprocate: Utterances that include both the head act and the semantic component, which states the speaker’s intent to repay the favor by either (a) offering or promising money, goods or service or (b) indicating 33.