Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of the language of requests made on the telephone by native English speakers, Japanese speakers,… Haisa, Akihiko 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-0353.pdf [ 5.7MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078090.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078090-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078090-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078090-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078090-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078090-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078090-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078090-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078090.ris

Full Text

A STUDY OF THE LANGUAGE OF REQUESTS MADE ON THE TELEPHONE BY NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS, JAPANESE SPEAKERS, AND JAPANESE ESL SPEAKERS by Akihiko Haisa Bachelor of English Literature Sophia University, 1980 A MASTERS THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Language Education) We accept t h i s Masters Thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH' COLUMBIA July 1995 ^ A k i h i k o Haisa, 1995 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis "for scholarly purposes may be [granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is j understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. • Department of L<Xtyi*ASj* Eof (Aod- ( The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date J w . / / 2-C /??S~ r 1—; DE-6 (2788) 11 ABSTRACT In t h i s study, the language of requests made on the telephone by native English speakers, Japanese speakers, and Japanese ESL speakers was compared and analyzed i n two tasks. Each group consisted of 2 0 subjects who were involved i n an o r a l r o l e play to e l i c i t conversational data. Politeness, influence of s i t u a t i o n a l variables on language use, and pragmatic transfer were analyzed i n openings, requests, thankings, and closings. Japanese ESL speakers preferred to use preparatory expressions such as, "Could (Would) you ...?" or d i r e c t expressions such as, "I want you to ...?", while native English speakers tended to use more i n d i r e c t expressions such as, "I was wondering or, "I'm hoping that you would...". Japanese ESL speakers also transferred t h e i r LI s e n s i t i v i t y to s o c i a l status variables to t h e i r L2 usage. They did not use greetings such as, "Hi", "How are you?", or enthusiastic expressions such as, "Great" and "Wonderful", which were preferred by. native English speakers. Pragmatic transfer was analyzed i n t h e i r interlanguage. F i n a l l y , implications for teaching English for communication were presented. I l l TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Problem 1 1. 2 Background 2 1.3 Purpose of the study 5 1.4 Research questions 6 1. 5 D e f i n i t i o n s 6 1.6 Conclusion 8 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 9 2.0 Introduction 9 2.1 Speech act theory 9 2 . 2 Communication Theory 12 2.2.1 Cooperative p r i n c i p l e s 12 2.2.2 Discourse analysis..'. 14 2.3 Politeness theory 18 2.3.1 Early works on politeness theory 18 2.3.2 An expanded framework for a politeness theory..21 2.4 Previous studies 26 2.4.1 CCSARP 26 2.4.2 Findings from CCSARP 29 2.4.3 Methodological problems with CCSARP 33 2.4.4 A role play study of requests 35 2.5 Pragmatic transfer and Japanese s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s 37 2.5.1 Pragmatic transfer 37 2.5.2 Pragmalinguistic transfer 38 2.5.3 Sociopragmatic transfer 4 0 2.5.4 Japanese s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s 42 2.5.5 A model of pragmatic transfer i n requests 44 2.6 Conclusion 4 7 CHAPTER THREE: DESIGN OF THE STUDY 50 3.0 Introduction 50 3.1 Research s i t e 50 3.2 Subjects and volunteer research assistants 51 3.3 Instruments 53 3.3.1 Pre-study questionnaire 53 3.3.2 An open-ended o r a l role play 54 3.3.3 Post-study questionnaire 56 3.4 Procedures 57 3.5 Data analyses 60 3.6 Conclusion 64 i v CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 65 4.0 Introduction 65 4.1 Background of subjects 65 4.1.1 Background of Native Speakers of English 65 4.1.2 Background of Japanese Speakers of English 66 4.1.3 Background of Native Speakers of Japanese 68 4.2 Inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y 69 4.3 Analysis of openings ...70 4.4 Analysis of requests 82 4.5 Analysis of thankings 101 4.6 Analysis of closings 103 4.7 Analysis of apologies and promises of reward 107 4.8 Conclusion 108 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 110 5.0 Introduction 110 5.1 The problem and rationale for the study 110 5.1.1 The problem 110 5.1.2 Rationale for the study I l l 5.2 Literature review and pragmatic transfer models 112 5.2.1 Literature review 112 5.2.2 Pragmatic transfer models i n making requests..116 5.3 Methodology 117 5.4 Findings and pragmatic transfer models 118 5.4.1 Findings 118 5.4.2 Pragmatic transfer models and the findings....121 5.5 Implications for teaching 123 5.6 Limitations of the study 124 5.7 Implications for future research 126 5.8 Conclusion 127 REFERENCES 128 APPENDIX A: Pre-study questionnaire (NSE) 137 APPENDIX B: Pre-study questionnaire (JSE, NSJ) 138 APPENDIX C: Instruction sheet for subjects 13 9 APPENDIX D: Instruction sheet for VRAs (professors) 140 APPENDIX E: Instruction sheet for VRAs (friends) 141 APPENDIX F: Given s i t u a t i o n No.l 142 APPENDIX G: Given s i t u a t i o n No. 2. ...... 143 APPENDIX H: Post-study questionnaire for the task No.l 144 APPENDIX I: Post-study questionnaire for the task No.2 145 V LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Inter-rater R e l i a b i l i t y 69 Table 2 Opening Sequence 70 Table 3 /Answering Pattern of the Called 71 Table 4 ID Sequence When the Called Stated Her/His Name i n the F i r s t Utterance 73 Table 5 Results of the Post-study questionnaire No.3 74 Table 6 The Reason for Answering "No" i n Question No.3 74 Table 7 ID Sequence When the Called did not State Her/His name i n the F i r s t Utterance 75 Table 8 The Use of T i t l e i n the Address Term 76 Table 9 The Use of the Name i n the Address Term 76 Table 10 Greeting Sequence 79 Table 11 How-are-you Sequence 81 Table 12 Checking on A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preparator (Pre-request) 83 Table 13 Language Use of Preparator i n English 84 Table 14 Language Use of Preparator i n Japanese 85 Table 15 Grounders (Pre-request) 87 Table 16 Results of the Post-study questionnaire No.l 88 Table 17 Grounders (Post-request) 89 Table 18 Sweeteners, Disarmers, Cost Minimizers (Pre-request) 90 Table 19 Sweeteners, Disarmers, Cost Minimizers (Post-request) 90 Table 20 Total of Sweeteners, Disarmers, Cost Minimizers.... 91 Table 21 Total of Supportive Moves 92 Table 22 Directness Level 94 v i Table 23 Politeness Level of Head Acts 95 Table 24 Results of the Post-study questionnaire No.4 i n the Second Task 96 Table 25 Politeness Level of Head Acts 98 Table 26 Results of the Post-study questionnaire No.2 99 Table 27 Thanking Sequence 101 Table 28 Closing Sequence 104 Table 29 Language Use of Thanking i n English 105 Table 30 Language Use of Thanking i n Japanese 106 Table 31 Language Use of Goodbyes 106 Table 32 Apology for C a l l i n g the Requestee at Home and Promise of Reward • 107 V l l ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to express my hearty thanks to many teachers and friends who have helped make t h i s study possible. F i r s t and foremost, I would l i k e to thank my adviser, Dr. Lee Gunderson, who has helped me f u l f i l l my study with his sincere and continued support and encouragement. His considerate guidance has always kept me i n the right d i r e c t i o n i n my study and made i t possible for me to have a precious and unforgettable experience at the M.A. programme. I would also l i k e to express my special thanks to Dr. John Shapiro and Dr. Kenneth Slade, my other committee members, fo r t h e i r valuable comments and suggestions. I owe a debt of thanks to Dr. Kiyofumi Kawaguchi, B i l l McMichael, Sheri Wenman, Yumi Yasuda, and Jean Hamilton, the s t a f f members of UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic Exchange Programme, who made i t possible for me to conduct my research at UBC-Ritsumeikan House. I would l i k e to thank Dr. P a t r i c i a Duff, who advised me i n designing the study, Dr. Richard Berwick, who gave me suggestions for the procedures, Dr. Marion Crowhurst, who assisted me i n fi n d i n g sources for analyzing conversational data, and Dr. Bernie Mohan, who gave me access to his class for r e c r u i t i n g subjects. I would l i k e to express special thanks to Debra Clarke, who has always encouraged, Laura Carney, who gave me the i n s p i r a t i o n to f i n d the d i r e c t i o n of my study, Linda Hayward, who as s i s t e d me i n conducting the p i l o t study, and Richard Beaudry, Garold Murray, Elizabeth Crittenden, Naoto Himeno, and Yuko Miyaji, who were w i l l i n g to help me as volunteer assistants i n conducting the experiment. I am also indebted to Ritsumeikan University students and undergraduate students i n the Language Education Department at UBC, who agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e as subjects. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank my wife, Saori, and my two sons, Yu and Tomo, for accompanying me to Canada and making my dream come true. Without the support of a number of people, I could not have accomplished t h i s study. 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter begins with a statement of the problem followed by the background of the present study. Next, the purpose of the thesis and questions pursued i n t h i s research are s p e c i f i e d with a statement of the significance of the study. F i n a l l y , key working d e f i n i t i o n s are explained. 1.1 PROBLEM M i l l i o n s of individuals around the world attempt to learn English. Indeed, English i s perceived as the language of business and science. A major goal of English i n s t r u c t i o n has been to produce competent language users. One of the most d i f f i c u l t tasks for learners of English as a foreign language i s to learn to be able to communicate by telephone, e s p e c i a l l y to learn the c u l t u r a l l y appropriate strategies to make requests on the telephone. Success i n business may often hinge on an indi v i d u a l ' s pragmatic knowledge of speech acts as they are related to communications on the telephone. The problem i s that there i s l i t t l e research exploring learners' understanding and use of speech acts related to the pragmatics of making requests on the telephone. While many studies have analyzed speech act data e l i c i t e d from written questionnaires, there i s a serious lack of research into the 2 conversational discourse of foreign language learners. Such a lack of research makes i t d i f f i c u l t for both teachers and learners to i d e n t i f y sources of d i f f i c u l t y i n the performance of making requests and for researchers to develop and confirm second language theories related to learning requests. 1.2 BACKGROUND In recent years teachers of English have become more aware of the sig n i f i c a n c e of "communicative competence", a notion f i r s t introduced by Hymes (1964). Hymes (1967) points out that "communicative competence includes not only the l i n g u i s t i c forms of a language, but also a knowledge of when, how, and to whom i t i s important to use these forms" (cited i n Scarcella, 1979, p.275). For learners of a second language (L2), the a b i l i t y to use appropriate s o c i o c u l t u r a l rules of speaking i s an important aspect of such competence (Cohen & Olshtain, 1981). English education i n Japan i s known to put too much emphasis on grammatical knowledge, where l i n g u i s t i c forms of English are exclus i v e l y taught regardless of t h e i r communicative aspects i n context (Tanaka, 1988). Though the idea of communicative competence has slowly gained acceptance among teachers of English i n Japan, they seem to have great d i f f i c u l t y f i n ding appropriate methods of teaching the functional aspects of language. Making requests i s one of the most important communicative performances i n d a i l y l i f e . For example, the communicative function of the crying of a new-born baby can be regarded as a 3 request for milk or something related to comfort. The frequency of children's utterances such as "Can I have one?", "Catch me!", "Look!" and "My turn" i n the playground also shows that requests are an important function i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n with peers. Younger children tend to make e x p l i c i t requests l i k e "gimme a cookie", or they state t h e i r needs and wants d i r e c t l y l i k e "I'm hungry/I want a cookie" (Ervin-Tripp and Gordon, 1986; Ervin-Tripp, 1987). Competent mature speakers, however, are expected to use appropriate forms, which are c u l t u r a l l y and s o c i a l l y accepted among speakers i n a given context, for the successful achievement of t h e i r request goals. A request i n any c u l t u r a l context i s regarded as a face-threatening act (FTA) that requires the requester to u t i l i z e c e r t a i n strategies to minimize the "face threat" (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987). Politeness i s a key strategy to avoid threatening the face of the requestee. In order to save the requestee's face, the requester needs to be careful i n choosing an appropriate p o l i t e expression from a wide v a r i e t y of l i n g u i s t i c forms which function as requests. According to Brown and Levinson, the choice of politeness strategies i s affected by three independent variables: the s o c i a l distance (D) between speaker and hearer, t h e i r r e l a t i v e power (P), and "the absolute ranking (R) of impositions i n the p a r t i c u l a r culture" (1978, p. 79). In other words, politeness strategies i n making requests are motivated by f a m i l i a r i t y (social distance) and s o c i a l or contextual status ( r e l a t i v e 4 power), i n addition to s i t u a t i o n a l variables such as the necessity of the requests and the ease of carrying out the requests (ranking of impositions) (Scollon & Scollon, 1983; Kitao, 1988, 1989) . Furthermore, c u l t u r a l differences and in d i v i d u a l variables such as age, gender, and l i n g u i s t i c competence are also i n f l u e n t i a l factors i n the case of foreign language learners. Politeness strategies i n actual s i t u a t i o n s are conducted i n a complicated combination of these varia b l e s . The choice of the appropriate request forms i s problematic for Japanese learners of English. The Japanese language has a conventional l i n g u i s t i c device c a l l e d "honorifics" for s i g n a l l i n g politeness. This i s large l y influenced by s o c i a l status variables i n the Japanese h i e r a r c h i c a l society (Nakane, 1967; Matsumoto, 1988, 1989). Since English does not have the equivalent grammatically p o l i t e forms but uses d i f f e r e n t strategies to show politeness, Japanese speakers of English often have d i f f i c u l t y i n communicating the intended politeness i n English. Though much research has been conducted i n the area of requests, there are def i c i e n c i e s r e l a t i n g to the methodologies that have been pointed out (Kasper & Dahl, 1991; Rose, 1992, 1994). The majority of speech act research.has r e l i e d almost exc l u s i v e l y on written questionnaires such as the Discourse Completion Test (DCT) because of i t s convenience i n c o l l e c t i n g data (Beebe and Takahashi, 1990). The results of DCT research, however, lacks v a l i d i t y e s p e c i a l l y i n the case of requests made 5 by Japanese subjects who are known to be vague and i n d i r e c t i n t h e i r actual interactions. Rose (1992) found that Japanese learners of English chose to hint for a request more frequently on multiple choice questionnaires than on DCTs. Since the DCT i s a written questionnaire where subjects are asked to f i l l i n the empty sl o t s i n a given dialogue, the p a r t i c i p a n t s might develop t h e i r best possible responses without any pressure (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986). On the other hand, natural conversations usually involve multiple interactions and negotiations, containing openings and closings, where a requester usually t r i e s to f i n d an appropriate strategy. Therefore, the r e s u l t s of a written questionnaire might not r e f l e c t important aspects of requests i n actual conversations. In order to account for these problems, t h i s researcher set out to analyze contrastively the whole discourse of making requests on the telephone by native speakers of English (NSE), Japanese speakers of English (JSE), and native speakers of Japanese (NSJ) i n r e l a t i v e l y controlled contexts. 1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of t h i s study was to investigate conversational features of requests on the telephone by native speakers of English (NSE), Japanese speakers of English (JSE), and native speakers of Japanese (NSJ). A l l the data was e l i c i t e d from open-ended o r a l role plays performed by u n i v e r s i t y students and analyzed i n terms of politeness features, influence of s o c i a l 6 status variables, and pragmatic transfer i n the interlanguage. The analysis was intended to provide data that have implications for both research and practice i n teaching communicative competence. 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS (1) What are the s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences i n the conversational features of NSE, JSE, and NSJ i n the discourse of making requests on the telephone? (openings, requests, thankings, and closings) (2) What are the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of politeness manifested i n the discourse of making requests by NSE, JSE, and NSJ? (3) How do s o c i a l status variables i n given contexts influence politeness features and the language use of NSE, JSE, and NSJ? (4) Does pragmatic transfer occur i n the interlanguage of JSE? If i t does, how does i t occur? 1.5 DEFINITIONS Closing: The ending part of a telephone conversation, which st a r t s just a f t e r a requester or a requestee makes a f i n a l statement or confirmation of promise concerning the speaker's request. Context: The whole s i t u a t i o n i n which the conversation i s c a r r i e d out. In t h i s study, context means the s i t u a t i o n given to 7 subj ects. Discourse: A large unit of spoken language i n which smaller units of conversational utterances are inte r a c t i n g to r e a l i z e a c e r t a i n goal. Function: The intended meanings or goals for which an utterance or unit of language i s used. L i n g u i s t i c forms: Grammatical and semantic manifestations of elements expressed i n spoken language. The grammatical structure or the semantically propositional meaning may have a v a r i e t y of functions. NSE: Native speakers of English i n t h i s study represent the native speakers of English i n Canada. Therefore "English" used i n t h i s study refers to Canadian English which r e f l e c t s the Canadian culture. Opening: The beginning part of a conversation on the telephone, which s t a r t s from the phone ringing and ends just before moving into the part r e l a t i n g to requests. Post-request: The part of an utterance r e l a t i n g to a request which comes a f t e r the core request. 8 Pre-request: The part of an utterance r e l a t i n g to a request which comes before the core request. So c i a l status variables: Factors a f f e c t i n g the data which have to do with the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n of interlocutors i n society. This study establishes two variables which might a f f e c t making a request. One i s a request from lower to higher status person. The other i s a request to a person of equal status. Speech act: An utterance which serves as a functional unit i n conversation. This term i n the present study refers to the smaller unit of making a request i n the whole discourse of a telephone conversation. Thanking: A requester's expressions of appreciation when her/his request i s accepted by the requestee for the f i r s t time i n the whole discourse. 1.6 CONCLUSION The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem and the purpose of t h i s study has been reviewed i n Chapter One. The need and importance of conducting a discourse analysis of requests has been explained. Following-this, four research questions have been presented, and f i n a l l y , the d e f i n i t i o n s of key terms used i n t h i s study have been provided. 9 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter contains a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on theories and studies related to the speech act of requests. It begins with an overview of the major theories contributing to the studies of speech acts, discourse analysis, and politeness. This i s followed by an overview of previous studies c a r r i e d out i n the area of requests. The methodological problems i n the previous studies are also addressed. F i n a l l y , reviews of pragmatic transfer and Japanese s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s are presented, which underscore the importance of taking c u l t u r a l aspects into consideration when conducting a contrastive discourse analysis of making requests. 2.1 SPEECH ACT THEORY Speech act theory has been discussed and developed by many theorist s and researchers since Austin (1962) f i r s t introduced i t as an important aspect of language use. He demonstrated that people use words not only for expressing cer t a i n content ("constatives") but also for performing acts ("performatives). He recognized that "to 'say' something i s to 'do' something . . . by saying or i n saying something we are doing something" (p. 11). Thus, acknowledging that the use of "performatives" a c t u a l l y a f f e c t s and changes certa i n r e a l world conditions i n 10 some way, he introduced the concept of "speech acts". A request i s a speech act i n that i t i s intended to change the conditions between the requester and the requestee i n terms of cost and p r o f i t . Another important aspect of speech that Austin pointed out was the importance of context. He mentioned that contextual conditions must be met for performatives to be successful. For example, successful performatives require conventional procedures involving the utterance of certain words, the appropriateness of a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the situation, and the necessary thoughts, feelings, and intentions on the part of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . In other words, the performatives are successful only when used appropriately i n shared ground by community members. Austin (1962) also proposed that a p a r t i c u l a r utterance can mean more than the statement. For example, an utterance such as "There i s a b u l l i n the f i e l d " can be either.a description or an i m p l i c i t warning of danger depending on the context. Thus, acknowledging the d i f f i c u l t y i n distinguishing constatives from performatives, he introduced the following three categories to c l a s s i f y utterances: (1) the "locutionary act . . . which has a meaning"; (2) the " i l l o c u t i o n a r y act which has a c e r t a i n force i n saying something"; and (3) "the perlocutionary act which i s the achieving of c e r t a i n e f f e c t s by saying something" (1962, p. 121) . Austin's work i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n the sense that he shed l i g h t on the functional aspects of utterances and also alerted l i n g u i s t s to the importance of paying attention to the context i n 11 which utterances are made. His insights i n i t i a t e d subsequent studies of indirectness i n speech act theory. Based on Austin's speech act theory, Searle (1969, 1975) discussed the existence of ind i r e c t speech acts, which oblige the hearer to perceive and understand the hidden meaning of the speaker's utterance through inferences based on context. As he put i t , " i t i s possible to perform [a speech] act without invoking an e x p l i c i t i l l o c u t i o n a r y f o r c e - i n d i c a t i n g device where the context and the utterance make i t clear that the e s s e n t i a l condition i s s a t i s f i e d " (1975, p. 68). Searle (1975) further questioned "how i t i s possible for [a] speaker to say one thing and mean that but also to mean something else" and also "how i t i s possible for the hearer to understand the i n d i r e c t speech act when the sentence he hears and understands means something else" (p. 60). For example, "Can you reach the s a l t ? " can be both a question and a request to pass the s a l t . He argued that the communication between the hearer and the speaker i n i n d i r e c t speech acts can be accomplished "by way of r e l y i n g on t h e i r mutually shared background information, both l i n g u i s t i c and non-linguistic, together with the general powers of r a t i o n a l i t y and inference on the part of the hearer" (p. 60-61) . Searle (1975) thought i t useful to study the area of di r e c t i v e s and categorized sentences used for making i n d i r e c t requests into s i x groups, focusing on the existence of various forms that function as requests. Searle (1975) pointed out that 12 some forms of i n d i r e c t speech acts tend to become conventionally established as standard idiomatic expressions. This view of conventionality would explain why there are l i n g u i s t i c and c u l t u r a l differences i n appropriateness of forms that function as requests. 2.2 COMMUNICATION THEORY 2.2.1 Cooperative P r i n c i p l e Grice (1975) noted that conversations are cooperative works i n that "each participant recognizes i n them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted d i r e c t i o n " (p. 45) and suggested that you should 'make your conversational contribution such as i s required, at the stage at which i t occurs, by the accepted purpose or d i r e c t i o n of the t a l k exchange i n which you are engaged' (p. 45). Based on t h i s idea, Grice introduced the following four maxims as c r i t e r i a for cooperative communication (p. 45-46). 1. Quantity: Make your contribution as informative as i s required (for the current purposes of the exchange). Do not make your contribution more informative than i s required. 2. Quality: Try to make your contribution one that i s true. Do not say what you believe to be f a l s e . Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. 13 3. Relation: Be relevant. 4. Manner: Be perspicuous. Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Be b r i e f (avoid unnecessary p r o l i x i t y ) . Be orderly. The p r i n c i p l e and these maxims characterize i d e a l and e f f e c t i v e exchange i n conversation. However, they are not i n v i o l a b l e rules of conversation as Grice pointed out.. In our d a i l y conversations, speakers do not always follow the maxims, rather they often v i o l a t e them. By v i o l a t i n g the maxims, they may implicate something d i f f e r e n t from what they a c t u a l l y say. For example, a recommendation l e t t e r that has only two short sentences might v i o l a t e the maxim of Quantity, which, as a r e s u l t , implies that the candidate has l i t t l e to recommend. Indirect requests are regarded as a v i o l a t i o n of the maxim of Manner, the implicature of which was found to be the motivation of politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1978). Thus Grice's four maxims provide a useful interpretive framework for generating a conversational implicature by thinking about instances where the maxims are v i o l a t e d . His theory of conversation, however, has been c r i t i c i z e d for not taking s o c i a l variables into consideration i n language use. Matsumoto (1989) stated that Grice's theory " i s based on the propositional content of utterances" and f a i l s to explain the s a l i e n t aspect of Japanese conversation (p. 215). For example, Grice's theory cannot explain differences between two Japanese 14 sentences which have the same propositional meaning but d i f f e r e n t indications i n terms of interlocutors' f a m i l i a r i t y and r e l a t i v e s o c i a l status. In Japanese, s o c i a l contexts are automatically encoded as s p e c i f i c forms i n any type of utterance. Therefore, Grice's theory misses an important maxim r e f e r r i n g to s o c i a l or contextual relevance i n conversation (Matsumoto, 1989) . Holmes (1990) also made a sim i l a r comment, r e f e r r i n g to Western s o c i e t i e s , that Grice's maxims "do not take account of the paramount importance of s o c i a l and a f f e c t i v e goals i n conversational exchanges" (p. 157). For example, Grice d i d not o f f e r any means to distinguish "Good morning, s i r " from "Yo, what's up, my man", which have almost the same propositional content as a greeting (cited from Rose, 1992, p. 14) . These examples suggest that the Grice's p r i n c i p l e s need another maxim concerning expected forms i n given s o c i a l contexts, the v i o l a t i o n of which would explain some kinds of implicature. 2.2.2 Discourse analysis Goffman (1976) t r i e d to sort out the possible universal constraints i n communication and contributed to the construction of a framework for discourse analysis. He divided these constraints into two types: one i s system constraints and the other i s r i t u a l constraints. System constraints are universal components required for a l l communication systems and r i t u a l constraints are the s o c i a l constraints which make conversation flow smoothly i n given contexts. 15 One of the important system constraints to be considered i n t h i s study i s the opening and closing sequence on the phone. In a l l communication, there must be channel open-and-close signals that show the way to open and close the channel of communication. These signals vary depending on the channel such as phone c a l l s , l e t t e r s , and face-to-face communication. The description of these signals and how they d i f f e r according to context are an important part of discourse analysis (Hatch, 1992). Schegloff (1968) described the following four i d e n t i f i a b l e sequential parts i n the opening of an American telephone conversation: (1) summon-answer sequence, (2) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (ID) sequence, (3) greeting sequence, and (4) how-are-you sequence. He demonstrated that openings of a telephone conversation consist of more than a simple "Hello". In American phone conversations, i t i s frequently the c a l l e d who says, "Hello" f i r s t . The f i r s t "Hello" from the c a l l e d represents an answer to the ringing of the telephone which i s regarded as a summon. Then, the c a l l e r or the c a l l e d t r i e s to i d e n t i f y who i s on the phone.. The following example demonstrates that both the c a l l e r and the c a l l e d i d e n t i f y the other from the minimal voice sample. (phone ringing) A: Hello B: Hi A: Hi, XXXX. 16 According to Schegloff (1979), the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n only from voice samples i s highly graded and preferred i n American conversation. The next example demonstrates "Hi" as a greeting sequence, following the ID sequence. (phone ringing) A: Hello B: Hi A: Hi, XXXX (B's name). B: Hi, YYYY (A's name). (summon-answer sequence) (ID sequence) (ID sequence) (greeting sequence) What distinguishes "Hi" as a greeting from that of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s that the former "Hi" cannot be repeated, though the l a t t e r can be. However, one "Hi" can serve both as an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and greeting (Hatch, 1992). Following the greeting sequence, "How are you?" might be exchanged between the interlocutors as a bridge to the f i r s t t opic. The opening sequence w i l l be followed by a conversational exchange on certa i n topics which are probably related to the reason for the c a l l . F i n a l l y , the conversation concludes with the c l o s i n g sequence. It i s often d i f f i c u l t to determine where c l o s i n g signals begin. But i t has been found that pre-closing signals such as "Well", "So", and "Okay" are usually used with f a l l i n g intonation i n English, and the s h i f t from pre-closing to cl o s i n g i s accomplished cooperatively. In addition, one of the factors i n 17 closings was found to be repetitions or confirmations of promises made i n the previous conversation (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973) . Thus, the opening and closing sequences as system constraints can be systematically described according to the channel used i n communication. The four sub-sequences i n the phone opening proposed by Schegloff (1968), however, have to. be described as r i t u a l constraints because the sequences and signals were observed commonly i n American English on the telephone and might not necessarily be applied to other languages. For example, openings of French phone c a l l s d i f f e r from those of Americans i n that phone c a l l s are perceived as an in t r u s i o n and the c a l l e r f e e l s some obligation to v e r i f y the number, i d e n t i f y herself/himself, and be excused for intruding (Godard, 1979) . Rit u a l constraints demonstrate the system of appropriateness which i s required for smooth s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and communication i n given contexts. Goffman (1976) noted that " r i t u a l concerns are patently dependent on c u l t u r a l d e f i n i t i o n and can be expected to vary quite markedly from society to society" (p. 267). Therefore, the r i t u a l constraints are indispensable factors to be taken into consideration when dealing with c r o s s - c u l t u r a l analyses of conversation. It seems that system constraints refer to the universal functions i n human communication. On the other hand, r i t u a l constraints r e f e r to c u l t u r a l l y and l i n g u i s t i c a l l y varied forms representing the universal functions. While Goffman (1976) proposed the u n i v e r s a l i t y of function i n communication, he also 18 recognized that the forms to r e a l i z e functions d i f f e r from language to language and from culture to culture. 2.3 POLITENESS THEORY 2.3.1 Early works on politeness theory The early works on politeness were i n i t i a t e d by Goffman (1955, 1967), and were followed and expanded by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987). Levinson (1983) stated that most speech acts are i n d i r e c t and that there i s a wide v a r i e t y of forms to express the same intention i n d i r e c t l y . Brown and Levinson (1978) thought that politeness was one of the key functions to explain the d i v e r s i t y and indirectness of forms. Lakoff (1972) also maintained that the choice of form of expression i n conversation i s mostly motivated by politeness. The underlying notion i s that speakers and hearers are expected to consider the feelings of others and use politeness as a means of n e u t r a l i z i n g p o t e n t i a l l y offensive actions i n achieving smooth communication (Lakoff, 1989). Politeness i s e s p e c i a l l y important i n making requests because the success of the requester's desired goal depends very much on her/his choice of forms of expression. Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) proposed a comprehensive politeness theory by expanding the concept of "face" i n i t i a l l y introduced by Goffman (1955). They explained the function of l i n g u i s t i c politeness concerning face as one of the communicative 19 strategies to maintain and develop interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s : . . . a l l component adult members of a society have (and know each other to have) 'face', the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting i n two re l a t e d aspects: (a) negative face: the basic claim to t e r r i t o r i e s , personal preserves, rights to non-distraction - i . e . to freedom of action and freedom from imposition, (b) p o s i t i v e face: the po s i t i v e consistent self-image or 'personality' ( c r u c i a l l y including the desire that t h i s self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants. (Brown & Levinson, 1978, p. 66) They assumed that some speech acts could i n t r i n s i c a l l y threaten face and be p o t e n t i a l l y "face-threatening acts" (FTAs). A request i s one of these acts since i t imposes on the requestee for a future e f f o r t or cost to carry out the request. If one wants to make requests, s/he has to use some strategies to minimize the FTAs. Brown and Levinson (1978) proposed the following f i v e possible strategies when FTAs are to be conducted: (1) do an act baldly without redress ( i . e . A speaker makes a request "baldly" without acknowledging the hearer's face wants.) (2) p o s i t i v e politeness (i . e . A speaker makes a request acknowledging the 20 hearer's p o s i t i v e face wants.) (3) negative politeness (i . e . A speaker makes a request acknowledging the hearer's negative face wants.) (4) o f f record (i . e . A speaker implies a request i n a vague manner such as hinting.) (5) don't do the FTA (i . e . A speaker does not make a request.) The f i r s t strategy i s not p o l i t e . The l a s t strategy i s p o l i t e but i t does not achieve the requested goal. The f o r t h strategy only hints and may not achieve the requested goal. Therefore, politeness strategies can be either p o s i t i v e or negative when one uses FTAs. Positive politeness i s oriented toward, s a t i s f y i n g the p o s i t i v e face of a hearer, which includes strategies such as using in-group markers, avoiding disagreement, and r a i s i n g common ground. These strategies are used by a speaker to s a t i s f y the hearer's need for approval and belonging, sometimes by i n d i c a t i n g s o l i d a r i t y with the hearer's self-image. On the other hand, negative politeness i s oriented toward a hearer's negative face, which includes strategies such as being conventionally i n d i r e c t , questioning, hedging, giving deference, apologizing, etc. These strategies are used by a speaker to s a t i s f y the hearer's negative face by avoiding or minimizing the 21 imposition of a FTA on the hearer. Both p o s i t i v e and negative politeness strategies are generally motivated by a speaker's desire to save face on the part of the hearer. Furthermore, as already mentioned, Brown and Levinson (1978) proposed three variables to determine the degree of weightiness of a FTA. (1) the ' s o c i a l distance' (D) of S[peaker] and H[earer] (2) the r e l a t i v e 'power' of S[peaker] and H[earer] (3) the absolute ranking (R) of impositions i n the p a r t i c u l a r culture (p. 79) The "weightiness" of an FTA was intended to be assessed by c a l c u l a t i n g the degree of these variables. For example, as Kitao (1988) pointed out, a request for a $100 loan has a higher imposition than that of one for $10, and thus i t requires more p o l i t e forms. However, the imposition can be minimized i f the requester i s i n a close relationship with the requestee (close s o c i a l distance) or the requester i s i n a p o s i t i o n to have the right to impose on the requestee for some reasons ( r e l a t i v e power). The requester i s obliged to choose an appropriate expression i n the complicated in t e r a c t i o n of these vari a b l e s . 2.3.2 An expanded framework for a politeness theory Brown and Levinson (1978) claim that t h e i r model fo r politeness i s universal, however, the u n i v e r s a l i t y of t h e i r 22 theory i s controversial and i s c r i t i c i z e d by researchers claiming that i t seems to have an ethnocentric bias (Wierzbicka, 1985a, 1985b, and 1991; Matsumoto, 1988, 1989). Politeness was defined as a face saving behaviour by Brown and Levinson (1978), however, the underlying notion of face i n Japan i s fundamentally d i f f e r e n t from that of many Western cultures because self-image for a Japanese person i s not as an independent i n d i v i d u a l but as a group member having a c e r t a i n r e l a t i o n to others i n a society (Matsumoto, 1988). Politeness i s motivated and achieved, not by preserving the hearer's own t e r r i t o r y , but by acknowledging and accepting "the p o s i t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to the others i n the group" (Matsumoto, 1988, p. 405). In order to acknowledge t h e i r r e l a t i v e positions, Japanese people are obliged to use l i n g u i s t i c devices such as h o n o r i f i c s and p l a i n or neutral forms, the use of which automatically indicates where s/he stands i n r e l a t i o n to others. The existence of such devices always forces Japanese speakers to be aware of t h e i r r e l a t i v e interpersonal p o s i t i o n or rank with others i n the h i e r a r c h i c a l Japanese society (Nak'ane, 1967). The h i e r a r c h i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n s i n the society are r e f l e c t e d i n grammaticalized politeness i n Japanese. According to the r e l a t i o n to his/her interlocutors, the speaker has to choose grammatically appropriate p o l i t e forms out of the following three v a r i a t i o n s : (1) sonkeigo (referent honorifics) which i s used to show 23 respect or to honour the person to whom s/he refers (2) kenjogo (referent honorifics) which i s used to humble the person to whom s/he refers (3) teineigo (addressee honorifics) which i s used to indicate politeness to the other person regardless of hi e r a r c h i c a l relationships (Coulmas, 1992) In addition to these honorifics, there are "so-called neutral forms of verb-stems and p l a i n forms of predicate endings" (Matsumoto, 1988, p. 414). The neutral or p l a i n forms are usually used i n conversation among peers or with i n t e r l o c u t o r s younger than the speaker, while honorifics are always required when the speaker converses with older interlocutors than herself/himself. Thus, since even these neutral or p l a i n forms r e f l e c t some indications of the interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p between parti c i p a n t s i n a conversation, speakers are always required to consider how to act properly according to t h e i r r e l a t i v e interpersonal p o s i t i o n or rank with other members i n the hi e r a r c h i c a l society (Nakane, 1967). This means that a l l l i n g u i s t i c forms i n Japanese automatically manifest c e r t a i n connotations i d e n t i f y i n g the relationships between speakers and hearers (Matsumoto, 1988, 1989). This h o n o r i f i c system f a l l s into the strategy type c a l l e d "give deference", one of the negative politeness strategies i n Brown and Levinson's framework, where "S[peaker] humbles and abases himself" or "S [peaker] raises H[earer]" (Brown and 24 Levinson, 1978, p. 183). However, Brown & Levinson's theory focused only on the strategies motivated by the speaker's v o l i t i o n a l intention, which cannot f u l l y explain the automaticity of the language use embedded i n a society. H i l l et a l . (1986) and Ide (1987, 1989) t r i e d to expand Brown & Levinson's framework by adding two complimentary dimensions i n order to explain such an automatic aspect of l i n g u i s t i c politeness i n Japanese society. They are "discernment" and " v o l i t i o n " . Discernment refers to a passive submission to the requirement of s o c i a l system, or "conformity to the expected norm" ( H i l l et a l , 1986, p. 348). V o l i t i o n , on the other hand, refers to an active commitment to politeness strategies. The concept of v o l i t i o n i s mostly related to the p o s i t i v e and negative politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson (1978) i n that these politeness strategies were v o l i t i o n a l l y motivated by the speaker. This expanded framework seems to cover the functions of politeness i n both Western and Japanese cultures. The concept of discernment explains the manifestation of face and politeness i n Japanese society, while ^yolition w i l l explain the prominent politeness strategies i n Western culture as Brown and Levinson's theory does. It should be noted that both Western and Japanese cultures have the aspects of discernment and v o l i t i o n , however, the emphasis placed on these aspects d i f f e r s depending on the culture. Though theorists often tend to seek for the u n i v e r s a l i t y of 25 t h e i r theories, they must be careful i n claiming u n i v e r s a l i t y unless t h e i r theory can explain the whole notion of politeness c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y and can be supported by empirical research across other languages. Therefore, the expanded framework proposed by H i l l et a l . (1986) and Ide (1987, 1989) cannot claim u n i v e r s a l i t y without cros s - c u l t u r a l evidence. In addition, i t needs more elaboration and r e v i s i o n . For example, the framework lacks d e t a i l s i n the area related to etiquette, manner, and formulaic politeness conventions such as greetings (Ide, 1987). What should be included i n the framework i s the r e l a t i v e perception of politeness. Perception can be quite d i f f e r e n t from culture to culture and from context to context. According to a study by Ide et a l . (1992), the adjective 'Shitashigena' (friendly) was not as highly perceived as 'teineina' (polite) i n Japanese as i t was i n English. This implies the existence of a s l i g h t discrepancy i n perceiving politeness c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y . The perception of politeness may vary even i n a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous culture depending on context. For example, a loud inte r r u p t i o n i n a conversation, which i s usually viewed as impolite behaviour, w i l l not be considered impolite i f i t i s performed by a mentally incapacitated person (Fraser and Nolen, 1981). Moreover, one utterance can be both a p o l i t e and an impolite expression depending on how the hearer judges i t i n a given context (Fraser and Nolen, 1981). Fraser and Nolen (1981, p. 96) pointed out the following: 26 [w]hether or not an utterance i s heard as being p o l i t e depends t o t a l l y on the hearer: The speaker may intend to act p o l i t e l y , may intend to abide by the terms of the conventional contract... but f a i l ; he may also intend to act impolitely, but the hearer take him to be acting p o l i t e l y . Thus, since politeness i s a r e l a t i v e notion, r e l a t i v e to s o c i a l and discourse contexts, operating i n the dynamism of conversation, any e f f o r t to explain i t should not be i s o l a t e d from context, but be elaborated i n a whole discourse (Ikuta, 1988) . 2.4 PREVIOUS STUDIES 2.4.1 Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Pattern In recent years, the emphasis i n teaching and learning second language has s h i f t e d from a "grammatical" or " s t r u c t u r a l " approach to a "communicative" one (Widdowson, 1978; Canale and Swain, 1980) . This s h i f t has activated a number of research e f f o r t s i n the area of speech acts i n order to e s t a b l i s h s o c i o c u l t u r a l norms and rules across languages. The Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Pattern (CCSARP), i n i t i a t e d i n 1982 (see Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984), i s probably the largest speech act research project i n the world. This project focused on two speech acts, requests and apologies, i n a number of languages or v a r i e t i e s , t r y i n g to e s t a b l i s h cross-27 c u l t u r a l and c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c ' s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences i n the r e a l i z a t i o n of the speech acts. The data were e l i c i t e d from Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs), which were written questionnaires f i r s t developed by Blum and Levinston (1978) and adapted by Blum-Kulka (1982) to investigate speech act performance. The DCTs i n t h i s project consisted of sixteen short dialogues with an empty s l o t , following a b r i e f s i t u a t i o n a l description, eight each for requests and apologies. Subjects were asked to consider how they might respond i n a given s i t u a t i o n and to f i l l i n the blank i n each dialogue. The DCT was designed to account for how s o c i a l distance ( f a m i l i a r i t y ) and s o c i a l dominance (power) combined i n situations to a f f e c t t h e i r speech act r e a l i z a t i o n . Requests were chosen as one of the speech acts to be investigated i n CCSARP because, as a face-threatening act, they c a l l for redressive action and concern events that place an imposition mainly on the requestee for future e f f o r t s (Blum-Kulka, 1989). Furthermore, requests were i n t e r e s t i n g i n that they require careful consideration because of the complexity i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between propositional meanings of form and pragmatic function. A shared a n a l y t i c a l framework was designed for the cross-l i n g u i s t i c data analysis. The coding scheme, which was a major challenge for the project team, was developed on the basis of general t h e o r e t i c a l considerations and previous work i n the f i e l d 28 (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984). The utterance unit for the analysis of. a request sequence was divided into the following three segments: (a) a l e r t e r s ; (b) supportive moves; and (c) head acts (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper, 1989). For example, Judith, / I missed class yesterday, / do you think I could borrow your notes? (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989, p. 17) The sequence of t h i s utterance was broken down into three parts: (a) 'Judith' an a l e r t e r (address term); (b) 'I missed...' a supportive move (external modification) ; and (c) 'do you think....?' a head act (request proper). The supportive moves, as external modifications, are important segments that occur either before or a f t e r the core request for mitigating the i n t e n s i t y of the speaker's request (Faerch & Kasper, 1989). The supportive moves are divided into s i x sub-categories (checking on a v a i l a b i l i t y , preparator, grounder, sweetener, disarmer, and cost minimizer). Some elements operating within the head act are "not e s s e n t i a l for the utterance to be p o t e n t i a l l y understood as a request", therefore, they are defined as i n t e r n a l modifications (Blum-Kulka, 1984, p. 19). The int e r n a l modification i s divided into two sub-categories: upgraders ( i n t e n s i f i e r s and expletives) and downgraders (consultative device, understaters, hedges, and 29 downtowner) . The researchers taking part i n the CCSARP also i d e n t i f i e d syntactic downgraders which mitigate requests by purely syntactic means. Being linked to the grammatical systems, t h i s aspect i s s p e c i f i e d by language s p e c i f i c sub-categories, such as interrogatives, negation, past tense, and embedded ' i f clause. Furthermore, they demonstrated nine strategy types of requests as follows: (1) mood derivable ( i . e . Move your c a r ! ) ; (2) e x p l i c i t performatives ( i . e . I'm asking you to move your car); (3) hedged performatives (i.e. I have to ask you to move your car); (4) obligation statements ( i . e . You have to move your car); (5) want statements ( i . e . I want you to move your car); (6) suggestory formula (i.e. How about moving your car); (7) preparatory ( i . e . Can/Would you move your car); (8) strong hint ( i . e . Your car i s i n the way); and (9) mild hint ( i . e . We don't want any crowding), which were comprised under three larger categories of directness l e v e l : (a) the most d i r e c t , e x p l i c i t l e v e l ; (b) the conventionally i n d i r e c t l e v e l ; and (c) nonconventional i n d i r e c t l e v e l (Kasper, 1989). Most of these aspects described above are adapted and used for the analysis of requests i n t h i s thesis and explained i n more d e t a i l i n Chapter Three. 2.4.2 Findings from CCSARP Blum-Kulka and Olshtain .(1986) analyzed the requests of 172 native and 24 0 non-native Hebrew speakers at three l e v e l s of 30 pr o f i c i e n c y using data e l i c i t e d from the CCSARP project. They found that non-native speakers, e s p e c i a l l y high-intermediate learners, were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more long-winded than native speakers i n t h e i r use of external modifications such as reasons, j u s t i f i c a t i o n s , and cost minimizers for requests. Since non-native speakers were from diverse LI backgrounds, the researchers att r i b u t e d t h i s phenomenon not to LI transfer but to the learners' general lack of confidence, which might cause them to be overinformative aiming at contextual e x p l i c i t n e s s . This phenomenon of longer utterances by high-intermediate learners shows that l i n g u i s t i c competence i s not necessarily equivalent to pragmatic competence. Native speakers usually know appropriate expressions that function e f f e c t i v e l y i n a given context, however, i f non-native speakers do not know the appropriate way to express the intended function, i t i s predictable that they w i l l tend to elaborate more to get t h e i r intentions across. As a result, t h e i r utterances v i o l a t e Grice's maxim of Quantity. The v i o l a t i o n can be a po t e n t i a l cause for pragmatic f a i l u r e because i t might "weaken the force of the speech act" or "cause the hearer to react with impatience (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986, p. 175). Kasper (1989) investigated the relationship between directness and s i t u a t i o n a l variables. The subjects were native speakers of Danish (163), German (200), B r i t i s h English (100), Danish speakers of German (200), Danish speakers of English (200), and German speakers of English (200). 31 Kasper found that the use of a preparatory such as "Could you lend me your notes?" was the most common strategy employed by almost a l l of the subjects i n a l l situations c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c a l l y because i t represented a pervasive conventional indirectness. The use of the preparatory was also convenient i n that the force of the request was brought out unambiguously without l o s i n g the s o c i a l requirement for face-saving (1989, p. 47). It was also found that subjects tended to use r e l a t i v e l y d i r e c t expressions i n contexts where the requestee had an obli g a t i o n to comply with the requester's request or the requester had a strong compelling reasons for making the request. This indicated l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y i n making requests. On the other hand, the degree of directness was low i n contexts where the requestee had r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e o b ligation to comply or the requester had few rights for making the request (Kasper, 1989) . This indicated a greater d i f f i c u l t y i n performing the request. These findings show that the r e l a t i v e power between the requester and the requestee affected the choice of directness. Kasper (1989) also found that non-native speakers tended to use more supportive moves than native speakers of German or English, which corroborated Blum-Kulka and Olshtain's (1986) "too many words" finding. While native speakers can use shorter and more e f f i c i e n t strategies, non-native speakers might " f e e l a stronger need than native speakers to establish, rather than presuppose, common ground" (Kasper, p. 53). Faerch and Kasper (1989) studied requests made by native 32 speakers of Danish (163), German (200), B r i t i s h English (100), Danish speakers of English (200), and Danish speakers of German (200). They also found that preparatory strategies were employed most frequently and consistently by a l l f i v e language groups, where the pure interrogative/interrogative plus negation was preferred as syntactic downgraders. In terms of l e x i c a l downgraders, non-native speakers were found to tend to "adhere to the conversational p r i n c i p l e of c l a r i t y , choosing e x p l i c i t , transparent, unambiguous means of expression rather than i m p l i c i t , opaque, and ambiguous r e a l i z a t i o n s " (Faerch and Kasper, 1989, p. 233). Similar to the studies of Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986) and Kasper (1989), a l l groups of non-native speakers displayed more supportive moves than those of target native speakers. However, unlike Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986), Faerch and Kasper (1989) regarded these interlanguage c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s not as pragmatic f a i l u r e s but as an indispensable means of maintaining the discourse i n a s i t u a t i o n where mutual comprehensibility could not be assured. From these studies dealing with d i f f e r e n t areas of interlanguage e l i c i t e d from CCSARP data, the preference for preparatory and propositional explicitness, and the implementation of a play i n g - i t - s a f e strategy used by the intermediate non-native speakers were observed as common trends i n L2 learners. These findings are s i g n i f i c a n t i n that they provided d i r e c t i o n for researchers to explore the common 33 phenomenon i n interlanguage pragmatics by experimenting with many other languages. 2.4.3 Methodological problems with CCSARP F i r s t , CCSARP data i s narrow i n scope i n that i t has a strong Western-centric bias,' that i s , a l l language and v a r i e t i e s dealt with i n the studies (except Hebrew) were eithe r Germanic or Romance and they were a l l under the strong influence of Western culture (Rose, 1992). Indeed, Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper (1989) noted that "the situations depicted by the dialogues r e f l e c t every day occurrences of the type expected to be f a m i l i a r to speakers across Western cultures" (p.14). Therefore, the content of the discourse completion test (DCT) or the methodology f o r the analysis of data needs to be elaborated and refined to account for non-western languages and cultures. The second problem i s with the v a l i d i t y of the DCT used i n CCSARP. The DCT has an advantage that "one can c o l l e c t a large amount of data i n a r e l a t i v e l y short period of time and a l l subjects are asked to respond i n i d e n t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s " (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989, p. 201). However, since i t i s a written questionnaire, the use of a DCT gives participants enough time to plan and write down t h e i r best possible answers with no pressures and constraints that would accompany an actual face-to-face i n t e r a c t i o n (Eisenstein and Bodman, 1986). Moreover, pretending to be someone other than her/himself might lead subjects to write fal s e responses e s p e c i a l l y when they are asked to take a role which they have never experienced. For example, i t would be d i f f i c u l t for a u n i v e r s i t y student who has never worked i n a company to take the role of a company executive (see Beebe & Takahashi, 1989). Therefore, DCT does not necessarily r e s u l t i n authentic data which i s important f o r the analysis of speech acts. Actually, R i n t e l and M i t c h e l l (1989), using both DCT and role play i n a study of requests and apologies, found that o r a l responses were much longer than written responses and that the frequency rate of dir e c t strategies was higher i n the written than i n the o r a l conditions i n some request contexts. Rose (1992), who compared the results from DCTs and those from Multiple Choice Questionnaires (MCQ), also found that MCQ r e s u l t s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from DCT results i n that Japanese subjects used considerably more hints i n requests on the MCQ than on the DCT. These findings raise doubt about whether or not the DCT r e l i a b l y represents authentic interactions. The analysis of data s o l e l y from a DCT has i t s . l i m i t a t i o n i n that a DCT does not i d e n t i f y the subjects' perceptions toward the given s i t u a t i o n s . Brief descriptions of given situations i n the DCT might provide participants with a d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the role they play i n terms of perceived distance between the requester and requestee, perceived personality of the interlo c u t o r s , etc. Therefore, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to i n f e r reasons for t h e i r reactions. The only alternative i s to ask them. DCT data should be enriched by combining other 35 methodological procedures such as interviews, MCQs, and role plays. For example, retrospective interviews or think-aloud protocols used i n combination with DCT were very successful i n e l i c i t i n g the possible factors a f f e c t i n g subjects' interlanguage (Robinson, 1992). Moreover, i n order to obtain near-authentic data, i t i s preferable to c o l l e c t and analyze complex audio- or video-recorded discourse rather than i s o l a t e d conversational segments. • * 2.4.4 A role play study of requests Tanaka's study (1988) examined request behaviours by Japanese speakers of English and native learners of English (Australian) i n f u l l discourse contexts. She employed open-ended role play and analyzed the video- and audio-tape recorded conversation data. Two situations were given to the subjects: one was to ask a lecturer to lend a book and the other was to ask a f r i e n d to lend a book. The s o c i a l distance and the r e l a t i v e power were controlled to e l i c i t the v a r i a t i o n i n requests depending on the contexts. The whole conversation was analyzed according to f i v e sequential parts: opening the conversation, notice and small talk, request, thanking, and clos i n g the conversation. She found that, i n the opening part of conversations, Japanese learners of English tended to use expressions such as "May I come in?" which native speakers were not l i k e l y to use. It was also found that Japanese learners of English did not use 36 the f i r s t names of t h e i r lecturers, which native speakers were l i k e l y to use. Furthermore, Japanese subjects used neither notice l i k e comments or small talk with friends, while A u s t r a l i a n subjects did. Tanaka (1988) attributed these r e s u l t s to the transfer of learners' c u l t u r a l patterns to t h e i r L2 performance. In the request, Japanese learners of English used less e x p l i c i t or emphatic expressions i n giving reasons for t h e i r requests than native speakers. They were also found to use more di r e c t request sentences than native speakers. These r e s u l t s might be due to a lack of pragmatic knowledge of making requests appropriately or the transfer of t h e i r f a l s e stereotype that English-speaking people speak d i r e c t l y i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s . In the thanking and closing, Japanese learners could not s h i f t the l e v e l of formality or style according to the status of the other person and they tended to use more formal expressions than native speakers did. These results might be a t t r i b u t e d to the lack of v a r i a t i o n i n t h e i r expressions to be chosen according to given contexts. Tanaka's study (1988) i s of great significance i n that i t has implications for teaching and learning English i n context. Discourse Completion Test also dealt with speech act r e a l i z a t i o n i n context, however, i t did not provide the data of speakers' whole strategies to open, steer, and close the conversation. Since open-ended role play gives subjects a s p e c i f i c context concerning situations and players' roles but does not prescribe the conversational outcomes, the in t e r a c t i o n w i l l be r e a l i n the 37 context of the play (Kasper & Dahl, 1991). The analysis of the whole discourse provides teachers and learners with r i c h examples that they should know e x p l i c i t l y for developing t h e i r communicative competence. Without conscious learning, non-native speakers have d i f f i c u l t y i n acquiring the t a r g e t - l i k e speech behaviours (Schmidt, 1993). 2.5 PRAGMATIC TRANSFER AND JAPANESE SOCIOLINGUISTICS 2.5.1 Pragmatic transfer Pragmatic transfer occurs when the learners lack pragmatic knowledge i n L2 and transfer t h e i r s o c i o c u l t u r a l communicative competence i n LI to t h e i r performance i n L2. A misunderstanding or c r o s s - c u l t u r a l communication breakdown caused by the pragmatic transfer i s known as "pragmatic f a i l u r e " (Thomas, 1983) . Errors caused by a lack of pragmatic knowledge i n L2 are thought to be more serious than grammatical or pronunciation errors (Richards, 1980). Grammatical or pronunciation mistakes may simply lead native speakers to think that non-native speakers have not acquired the L2 syntactic or phonological systems. Pragmatic mistakes, however, may not only res u l t i n miscommunication, but also cause a misrepresentation of the speaker's personality (Thomas, 1983). Leech's (1983) d i s t i n c t i o n between pragmalinguistics and"-sociopragmatics was applied by Thomas (1983) to i d e n t i f y two types of pragmatic f a i l u r e , that i s , "pragmalinguistic f a i l u r e " 38 and "sociopragmatic f a i l u r e " . These f a i l u r e s are caused by pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfer. Pragmalinguistic transfer occurs when L2 learners transfer a form from t h e i r LI to the L2 which may convey an unintended meaning, i l l o c u t i o n a r y force or politeness value. On the other hand, sociopragmatic transfer r e s u l t s when L2 learners transfer t h e i r comprehension or perceptions about how to perform i n given contexts from LI to L2. The d i s t i n c t i o n between pragmalinguistic transfer and sociopragmatic transfer i s useful for the analysis of interlanguage pragmatics, however, i t should be noted that these two dimensions are i n t e r - r e l a t e d i n actual interlanguage performance (Thomas, 1983; Kasper, 1992). 2.5.2 Pragmalinguistic transfer Pragmalinguistic transfer i n requests may occur by tra n s f e r r i n g a LI directness preference when using the L2. Evidence of pragmalinguistic transfer and f a i l u r e was found i n previous studies, e s p e c i a l l y i n terms of the learners' s o c i o c u l t u r a l preference for d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of directness. According to Rasper's study (1981), German speakers of English tended to make requests that sounded too d i r e c t i n the target language, such as, "You should close the window", while native speakers of English preferred to use preparatory statements such as, "Can you close the window?" (cited i n Olden, 1989). This represents pragmalinguistic transfer since native German speakers are known to use obligatory modal forms as 39 requests. Blum-Kulka (1982) also found that native speakers of English tended to produce requests i n Hebrew that were not d i r e c t enough by Hebrew standards. This was possibly caused by t h e i r preference for modals such as "can" i n English requests, which are not required as a politeness strategy i n Hebrew. Faerch & Kasper's study (1989) i d e n t i f i e d some evidence of pragmalinguistic transfer where Danish speakers tended to make requests i n German using a negative interrogative form ("Can I not...?") from a l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n of t h e i r LI. This makes the utterance ambiguous and more l i k e a complaint than a request i n German as i t would i n English as well. Beebe & Takahashi (1989) found that questioning patterns often used i n Japanese to express disagreement were also used as disagreement strategies i n English by Japanese. Since these questioning strategies are t o t a l l y a l i e n to Americans, American native speakers f a i l to pick up the intended pragmatic meaning of the questions. Thus, i t should be noted that each language has d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of directness which have an appropriate usage i n each society, but are not equivalent c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c a l l y . This means there i s no universal scale to measure the function according to the forms of language. Thomas (1983) stated that "teaching-induced errors" also cause pragmalinguistic f a i l u r e (p. 101). For example, some of the pragmalinguistic f a i l u r e s can be attributed to the learned knowledge such as "inappropriate use of modals" i n teaching 40 materials or "complete sentence responses" and "inappropriate propositional e x p l i c i t n e s s " encouraged to be used i n classroom discourse (Thomas, 1983, p. 102). These phenomena were also known as "transfer of t r a i n i n g " (Selinker, 1972; Schmidt & Richards, 1980). Beebe & Takahashi (198 9) demonstrated i n t h e i r study that Japanese learners' production of d i r e c t expressions i n English may be due to transfer of t r a i n i n g . Japanese learners have been taught a stereotype that Americans are more d i r e c t than Japanese, encouraging them not to use ambiguous expressions but to use clear, d i r e c t , and straight-forward expressions. Japanese speakers of English used more di r e c t expressions than Americans and sounded rude, while Americans used less d i r e c t and less e x p l i c i t expressions than Japanese, contrary to the stereotype i n both cases. 2.5.3 Sociopragmatic transfer Sociopragmatic transfer occurs when the s o c i a l perceptions, interpretations, and judgements of l i n g u i s t i c action i n L2 are influenced by non-native speakers' assessment of equivalent LI contexts. Sociopragmatic f a i l u r e might occur due to such a clash i n c u l t u r a l norms and assessments of conversational routines. Godard (1979) i d e n t i f i e d s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n perceptions and s o c i a l norms about telephone c a l l s between France and the United States. Telephone c a l l s are regarded more often as impositions i n France than i n the United States. The 41 etiquette i n France usually requires c a l l e r s to check the number, make an excuse or apologetic statement, and i d e n t i f y themselves at the beginning of the c a l l . When making phone c a l l s , American learners of French who are unfamiliar with the c r o s s - c u l t u r a l differences i n the degree of imposition might be considered bizarre or rude. Evidence of sociopragmatic f a i l u r e was also found i n a series of empirical studies done by Beebe & her colleagues. Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990), using DCT, analyzed refusals of Japanese learners of English and compared those with the refusals of native speakers of English. They confirmed sociopragmatic transfer i n Japanese s e n s i t i v i t y to s o c i a l status differences. For example, Japanese speakers of English displayed noticeable code-switching i n t h e i r LI application of apology and regret formulas i n refusing requests depending on whether the addressee was high- or low-status r e l a t i v e to the addresser. Furthermore, they made d i f f e r e n t responses i n refusing i n v i t a t i o n s depending on the s o c i a l status of the addressee, while Americans were more conscious of t h e i r personal r e l a t i o n s or closeness to the addressee. Takahashi and Beebe (1987) l a t e r added 20 more Japanese learners of English i n 'an EFL setting to investigate how the degree of sociopragmatic transfer i s affected by s i t u a t i o n a l factors (ESL or EFL) and proficiency l e v e l s . The i n t e r e s t i n g finding was that higher proficiency ESL learners tended to transfer LI sociopragmatics more frequently than lower 42 pr o f i c i e n c y learners. The researchers attributed t h i s to the advanced learners' l i n g u i s t i c competence which enabled them to say i n English what they would have said i n Japanese i n the same context. They also found that the influence of LI on L2 performance was generally stronger i n EFL than ESL contexts. Robinson (1992) also used DCT to examine the process of tr a n s f e r r i n g sociopragmatic knowledge. She employed verbal reports and retrospective interviews and found that sociopragmatic knowledge of learners' native cultures influences the pragmatic strategy with which they react i n a target c u l t u r a l context. For example, one of the subjects reported i n the retrospective interview that she hesitated to say, "No" because she was taught by her parents that, i n order to preserve s o c i a l harmony, Japanese women should not say, "No" (Robinson, 1992, pp. 56-57) . 2.5.4 Japanese s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s As mentioned so far, the Japanese language has grammaticalized honorifics that r e f l e c t the h i e r a r c h i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n s of Japanese society. In addition to the ho n o r i f i c s system, in-group/ out-group ("uchi/soto" i n Japanese) d i s t i n c t i o n s are also important i n discerning interpersonal relationships i n society (Ide, 1993). The concept of in-group/out-group i s an important aspect i n the expression of politeness i n Japanese. For example, when a speaker perceives closeness to an interlocutor as an in-group 43 person, s/he tends to make use of e x p l i c i t , d i r e c t , and informal l i n g u i s t i c forms. Using an i n d i r e c t and formal s t y l e i n an intimate s i t u a t i o n sometimes sounds too p o l i t e and might imply that they are not close i n an in-group r e l a t i o n . According to Lebra (1976), i t may even be considered to be l i k e the behaviour of a stranger. So a Japanese who i s subdued and i n d i r e c t through the use of formal st y l e i n an out-group setting may become very open and straight-forward with a person i n an in-group s i t u a t i o n . Kinjo's study (1987) demonstrates that Japanese are more open to and demanding of a person to whom they f e e l close. She found i n analyzing the speech acts of o r a l refusals of both Japanese and Americans that the Japanese were no less d i r e c t than Americans when the s i t u a t i o n takes place between peers. Sc a r c e l l a (1979) claims that Americans also use in-group language such as casual address terms, slang, expressions l i k e "ya know", e l l i p s i s , and in c l u s i v e "we", but usage i s based on the in d i v i d u a l ' s closeness or f r i e n d l i n e s s with t h e i r i n t e r l o c u t o r s and not c l e a r l y defined as an in-group/out-group d i s t i n c t i o n . The high value placed on "ambiguity" i n Japanese i n an out-group r e l a t i o n also makes the use of politeness strategies more complicated. The respect for "harmony" and "selflessness" i n groups leads to l i n g u i s t i c empathy and conformity i n Japanese (Ando, 1986), which gives r i s e to certain c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t y l e s , such as the use of indirectness both i n giving and refusing d i r e c t i v e s (Clancy, 1986). Japanese children are taught by t h e i r mothers to anticipate the needs behind the p o l i t e statements of 44 others and to comply with e x p l i c i t and i m p l i c i t requests (Clancy, 1986) . 2.5.5 A model of pragmatic transfer i n making requests A request i s a d i f f i c u l t speech behaviour even f o r native English or Japanese speakers. Since requests, to a larger or smaller extent, impose on the requestee, the requester needs to think of strategies to achieve the desired goal and, at the same time, to maintain politeness by mitigating the impositive force. The requester has to consider the requestee's feelings before the actual request. Therefore, the request i s regarded, more or less, as a planned speech act. Context i s a key factor to determine how to make a request. F i r s t , the requester thinks about the degree of imposition to judge whether the request i s easy or d i f f i c u l t for the requestee to carry out. Second, the requester considers her/his interpersonal relationship with the requestee. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the requester judges whether the requestee i s s o c i a l l y close or distant and whether or not the requestee i s r e l a t i v e l y dominant i n power. Aft e r considering i m p l i c i t l y or e x p l i c i t l y these contextual variables, the requester chooses strategies for the request such as how to s t a r t the conversation, how to explain the s i t u a t i o n , and how to j u s t i f y and express the request. How to express the request i s also d i f f i c u l t because the requester i s required to choose a form appropriate to the politeness l e v e l required by a 45 given context. There i s another aspect that the requester cannot v o l i t i o n a l l y choose, but has to consider: that i s "discernment". Discernment refers to the act of discerning s o c i a l l y and conventionally appropriate forms that the participants i n a conversation are required to use i n a society (see H i l l et a l . , 1986; Ide, 1987, 1989). For example, a chairman would not use casual forms of English i n a formal s i t u a t i o n such as an international conference. Japanese people are required to use h o n o r i f i c s when they speak to older or upper status persons. Discernment i s an important factor to maintain the expected relationships between interlocutors i n a given s i t u a t i o n . F i n a l l y , the requester has to consider an i n t e r a c t i v e process of negotiation. Though the requester can plan strategies for requests, the strategies need to be repaired or cancelled depending on how the requestee responds or i n what s i t u a t i o n the requester i s . Thus, whether or not the requester can achieve the desired goal depends much more on the i n t e r a c t i o n and negotiation with the requestee than on the previously planned strategies. Thus requests are d i f f i c u l t even i n the f i r s t language. They are more complicated and d i f f i c u l t i n a second language. The process of making requests might be s i m i l a r c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y , however, the perceived function of p a r t i c u l a r requests and the perceived function of politeness might d i f f e r depending on the culture. When second language learners apply t h e i r LI perceptions to t h e i r L2 performance, transfer occurs. The 46 following are possible models of transfer i n making requests. The f i r s t model i s that L2 learners do not know the pragmatic knowledge concerning how to make requests appropriately, and they transfer LI forms to t h e i r L2 performance. Usually, L2 learners tend to depend on l i t e r a l t r anslations from LI to L2. In t h i s case what exists i n LI and does not exist i n L2 cannot be transferred. What exi s t s i n L2 and does not exist i n LI i s d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y and use for L2 learners. The second model i s to transfer the learned knowledge from a LI context to t h e i r L2 performance. Pragmatic f a i l u r e may occur when the learned knowledge i s fals e or not appropriate. One pattern usage of learned sentences also f a l l s into t h i s model. For example, L2 learners tend to use repeatedly one expression that they learned as a request sentence regardless of contextual differences. The t h i r d model i s to transfer the perception of contextual variables such as degree of imposition, s o c i a l distance, and r e l a t i v e power. For example, Japanese speakers tend to change the forms of requests depending on whether or not the requestee i s i n s o c i a l l y higher status position, and they might tr a n s f e r the perception to L2. Transferring perception of politeness also f a l l s i n t h i s model. The fourth model i s the transfer of an LI discourse pattern to L2 performance. How to construct discourse might d i f f e r c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y . For example, Japanese.speakers tend to write a 47 l o t of greetings before going to t h e i r main point e s p e c i a l l y i n a request l e t t e r (Makino, 1978). These transfers occur because of a lack or a misunderstanding of pragmatic knowledge. English education i n Japan tends to focus on only the l i n g u i s t i c forms and neglects the functional aspect of language. Studies showed that l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t y i s not enough for communicative competence. In order to obtain pragmatic knowledge, research should focus on speech acts i n contexts, so that both teachers and learners can understand the functional aspects of language. 2.6 CONCLUSION Speech act theory was introduced by Austin (1962) and developed by Searle (1969, 1975). Their theories were s i g n i f i c a n t i n that they shed l i g h t on the functional aspects of language use and i n i t i a t e d subsequent empirical studies of speech acts. Brown and Levinson (1978) proposed a comprehensive politeness theory based on Goffman's concept of "face" (1955) and Grice's cooperative p r i n c i p l e s (1975) and provided a useful framework to analyze politeness strategies used i n face-threatening acts. Requests have been investigated i n many studies. General c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of non-native speakers, such as a preference f o r preparatory expressions, explicitness, and longer utterances, were found i n the studies of requests. The evidence of pragmatic 48 transfer - both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfer -was observed i n previous studies. Most research has been conducted i n languages under the influence of Western culture. Moreover, written questionnaires such as DCTs were used almost exclusively i n previous studies. The lack of v a l i d i t y has also been pointed out by researchers. The fundamental deficiency i s that the data was not o r a l but written. Therefore the findings from DCT studies should be examined and elaborated by comparing re s u l t s from data e l i c i t e d by d i f f e r e n t methods. The research i n the area of requests needs near-authentic o r a l data i n order to support or v e r i f y the r e s u l t s of previous studies. Discourse analysis should be encouraged since requests are r e a l i z e d through interactions i n a discourse. The context i n the discourse has to be considered to a great extent because i t i s the most important variable a f f e c t i n g requests. Speech acts should not be dealt with as an i s o l a t e d segment from discourse but as a whole text. Several Japanese researchers recognized that Brown and Levinson's politeness theory could not f u l l y explain the politeness which i s grammatically embedded i n Japanese language. The concept of discernment and v o l i t i o n were introduced by H i l l et a l . (1986) and Ide (1987, 1989) to explain the part of politeness that Brown & Levinson's theory could not cover. It i s true that the theories and empirical research have made a great contribution to studies i n the area of speech acts. But the importance of analyzing speech acts and politeness strategies i n contexts should be emphasized because speech acts cannot stand alone but are achieved i n the sequential flow of conversation. Politeness should also be assessed not as a small segment but as part of a whole discourse. The study of the discourse as a whole text w i l l provide foreign language teachers and learners with the best sources for pragmatics i n the target language. 50 CHAPTER THREE DESIGN OF THE STUDY 3.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter begins with a b r i e f description of the research s i t e , followed by a description of the recruitment of the subjects and the Volunteer Research Assistants. A s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the instruments employed for the research and a b r i e f discussion of authenticity and comparability of e l i c i t e d data i s given. F i n a l l y the procedures and data analyses are described. 3.1 RESEARCH SITE The present research was conducted i n the Department of Language Education at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia (UBC) and UBC-Ritsumeikan House. UBC i s one of the largest public u n i v e r s i t i e s i n Canada which enrols approximately 35,000 f u l l -and part-time students. It i s located i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia where about 53% of the t o t a l populations i n the schools are ESL students (Gunderson, 1995). The Language Education Department i s expected to contribute to the t r a i n i n g of ESL teachers for the ESL students i n Vancouver. UBC-Ritsumeikan House i s the main f a c i l i t y of the UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic Exchange Programme. The purpose of t h i s programme i s to provide students from Ritsumeikan University located i n Kyoto, Japan, with an integrated language and content programme conducted i n English. About 100 Japanese p a r t i c i p a n t s 51 l i v e with about 100 UBC students i n the UBC-Ritsumeikan House. They take part i n t h i s programme for about 8 months and most of the classes they take are taught i n t h i s f a c i l i t y . 3.2 SUBJECTS AND VOLUNTEER RESEARCH ASSISTANTS The f i r s t subject group consisted of 2 0 Native Speakers of English (NSE). The researcher got permission from professors to r e c r u i t volunteer subjects from t h e i r classes i n the Language Education Department. The researcher explained d e t a i l s about the study and d i r e c t l y asked for the volunteers i n the classes. The researcher also put an advertisement i n the news-letter of the UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme. The c r i t e r i o n for the s e l e c t i o n of NSE was that they had received most of t h e i r education i n Canada from elementary to secondary school. The second subject group consisted of 2 0 Japanese Speakers of English (JSE). The researcher got permission from in s t r u c t o r s i n the UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme, explained d e t a i l s of the study, and d i r e c t l y asked for volunteer subjects i n the classes. The c r i t e r i o n for the selection of JSE was that they had received most of t h e i r education i n Japan and had not stayed i n other countries more than one year before coming to Canada. The t h i r d subject group consisted of 20 Native Speakers of Japanese (NSJ). The procedure to r e c r u i t the NSJ subjects was the same as was done to r e c r u i t the JSE subjects. The c r i t e r i o n for the s e l e c t i o n of NSJ was that they had been born i n Japan, communicated with t h e i r parents i n Japanese, and had received 52 most of t h e i r education i n Japan. A l l Japanese subjects were selected from Ritsumeikan students and, therefore, had the same background. They were divided and placed i n either the JSE group who spoke English i n the study or the NSJ group who spoke only Japanese i n the study. The 12 Volunteer Research Assistants (VRAs) as respondents to the subjects' request on a telephone were recruited from those who were involved i n the Department of Language Education of UBC or UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic Exchange Programme. The researcher had d i r e c t contact with the professors and colleagues he had known, explained d e t a i l s of the study, and asked them to be his VRAs. These 12 VRAs f e l l into 2 groups: one for taking the role of a professor and the other for taking the role of a f r i e n d . In order to increase the authenticity of the role play, both the subjects and the VRAs were recruited from those whose actual status was close to that of the role play. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the subjects and the VRAs i n the role play was also made close to t h e i r r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n . For example, the subjects c a l l e d t h e i r actual professor or fr i e n d as far as i t was possible. Furthermore, the p a i r of VRAs assigned to each subject group was c o n t r o l l e d to be a male and a female i n order to create l i t t l e gender differences. The number of males and females i n each subject group was also controlled to be almost half so that gender differences would not af f e c t the results of t h i s study. 53 3 . 3 INSTRUMENTS There were three instruments used i n the study: a pre-study questionnaire to learn about subjects' background, an open-ended or a l role play using a r e a l telephone, and a post-study questionnaire conducted immediately a f t e r the role play to obtain subjects' perceptions of the task. 3.3.1 Pre-study questionnaire A written pre-study questionnaire was designed for NSE to obtain information regarding t h e i r age, educational background, parents' f i r s t language, experience of l i v i n g i n foreign countries, the length and l e v e l of languages studied as a foreign/second language, and the amount of exposure to the foreign/second language (see Appendix A). A written pre-study questionnaire was designed for NSJ and JSE to obtain information regarding t h e i r age, educational background, experience of l i v i n g i n foreign countries, the length of t h e i r English study, the type of method used i n t h e i r English classes i n t h e i r high school and university, and the amount of exposure to English a f t e r coming to Canada (see Appendix B). The pre-study questionnaire was written i n English f o r NSE subjects and i n Japanese for JSE and NSJ subjects. The information from the questionnaire was very important to confirm the v a l i d i t y of subjects for e l i c i t i n g intended data because differences i n the subjects' background might a f f e c t t h e i r speech i n the role play. 54 3.3.2 An open ended o r a l role-play An open-ended o r a l role-play was designed to c o l l e c t data related to requests on a telephone. Oral role play was considered to be a desirable way to e l i c i t data because i t i s close to 'natural' speech behaviour (Kasper & Dahl, 1991). The task required the subjects to use a re a l telephone and to c a l l a professor and a f r i e n d i n his/her o f f i c e or at home. A small room was used for the role play so that a subject could f e e l l i t t l e pressure and act naturally without being observed by anybody. The telephone conversations were tape-recorded using an answering machine attached to the telephone i n the room. The answering machine was used because i t records conversations c l e a r l y . Two role plays were designed to see the differences affected by given contexts. The f i r s t task given to the subjects was to take the role of a uni v e r s i t y student who needed to make a request of his/her professor to write a l e t t e r of recommendation for graduate school (see Appendix F). In the given s i t u a t i o n , the professor was a well-known professor, and i t was the f i r s t time for the student to speak to him/her outside of cl a s s . The due date was only one week from the day, which would increase the degree of imposition on the professor. Theoretically, t h i s s i t u a t i o n was designed to analyze requests toward a s o c i a l l y high status person ( s o c i a l l y high r e l a t i v e power) i n a psychologically distant r e l a t i o n s h i p (high s o c i a l distance). The second task given to the subjects was to take the ro l e 55 of a u n i v e r s i t y student who needed to make a request of his/her f r i e n d to proofread a paper which was important for his/her grade (see Appendix G). In the given situation, they were close friends and often went for coffee. The due date was only one week from the day, which would increase the degree of imposition on his/her f r i e n d . Theoretically, t h i s s i t u a t i o n was designed to analyze requests toward a s o c i a l l y equal status person ( s o c i a l l y equal r e l a t i v e power) i n a psychologically close r e l a t i o n s h i p (low s o c i a l distance). Thus, the conditions i n the two situations were designed to be as s i m i l a r as possible to increase the c r o s s - s i t u a t i o n a l comparability. Moreover, the situations were described i n t h e i r f i r s t language for NSE and NSJ, while they were described i n both English and Japanese for JSE so that a l l of the subjects could f u l l y understand the situations. On the other hand, an i n s t r u c t i o n sheet, which described a general guidelines concerning how to respond to each subject (see Appendix D and Appendix E), was given to the VRAs. The i n s t r u c t i o n required the VRAs to respond n a t u r a l l y to the subjects as they would do on a telephone i n t h e i r d a i l y l i f e , but to ask several questions or ask for confirmations concerning the important items of the request made by the subject. The conditions of VRAs i n the two situations were arranged so that they were busy on the weekend but could afford time to carry out the requested job sometime during the next week, which would require the subjects to negotiate a convenient time with each 56 other. The control of the VRA's responses was very important to es t a b l i s h consistency i n the responses among the 12 VRAs because d i f f e r e n t responses might cause subjects to act quite d i f f e r e n t l y i n t h e i r speech behaviour. Though the personality of each VRA might a f f e c t the subjects' reactions, the researcher expected that t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n would minimize the personality variables and increase the comparability among subjects' responses. The researcher o r i g i n a l l y intended to put subjects into more d i f f i c u l t situations to see how they would manage to achieve the request which was refused at f i r s t . However, i n the p i l o t study, the conversations kept going on and on with continuous r e p e t i t i o n of requests and refusals because of the obligation to perform the given role somehow. This s i t u a t i o n made the conversation sound very unnatural. Moreover, the VRAs i n the p i l o t study made a comment that i t was rare for a professor or a close f r i e n d to reject the request obstinately i n r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s . Consequently, the researcher arranged the situations so that subjects could achieve the request goal r e l a t i v e l y e a s i l y through negotiation with the VRAs. This condition was also very important to increase naturalness and to e l i c i t near-authentic data. 3.3.3 Post-study questionnaire A written post-study questionnaire was designed to obtain information regarding t h e i r thought processes and the reason why 57 they acted the way they did (Appendix H and Appendix I ) . The information about the subjects' perception of the given task would help the researcher interpret and analyze the o r a l role play data. The questionnaire was written i n English for NSE, and i n Japanese for JSE and NSJ. The retrospective interview, or interviewing just a f t e r the role-play, would have been more preferable, however, i t seemed to be time consuming and p h y s i c a l l y very d i f f i c u l t to interview 60 subjects for 2 situations. Therefore, the researcher chose to conduct a written post-study questionnaire immediately a f t e r the role play. 3.4 PROCEDURES F i r s t , i n order to r e c r u i t 20 NSE, 20 JSE, and 20 NSJ, the researcher asked for volunteer subjects i n undergraduate classes i n the Department of Language Education and UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme with the permission of the professors or i n s t r u c t o r s . The researcher gave applicants a f u l l explanation of t h i s research concerning the purpose, the time needed to complete the role play, the procedure, the c r i t e r i a for being subjects, etc., and he c o l l e c t e d application forms from those who were interested i n t h i s research. O r i g i n a l l y , the researcher intended to choose the subjects randomly from the applicants, however, i t was very d i f f i c u l t to f i n d enough numbers of subjects because of t h e i r busy schedules. Therefore, the researcher was obliged to ask almost a l l the 58 applicants to be his subjects as far as they met the minimum requirements of the research. It was i r o n i c a l that the researcher had to make a l o t of requests for t h i s study of "requests". Second, 12 VRAs as respondents were chosen from those who were involved i n the Department of Language Education or the UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme and who were interested i n t h i s research project. The VRAs were made aware of the purpose of the study, the time needed to complete the role play, the procedure, and how to engage i n the role play. A f t e r the subjects and VRAs were recruited, the researcher had contact with each subject and VRA, examined t h e i r available time, and assigned subjects to VRAs to do the role play at a convenient time for both of them. The time schedule and procedure were c a r e f u l l y examined i n order to minimize the time subjects and VRAs had to spend on. For example, several subjects were asked to gather at a c e r t a i n time to c a l l a VRA subsequently so that the VRA were not t i e d up with the role play for a long time. The pre-study questionnaire was given to the subjects so that they could f i l l i t i n whenever they had time previous to the role play. Each subject was instructed to come to a preparation room 15-20 minutes before the role-play. The subject was given an i n s t r u c t i o n sheet explaining the role play task (see Appendix C) and a description sheet which contained the given s i t u a t i o n f o r the task (Appendix F and Appendix G). Then s/he was provided 59 with a 10 minute-preparation time for the role play. She/he was allowed to make short written notes, but not allowed to write out everything i n d e t a i l that they would say. When s/he was ready, s/he entered a small room next to the preparation room and c a l l e d the VRA using a r e a l telephone connected i n the room. It took about 3 minutes to complete the or a l role play. Immediately a f t e r the role play, the subject was given a written questionnaire concerning the role play task (see Appendix H and Appendix I) and asked to f i l l i t i n . There were usually several subjects preparing for the role play or f i l l i n g out the post-study questionnaire i n the preparation room. Therefore, the researcher supervised them not to talk about or discuss the role play because exchanging information would a f f e c t the role play or d i s t o r t the responses to the questionnaire. It took about 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire. After completing the questionnaire, the subjects were asked to hand i n both the description sheet and the'questionnaire to the researcher and were asked not to talk about the role play with other subjects who would engage i n the role play on subsequent days. The second role play was conducted a week l a t e r using the same procedure as described above. The role plays were conducted on d i f f e r e n t days so that the f i r s t role play would not a f f e c t the second one and the learning e f f e c t from the f i r s t r o le play would be decreased. F i n a l l y , a l l the tape-recorded conversations were - 60 transcribed and analyzed by the researcher. The data from the pre-study and post-study questionnaire were summed up and used for the analysis and interpretation of the o r a l role play data. 3 . 5 DATA ANALYSES The purpose of t h i s study was to analyze the whole discourse of making requests on a telephone conducted by NSE, JSE, and NSJ i n terms of politeness and influence of s o c i a l status variables, and to e s t a b l i s h the s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences between English and Japanese i n order to investigate whether or not pragmatic transfer occurred i n the interlanguage of JSE. In order to analyze the transcribed o r a l data, the whole discourse was divided into four parts according to the sequential order of conversation on a telephone: opening, requesting, thanking, and closing. The data were analyzed quantitatively. F i r s t , the opening of the telephone conversation was analyzed according to the four sequences (summon-answer, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , greeting, and how-are-you) proposed by Schegloff (1968) . The number of subjects who used these sequences were calculated to see s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences between subject groups i n each given context. The purpose was to see whether or not the r i t u a l constraints of American phone conversation proposed by Schegloff (1968) were applicable to Canadian and Japanese phone conversations. In the summon-answer sequence, the type of answers of the hearer was divided into two types: one was the case when the 61 c a l l e d answered to the phone ringing with only "Hello" and the other was the case when s/he added her/his name l i k e "Hello, YYYY (the called's name)". The d i v i s i o n was needed to analyze the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and greeting sequences because the subsequent exchange i n these sequences d i f f e r e d depending on whether the c a l l e d responded with her/his name or not. In the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n sequence, the address term used for the hearer was examined to see which t i t l e the subjects preferred to use, Dr. or Mr./Ms. The preference of subjects for using family name, f i r s t name, or f u l l name was also examined to see the c u l t u r a l and contextual differences. The greeting sequence was examined according to four patterns: (a) the hearer used "Hello" or "Hi" only once i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n sequence, (b) the hearer used "Hello" or "Hi" i n greeting sequence, (c) the hearer used no "Hello" or "Hi" i n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n sequence, and (d) the hearer used no "Hello" or "Hi" i n greeting sequence. These patterns were calculated to see how the greeting sequence operated c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y i n both contexts. The how-are-you sequence was categorized into f i v e types. They were no how-are-you sequence, how-are-you from the c a l l e r with return of how-are-you from the calle d , how-are-you from the c a l l e r with no return of how-are-you from the ca l l e d , how-are-you from the c a l l e d with return of how-are-you from the c a l l e r , and how-are-you from the c a l l e d with no return of how-are-you from the c a l l e r . The how-are-you sequence was examined to see how i t 62 operated i n both cultures. Second, requests were investigated using the coding scheme used i n CCSARP project. The numbers of each supportive move (checking on a v a i l a b i l i t y , preparators, grounders, sweeteners, disarmers, and cost minimizers) were t a l l i e d and calculated. A v a i l a b i l i t y and preparator were calculated i n only pre-request, and the other supportive moves were calculated i n both pre- and post-request. The t o t a l number of these supportive moves was calculated to measure cross - c u l t u r a l and contextual differences. After the examination of supportive moves, the request proper sentences were analyzed. The directness l e v e l of the request proper sentences used by subjects were measured according to the three lev e l s of directness which had been used i n CCSARP project and a comparison was made between subject groups. Since the directness l e v e l was not s t r i c t l y equivalent to the politeness l e v e l , the request proper sentences were categorized and reexamined according to politeness l e v e l which was established i n previous studies. Politeness l e v e l was cl o s e l y examined not only from the directness l e v e l s but also from the notion of discernment. Third, the features of subjects' expressions of appreciation to the requestee's f i r s t acceptance of the request were analyzed. Examples of responses of speakers to the VRA's f i r s t o f f e r of acceptance were extracted and calculated to see the s t y l e of common expressions of appreciation i n each subject group. Thanking i s a speech act which has been studied 63 independently (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986), however, i t i s an important portion i n the whole discourse of making requests because the requesters usually need to express appreciation to the requestee for the acceptance of a request. The f a i l u r e to express gratitude or show appreciation might have negative consequences. Fourth, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the closing of telephone conversations were examined according to several features of closings i n American English conversation introduced by Schegloff and Sacks (1973). It was not easy to determine p r e c i s e l y when the c l o s i n g part began. However, the researcher defined the closi n g as the part a f t e r the f i n a l promise or o f f e r of time and place or the f i n a l r e p e t i t i o n or confirmation of the promise. The researcher focused on pre-closing signals such as "Well", "So", and "Okay", expressing gratitude, and the conversational closing signals such as "Good-by" and "See you". A l i n g u i s t i c examination of the expressions of appreciation and "Goodbyes" was done to see the c u l t u r a l and contextual differences. The degree of politeness, the influence of s o c i a l status variables, and pragmatic transfer i n the interlanguage were investigated i n the four sequence of opening, requesting, thanking, and closing. Furthermore, the s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences between the subject groups were also investigated. F i n a l l y , apologies for c a l l i n g the requestee at home and promise of reward were independently analyzed because they could 64 not be categorized i n the above four sequential parts. These two strategies used by subjects showed an i n t e r e s t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p eculiar to culture and context. Thus the conversation data were analyzed i n the whole discourse of making requests. In our d a i l y l i f e , requests cannot be independent simple utterances regardless of the discourse i n a given context. Politeness i s also achieved i n the whole discourse i n context. The analysis of t h i s research intended to grapple with the complexity of the conversation examined i n the context of the whole discourse. 3.6 CONCLUSION Chapter Three has provided an overview of the methodology used i n t h i s research. It has discussed the research s i t e , the recruitment of subjects and VRAs, the instruments, the procedure, and the data analysis. The authenticity of the role-play and the comparability between the subject groups and between the contexts has also been discussed. This study was s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to provide the aspects of requests i n the discourse of a telephone conversation. The following chapter w i l l present the findings of the study. 65 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.0 INTRODUCTION Chapter Four begins with a description of the backgrounds of subjects who took part i n the study. Next, d e t a i l s of findings are presented and interpreted by using the res u l t s of post-questionnaires. Results are discussed c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y i n terms of politeness and s o c i a l status variables. The interlanguage of Japanese Speakers of English (JSE) i s analyzed from the point of view of pragmatic transfer. 4.1 BACKGROUND OF SUBJECTS The following are d e t a i l s e l i c i t e d from the pre-questionnaire. The background information of subjects i s important to support the v a l i d i t y of subjects for e l i c i t i n g intended role play data. 4.1.1 Background of Native Speakers of English (NSE) A l l the NSE subjects were undergraduate students at UBC. Twelve of them were majoring i n education and the other 8 were from various other departments. There were 11 females, with a mean age of 25.2, and 9 males, with a mean age of 24.4. The mean age of a l l NSE subjects was 24.8. Five subjects had parents who were not native English speakers, however, they were'recruited because they had Canadian 66 educational backgrounds and had used English as a primary-language i n t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s . The other 15 subjects were born and raised i n Canada and had used English as a f i r s t language both with t h e i r families and i n t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s . Four subjects had long-term experiences residing i n other countries. One subject had l i v e d i n England for 11 years, however, she was recruited because she had used English as a primary language both i n England and Canada. The other 3 subjects had l i v e d for 1 or 2 years i n other countries such as Japan and A u s t r a l i a . A l l the NSE subjects had studied at least 1 or 2 foreign/second languages, such as French, German, I t a l i a n , Japanese, Chinese, etc. There were 4 subjects who stated that they were advanced i n t h e i r target language. Three out of the 4 subjects had studied French from 8 to 12 years and 1 subject had studied Japanese for 3 years. These subjects seemed representative of the heterogeneous population i n Canada. This suggests that t h e i r English would be t y p i c a l of Canadian telephone language. 4.1.2 Background of Japanese Speakers of English (JSE) A l l the JSE subjects were second- or third-year undergraduate students from Ritsumeikan University and were part i c i p a n t s i n the UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme. Their majors i n Japan were diverse such as Economics, Letters, Social Science, International Relations, Law, and Science. There were 10 67 females, with a mean age of 20.0, and 10 males, with a mean age of 20.3. The o v e r a l l mean age was 20.2. This group was homogeneous i n that a l l the subjects were born i n Japan and had used Japanese as a primary language both with t h e i r families and i n t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s . Most had no long-term experiences residing i n other countries. Only 2 students had l i v e d i n North America for a year and had an opportunity to use English while they were i n the North American high schools. Subjects had spent less than 3 months i n Canada before they p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study. The mean length of t h e i r English study before p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme was 8.35 years. Results showed clea r evidence that English education i n Japan puts strong emphasis on grammar and reading. Nineteen subjects (95%) thought that grammar and reading had been mainly emphasized i n t h e i r English classes i n Japan. Only 1 subject (5%) responded that l i s t e n i n g and speaking had also been emphasized. The mean length of hours speaking English per day before coming to Canada was from 0 to 1 hour. The mean length of hours of speaking English per day i n Canada was 2-3 hours. The mean length of hours reading English newspapers/magazines/etc. per day in Canada was 1-2 hours. The mean length of hours watching North American TV and movies per day i n Canada was 1-2 hours. They had taken TOEFL three times i n the UBC-Ritsumeikan programme before p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study: upon t h e i r entry i n 1994, i n September, 1994, and i n November, 1994. The mean TOEFL 68 score was 519.4 upon t h e i r entry time i n the programme, 4 95.4 i n September, and 514.4 i n November. The o v e r a l l mean was 509.7. Scores ranged from 540.0 to 476.7. Therefore the subjects i n JSE group represent the intermediate to advanced learners of English. Their backgrounds, length of English study, and average TOEFL scores suggest that they were intermediate to advanced English students i n Japanese u n i v e r s i t i e s . 4.1.3 Background of Native Speakers of Japanese (NSJ) A l l NSJ subjects were second- or third-year undergraduate students from Ritsumeikan University and were par t i c i p a n t s i n the UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic Exchange Programme. Their majors i n Japan were diverse such as Economics, Business, Letters, S o c i a l Science, International Relations, and Law. There were 10 females, with a mean age of 20.2, and 10 males, with a mean age of 20.2. The o v e r a l l mean age was 20.2. This group was also homogeneous i n that a l l were born i n Japan and had used Japanese as a primary language both with t h e i r families and i n t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s . Most had never been abroad before coming to Canada and they had been i n Canada less than three months before p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study. Only two subjects had long-term experience residing i n other countries, however, they were recruited because they had used Japanese as a means of communication i n t h e i r families and had spent t h e i r junior and senior high school days i n Japan. The r e s u l t s of the pre-study questionnaire showed that 95% 69 thought that grammar was mainly taught i n t h e i r previous classes of English i n Japan. No one answered that l i s t e n i n g and speaking had been emphasized i n t h e i r English classes. These re s u l t s seem to represent common features of Japanese u n i v e r s i t y students. Though t h i s study was conducted i n Canada, the subjects had spent only three months i n Canada before data were c o l l e c t e d and had stayed together with t h e i r Japanese peers i n a dormitory. Therefore, i t was expected that they preserved Japanese culture and language and that t h e i r requests on the telephone would be close to those of u n i v e r s i t y students i n Japan. 4.2 INTER-RATER RELIABILITY Table 1: Mean Percentage of Coefficiency Rate C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (A) 100% 98.5% 97.2% 97.2% 100% 98 . 5% (B) 97.8% 95.6% 95.6% 95.6%' 93 .4% 97 . 8% (C) 90% 95% 90% 85% 85% 90% (D) 95% 100% 90% 95% 90% 100% CA) Opening Sequence (B) Requesting Sequence (C) Thanking Sequence (D) Closing Sequence In order to assess the r e l i a b i l i t y of data analysis, 10 sample data from each group (5 for each situation) were analyzed by 3 independent native speakers of the language used i n each 70 group. The number of subjects who f e l l under categories of questioned items were t a l l i e d by these raters and compared with that t a l l i e d by t h i s researcher. Table 1 shows mean percentage of co e f f i c i e n c y rates of questioned items, which were calculated i n each sequence of openings, requests, thankings, and closings. The o v e r a l l percentage shows high coef f i c i e n c y of the rating scales used i n each sequence. Most rating scales used i n t h i s study were mechanical and could be used e a s i l y to categorize the subjects as far as the raters did not make mistakes. Though there were s l i g h t inconsistency i n the thanking and closing sequences due to the d i f f i c u l t y of i d e n t i f y i n g the parts, the c o e f f i c i e n t was s t i l l high. Therefore, the data analysis scheme was highly r e l i a b l e . 4 . 3 ANALYSIS OF OPENINGS Table 2: Opening Sequence (N=20 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (A) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) (B) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) (C) 9 ( 45%) 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 10%) 13 ( 65%) 4 ( 20%) 1 ( 5%) (D) 2 ( 10%) 2 ( 10%) 0 ( 0%) 18 ( 90%) 2 0, (100%) 2 ( 10%) (A) Summon-answer Sequence (B) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n (ID) Sequence (C) Greeting Sequence (D) How-are-you Sequence 71 Conversational openings were analyzed according to the four sequences proposed by Schegloff (1968): summon-answer sequence, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (ID) sequence, greeting sequence, and how-are-you sequence. The number of subjects who used the sequence and the percentages i n each group were calculated. Results are shown i n Table 2. The summon-answer sequence was used by a l l the subjects without exception. Schegloff (1968) found that, i n American English, the c a l l e d person responded with "Hello" f i r s t as an answer to the phone ringing which was supposed to be a summon from the c a l l e r . This summon-answer sequence was confirmed c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y i n both contexts i n t h i s study. The opening of a telephone conversation always started with "Hello" or "Moshi-moshi" (equivalent Japanese words for "Hello" i n English) from the c a l l e d . Table 3: Answering Pattern of the Called (N=20 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ "Hello, YYYY speaking" 11 ( 55%) 19 ( 95%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 9 ( 45%) 5 ( 15%) "Hello" 9 ( 45%) 1 ( 5%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) 11 ( 55%) 15 ( 75%) The ID sequence was also confirmed without exception (Table 2). However, there were differences between groups i n that responses d i f f e r e d depending on whether or not the c a l l e d stated 72 her/his name i n the f i r s t utterance. In t h i s study, the f i r s t utterance from the c a l l e d was-not controlled and became inconsistent as shown i n Table 3. Whether or not the c a l l e d stated her/his name i n the f i r s t utterance could be attributed to the called's preference or habitual behaviour because i t was mostly consistent depending on the Volunteer Research Assistants (VRAs). In the context of taking the role of professor, 3 VRAs (1 to NSE subjects and 2 to JSE subjects) stated t h e i r names i n the f i r s t utterance, while the other 3 (1 to NSE subjects and 2 to NSJ subjects) d i d not. In the context of taking the role of a friend, 1 VRA to JSE subjects stated her name i n the f i r s t utterance and 1 VRA responding to NSJ subjects was inconsistent. The other 4 (2 to NSE subjects, 1 to JSE subjects, and 1 to NSJ subjects) preferred not to state t h e i r names. Whether or not the c a l l e d stated her/his name affected the subsequent exchange of ID conversation. When the c a l l e d stated her/his name f i r s t , the c a l l e r did not have to i d e n t i f y the c a l l e d and was expected to state her/his own name. As shown i n Table 4, t h i s prediction was confirmed i n most subject groups except f o r JSE subjects c a l l i n g a professor. Seven JSE subjects c a l l i n g a professor (36.9%) raised ID questions such as "May I speak to (Dr.) YYYY?" i n spite of the called's statement of her/his name. The other subjects did not raise such ID questions, though a few subjects gave a confirming question such as "Is t h i s (Dr.) YYYY (the called's name)?" or "(Dr.) YYYY?". 73 Table 4: ID Sequence When the Called Stated Her/His Name i n the F i r s t Utterance C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE (N=ll) JSE (N=19) NSJ (N=0) NSE (N=0) JSE (N=9) NSJ (N=5) (A) 9 (81.8%) 10 (52.6%) - - 9 (100%) 2 ( 40%) (B) 2 (18.2%) 2 (10.5%) - - 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 40%) (C) 0 ( 0%) 7 (36 . 9%) - - 0 ( 0%) 1 ( 20%) lA) "(Hello,) t h i s i s XXXX." (No Confirmation or ID Question) (B) "(Hello,) i s t h i s (Dr.) YYYY?" or "(Hello,) (Dr.) YYYY?" (C) "(Hello,) (this i s XXXX,) may I speak to (Dr.) YYYY?", or "(Hello,) (this i s XXXX,) i s (Dr.) YYYY there?" The reason that JSE subjects used a redundant ID question can be at t r i b u t e d to nervousness combined with a lack of language a b i l i t y (see Tables 5 and 6). Since no JSE subjects c a l l i n g a fr i e n d f a i l e d i n i d e n t i f y i n g the c a l l e d from her/his f i r s t statement, nervousness can be considered to be the main cause of the redundant ID question given to a professor. Table 5 shows that 15 JSE subjects c a l l i n g a professor (75%) thought that t h e i r conversations were not successful. They attributed the reason to nervousness, lack of language a b i l i t y , and f a i l u r e i n explaining d e t a i l s (Table 6). Since 11 NSJ subjects c a l l i n g a professor (55%) also thought that t h e i r conversations were not successful, the s o c i a l status of a professor might be a leading variable causing the nervousness of Japanese subjects. On the other hand, 16 JSE subjects c a l l i n g a fri e n d (80%) thought that t h e i r conversations were successful (Table 5) . 74 Table 5: Results of the Post-study questionnaire No.3: "Do you think that you could conduct the conversation as successfully as you planned?" (N=20 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ Yes 14 ( 70%) 5 ( 25%) 9 ( 45%) 20 (100%) 16 ( 80%) 17 ( 85%) No 6 ( 30%) 15 ( 75%) 11 ( 55%) 0 ( 0%) 4 ( 20%) 3 ( 15%) Table 6: The Reason for Answering "No" i n the Question No.3: "If no, what made i t d i f f i c u l t ? " C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE (N=6) JSE (N=15) NSJ (N=ll) NSE (N=0) JSE (N=4) NSJ (N=3) (A) 3 ( 50%) 5 (33.3%) 5 (45.5%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) (B) 2 (33.3%) 3 ( 20%) 3 (27.3%) - 1 ( 25%) 1 (33.3%) (C) - 5 (33.3%) - - 3 ( 75%) -(A) Nervousness (B) F a i l u r e i n Explaining Details (C) Lack of Language A b i l i t y When the c a l l e d did not state her/his name i n the f i r s t utterance, an in t e r e s t i n g difference was found depending on the context. As shown i n Table 7, the subjects c a l l i n g a professor tended to raise the ID question such as "(Hello,) may I speak to (Dr.) YYYY?". It seems that t h i s expression increased the formality of the conversation. However, there were not as many ID questions i n the context of c a l l i n g a friend. Instead, most c a l l e r s to a f r i e n d stated her/his own name or just confirmed the name of the c a l l e d . This means that the rate of i d e n t i f y i n g the 75 c a l l e d only from her/his voice increased when c a l l i n g a f r i e n d compared with c a l l i n g a professor. Table 7: ID Sequence When the Called did not State Her/His Name i n the F i r s t Utterance C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE (N=9) JSE (N=l) NSJ (N=20) NSE (N=20) JSE (N=ll) NSJ (N=15) (A) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 9 ( 45%) 6 ( 30%) 3 (27.3%) 5 (33 .3%) (B) 1 (11.1%) 0 ( o%) 0 ( 0%) 10 ( 50%) 5 (45.4%) 9 ( 60%) (C) 8 (88.9%) 1 (100%) 11 ( 55%) 4 ( 20%) 3 (27.3%) 1 ( 6.7%) (A) "(Hello,) t h i s i s XXXX." (B) "(Hello,) i s t h i s (Dr.) YYYY?" or "(Hello,) (Dr.) YYYY?" (C) "(Hello,) t h i s i s XXXX, may I speak to (Dr.) YYYY?", "(Hello,) may I speak to (Dr.) YYYY?", or "(Hello,) i s (Dr.) YYYY there?" Schegloff (1968) stated that i d e n t i f y i n g the other only from the voice on a telephone was highly graded i n American English because i t showed the degree of closeness of the i n t e r l o c u t o r s . This tendency was confirmed i n the context of c a l l i n g a f r i e n d i n t h i s study. Showing closeness was regarded as p o s i t i v e politeness, which increased t h e i r shared in-group f e e l i n g s . The number of address terms used i n the ID sequence indicated differences i n s o c i a l distance and r e l a t i v e power between the two situations. As shown i n Tables 8 and 9, the address term, when i t was used by the c a l l e r , revealed c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n s depending on the context. Most subjects used "Dr." 76 when addressing the professor and only the name when addressing a fri e n d . Moreover, most subjects preferred to use family names for professors and f i r s t names for friends except for NSJ subjects c a l l i n g a friend. NSJ subjects also preferred to use family names even i n close relationships. Generally speaking, the t i t l e "Dr." with a family name increases formality, while no t i t l e with a f i r s t name increases closeness. The choice of these address terms i s considered a po s i t i v e politeness strategy. Table 8: The Use of T i t l e i n the Address Term C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE (N=16) JSE (N=10) NSJ (N=ll) . NSE .(N=20) JSE (N=10) NSJ (N=13) Dr. Sensei 14 (87.5%) 8 ( 80%) 6 (54.5%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) * Mr. Ms. 0 ( 0%) 1 ( 10%) 5 (45.5%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 4 (30 . 8%) No t i t l e 2 (12.5%) 1 ( 10%) 0 ( 0%) 20 (100%) 10 (100%) 9 (69.2%) *Mr. Ms. include ...sama, ...san, ...kun i n Japanese though they are not completely equivalent to each other. Table 9: The Use of the Name i n the Address Term C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE (N=16) JSE (N=10) NSJ (N=ll) NSE (N=20) JSE (N=10) NSJ (N=13) Family Name 11 (68.8%) 7 ( 70%) 7 (63.6%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 7 (53.8%) F u l l Name 5 (31.2%) 3 ( 30%) 4 (36 .4%) 1 ( 5 % ) 3 ( 30%) 0 ( 0%) F i r s t Name 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 (. 0%) 19 ( 95%) 7 -( 70%). 6 (46.2%) 77 This r e s u l t was d i f f e r e n t from that of Tanaka's study (1988) . Most subjects i n her study used f i r s t names as an address term to t h e i r lecturer. This difference was caused by the given context. In Tanaka's study, there were no indications of the addresser's psychological distance from the l e c t u r e r . Therefore, the subject might have perceived the l e c t u r e r as being s o c i a l l y distant but psychologically close. On the other hand, i n t h i s study, the psychological distance was established as high, by s t a t i n g that the professor was well-known and that i t was the f i r s t time for the student to talk with her/him out of c l a s s . Therefore, i t was assumed that subjects i n t h i s study would choose to use the family name as an address term when addressing the professor. A greeting sequence might follow the ID sequence. It was found that the number of the greeting sequence used by NSJ and JSE subjects was less than that of NSE subjects i n both contexts as shown i n Table 2. This result suggested that the greeting sequence such as an exchange of "Hi" was not a conventional form i n Japanese conversation at least i n t h i s context. Schegloff (1967) found that a greeting sequence such as "Hello" or "Hi" was distinguished from the f i r s t uttered "Hello" or "Hi" i n ID sequence as follows: (phone ringing) A: Hello B: Hi, YYYY? (ID sequence) 78 A: Yeah B: Hi, i t ' s XXXX. (Greeting sequence) He also stated that the f i r s t "Hello" or "Hi" i n the ID sequence contained the function of a greeting i f there was no greeting sequence following the ID sequence, as follows: (phone ringing) A: Hello, YYYY speaking. B: Hi, i t ' s XXXX. (ID sequence with a greeting function) A: Oh, h i , how are you? B: Pretty good, how about you? Table 10 shows these differences more c l e a r l y . If the f i r s t "hello" was counted as a greeting, 85% of the NSE subjects c a l l i n g a professor and 95% of the NSE subjects c a l l i n g a f r i e n d engaged i n the greeting sequence. On the other hand, both JSE and NSJ subjects did not use as many instances of "Hi (Konnichiwa)" as the NSE subjects did in'the greeting sequence. The JSE and NSJ subjects used "Hello (Moshi-moshi)" i n the f i r s t utterance i n the ID sequence as the NSE subjects did, however, the function of the f i r s t "Hello (Moshi-moshi)" was di f f e r e n t from that used by NSE subjects because "Moshi-moshi" was a conventional form to be used i n the opening of telephone conversations i n Japanese and does not have the function of a greeting such as "Hi" or "Hello" i n English. Actually, greetings used by NSJ subjects were "Konnichiwa" (similar to "Hello" or "Good afternoon") or "Hajimemashite" ("How do you do?"), and "Moshi-moshi" was not repeated as a greeting l i k e "Hello" or "Hi" i n English. Therefore, the f i r s t "Hello" used by JSE subjects may function as "Moshi-moshi" and might not serve as a greeting. The greeting sequence might not be as common i n Japanese conversation i n t h i s context. Table 10: Greeting Sequence (N=20 per each group) Calling.a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ . NSE JSE NSJ (A) 8 ( 40%) 7 ( 35%) * 6 ( 30%) 6 ( 30%) 9 ( 45%) 4 ( 20%) (B) 9 ( 45%) 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 10%) 13 ( 65%) 4 ( 20%) 1 ( 5%) (C) 1 ( 5%) 3 ( 15%) 3 ( 15%) 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 10%) 2 ( 10%) (D) 2 ( 10%) 10 ( 50%) 9 ( 45%) 1 ( 5%) 5 ( 25%) 13 ( 65%) *(S)=Speaker (Caller), (H)=Hearer (called) (A) Phone ringing (S) > "Hello" (H) > "Hello (Moshi-moshi). t h i s i s XXXX." (S) (B) Phone ringing (S) > "Hello" (H) > "Hello, i s t h i s YYYY?" (S) > "Yes" (H) > "Hi (Konnichiwa). t h i s i s XXXX." (S) (C) Phone ringing (S) > "Hello" (H) > "This i s XXXX." (S) (No "Hello (Moshi-moshi)" i n the ID sequence) (D) Phone ringing (S) > "Hello" (H) > "Hello, i s t h i s YYYY?" (S) > "Yes" (H) > "This i s XXXX." (S) (No "Hi (Konnichiwa)" i n the greeting sequence) Sociopragmatic transfer can be i d e n t i f i e d i n the interlanguage used by JSE. In c a l l i n g a professor, there was no JSE subject who said "Hi" i n the greeting sequence and the rate was low even i n c a l l i n g a friend. Sixty f i v e percent of the JSE 80 subjects c a l l i n g a professor and 35% c a l l i n g a f r i e n d did not even say "Hello" or "Hi" i n the ID and greeting sequence. Though the lack of greeting sequence might not have been a serious problem, i t may have weakened the p o s i t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n between the i n t e r l o c u t o r s . Afte r the greeting sequence, the how-are-you sequence i n English was commonly used i n c a l l i n g a f r i e n d as shown i n Table 2. This means that the how-are-you sequence was usually used i n English i n a s o c i a l l y close relationship, but was not a common feature when the c a l l e r spoke with a s o c i a l l y and psychologically distant i n t e r l o c u t o r even i n English. In c a l l i n g a friend, 90% of the NSE subjects exchanged "How are yous", however, only 10% of the NSJ exchanged "How are yous". This shows that Japanese speakers may not customarily exchange "How are yous" ("Konnichiwa" or "Genki?") when they are close friends and know that the other i s fine, while NSE subjects might f e e l comfortable to exchange "How are yous" even i f they know the other i s f i n e . This sequence appear to be a c u l t u r a l convention i n close r e l a t i o n s h i p i n English. Indeed, i t may be a formulaic response. Twenty JSE subjects (100%) engaged i n the how-are-you sequence, and, at a glance there seemed to be no LI transfer (Table 2). However, a close examination reveals a s u r p r i s i n g fact about the how-are-you sequence. As Table 11 shows, there were very few "How are yous" from JSE subjects. Only 1 subject said, "How are you?" f i r s t . F i f t y percent of JSE subjects 81 engaged i n how-are-you sequences, but they were quite passive i n that they only returned "How are you?" as a response to the called's "How are you?" utterance. More surprisi n g l y , 45% of JSE subjects did not respond "How are you?" even when they were asked "How are you?", whereas 80% of NSE subjects exchanged "How are yous?" from both the c a l l e r and the c a l l e d . The one-sided "How are yous?" only from native speakers may have made the English speaking friends f e e l bad. Table 11: How-are-you Sequence (N=2 0 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (A) 18 ( 90%) 18 ( 90%) 20 (100%) 2 ( 10%) 0 ( 0%) 18 ( 90%) (B) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 10 ( 50%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) (C) 1 ( 5%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 10%) (D) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 6 ( 30%) 10 ( 50%) 0 ( 0%) (E) 0 ( o%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 10%) 9 ( 45%) 0 ( 0%) (A) No "How are you" sequence (B) "How are you" from S with return of "How are you" from H (C) "How are you" from S with no return of "How are you" form H (D) "How are you" from H with return of "How are you" from S (E) "How are you" from H with no return of "How are you" from S Though the previous politeness theory did not include such a basic etiquette, the lack of returning "How. are you?" from the c a l l e r might be thought of as an impolite behaviour by the c a l l e d 82 who asked "How are you?". A l l the JSE subjects surely knew the conventional expression "How are you?", however, i t was evident that they did not know how to use the, expression appropriately i n a telephone conversation. How to use "How are you?" appropriately i s important pragmatic knowledge that ESL teachers and speakers should acknowledge. 4.4 ANALYSIS OF REQUESTS The reason for making a phone c a l l i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n was to ask a professor to write a reference l e t t e r or to ask a f r i e n d to proofread a paper. Following the opening sequence came the sequence of requesting, which was the essential part for conveying the intended message and for determining whether or not the goal was achieved. As explained i n Chapter Two, requests are regarded as face-threatening acts. Supportive moves have the function of mitigating the i n t e n s i t y of the request (House & Kasper, 1989) . Therefore, they are related to negative politeness i n the framework of Brown and Levinson (1978) . Supportive moves were used before and a f t e r the head acts (the request proper sentences). The instances of supportive moves were calculated and analyzed for both pre-requests (before the head act) and post-requests (after the head a c t ) . The coding scheme used i n CCSARP was also used for the categorization of supportive moves i n t h i s study. There are s i x sub-categories of supportive moves: checking on a v a i l a b i l i t y , preparators, grounders, sweeteners, disarmers, and cost minimizers. 83 Table 12: Checking on A v a i l a b i l i t y and Preparator (Pre-request) (N=2 0 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE NSJ JSE NSE NSJ JSE (A) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) (B) 5 ( 25%) 7 ( 35%) 5 ( 25%) 10 (50%) 8 ( 40%) 8 ( 40%) CA) Checking on A v a i l a b i l i t y (B) Preparator As shown i n Table 12, i t was found that checking on a v a i l a b i l i t y such as "Are you busy t h i s week?" was not a common supportive move for requests of t h i s type. Only one subject used t h i s move. On the other hand, preparators such as "May I ask a favour of you?" were consistently used by each group. Subjects seemed to prefer to use preparators i n c a l l i n g a f r i e n d rather than i n c a l l i n g a professor, though the difference was not large. There appeared to be no large c r o s s - c u l t u r a l differences as fa r as the number of preparators was concerned. However, an examination of preparator sentences used by the subjects revealed i n t e r e s t i n g l i n g u i s t i c differences between the groups. As shown i n Table 13, NSE subjects tended to use more in d i r e c t expressions than JSE subjects: NSE subjects used the idiomatic expression "... ask a favour of you" combined with "I'm (was) wondering i f " or "I want to (need to, have to) ". These expressions were used as politeness strategies because t h e i r indirectness functioned to minimize the imposition even at the early stages of the request. 84 Table 13: Language Use of Preparator i n English C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a fri e n d NSE (N=5) JSE (N=5) NSE (N=10) JSE (N=8) (A) 3 ( 60%) 0 ( 0%) 5 ( 50%) 0 ( 0%) (B) 2 ( 40%) 0 ( 0%) 5 ( 50%) 0 ( 0%) (C) 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 40%) 0 ( 0%) 4 ( 50%) (D) 0 ( 0%) 3 ( 60%) 0 ( 0%) 4 ( 50%) (A) "I'm (was) wondering i f I could ask you a favour." (B) "I want to (need to, have to) ask a favour of you." (C) "Could (Would) you do me a favour?" (D) "I want to ask you something." On the other hand, most JSE subjects used "Could you (Would you) do me a favour?" or "I want to ask you something (I have something to ask you)". Several subjects pointed out i n the post-questionnaire that "Could you (Would you) ....?" was the p o l i t e expression for asking somebody to do something. They seemed to have learned the expression as an idiomatic p o l i t e form i n t h e i r English classes. The results may be due to transfer of t r a i n i n g . These re s u l t s confirmed findings of previous studies, that i s , the non-native speakers' preference for preparatory expressions such as "Could you (Would you) ....?" and t h e i r tendency to use more di r e c t sentences than native speakers. The NSE and JSE subjects did not show differences i n expressions used for preparators, however, NSJ subjects' expressions used for preparators was d i f f e r e n t depending on the 85 context. The expressions used to ask a favour by NSJ subjects were categorized into 4 types as shown i n Table 14. They s h i f t e d r e g i s t e r depending on whether they talked to t h e i r professors or to t h e i r friends. Table 14: Language Use of Preparator i n Japanese NSJ (N=7) Professor Friend (A) 4 (57.1%) 0 ( 0%) (B) 3 (42.9%) 0 . ( 0%) (C) 0 ( 0%) 3 (37.5%) (D) 0 ( 0%) 5 (62.5%) (I'm c a l l i n g because I want to ask a favour of you) (B) "Onegai ga arundesukedo" (I want to ask a favour of you) (C) "Onegai ga atte, denwa shitandakedo" (I'm c a l l i n g because I want to ask a favour of you) (D) "Onegai ga arundakedo" (I want to ask a favour of you) Most NSJ subjects pointed out i n the post-questionnaire that they were very conscious of using honorifics when they were t a l k i n g to a professor. The semantic meaning of (A) and (C), and (B) and (D) was almost the same and there were small differences i n directness between (A) and (C), and between (B) and (D). The only difference between them concerned whether or not h o n o r i f i c s were used. The d i s t i n c t i v e s t y l e s h i f t was a manifestation of politeness that was not chosen as a strategy but as a. required 86 l i n g u i s t i c rule to be followed. This type of politeness i s an example of the notion of discernment. Using honorifics i n tal k i n g to a professor sounded p o l i t e , however, expressions without honorifics i n t a l k i n g to a f r i e n d did not mean that they were impolite, but rather sounded casual and functioned to maintain close relationships. If the NSJ subjects had used honorifics i n close relationships, i t would have implied that the addresser did not consider the addressee as a close f r i e n d or a member of an in-group. The d i s t i n c t i o n between appropriate expressions i n each context was s t r i c t l y followed by a l l the NSJ subjects and demonstrated that discernment was an important politeness factor i n Japanese. Pragmatic transfer was not i d e n t i f i e d i n the interlanguage of JSE subjects. The JSE subjects did not transfer the use of honor i f i c s into t h e i r interlanguage because English does not have grammatically equivalent forms, but has d i f f e r e n t devices to show politeness. Actually, several JSE subjects pointed out i n the post-study questionnaire that they had trouble finding p o l i t e forms such as honorifics i n speaking English. Generally speaking, NSE subjects chose more i n d i r e c t expressions for both a professor and a frie n d when asking a favour, while NSJ subjects used appropriate honorifics for a professor and p l a i n and casual forms for a fri e n d . JSE subjects tended to use the expressions that they had learned as p o l i t e forms i n previous English classes. They did not d i s t i n g u i s h expressions used with professors from those used with friends i n English, while NSJ subjects did i n Japanese. Next, the use of grounders was analyzed i n the pre-request (Table 15). The number of grounders used i n pre-requests were strategies used by subjects before expressing the head act (the core request). The content of grounders was categorized into 6 items i n each s i t u a t i o n as shown i n Table 15. Table 15: Grounders (Pre-request) (N=20 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (A) 11 ( 55%) 16 ( 80%) 18 ( 90%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) 19 ( 95%) (B) 12 ( 60%) 14 ( 70%) 18 ( 90%) 15 ( 75%) 15 ( 75%) 17 ( 85%) (C) 5 ( 25%) 10 ( 50%) 14 ( 70%) 11 ( 55%) 13 ( 65%) 16 ( 80%) (D) 2 ( 10%) 4 ( 20%) 8 ( 40%) 7 ( 35%) 8 ( 40%) 8 ( 40%) (E) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 1 ( 5%) 5 ( 25%) 4 ( 20%) 6 ( 30%) (F) 2 ( 10%) 0 ( 0%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 5 ( 25%) 3 ( 15%) Mean % 27.5% 36.7% 50% 48.3% 54 .2% 57.5% *P=Calling a professor, F=Callmg a f r i e n d (A) P: I want to go to (apply for) graduate school of UBC. F: I'm writing a paper for sociology. (B) P: I intend to study International Relations. F: The topic i s an environmental problem. (C) P: I need a l e t t e r of recommendation. F: I've just f i n i s h e d writing rough draft. (D) P: I have to submit i t within a week. F: The due date i s a week from today. (E) P: The amount i s one page on a l e t t e r size paper. F: It i s f i v e pages long. (F) P: I am doing well i n the class. F: It i s important for my grade. 88 A contextual assessment revealed that the subjects i n each group tended to use r e l a t i v e l y less grounders i n c a l l i n g a professor than i n c a l l i n g a friend. This may have resulted from the subjects' desire to make the requests b r i e f and concise i n order not to disturb the professor's private time. On the other hand, the conversations with a close f r i e n d were stress free, which might have made i t easier for the subjects to state more grounders i n a casual way (see Table 16). Table 16: Results of the Post-study questionnaire No.l: "What were you conscious of about the s i t u a t i o n that you are asking a favour of the professor (friend)?" (N=20 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (A) 9 ( 45%) 7 ( 35%) 6 ( 30%) 6 ( 30%) 7 ( 35%) 2 ( 10%) (B) 6 ( 30%) 9 ( 45%) 2 ( 85%) 6 ( 30%) 5 ( 25%) 5 ( 25%) (C) 7 ( 35%) 8 ( 40%) 15 ( 75%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 3 ( 15%) (D) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 6 ( 30%) 5 ( 25%) 0 ( 0%) (E) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) .2 ( 10%) 5 ( 25%) 12 ( 60%) (F) 3 ( 15%) 8 ( 40%) 4 ( 20%) 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 10%) 2 ( 10%) I A I The Relationship with the Requestee (Social Distance, Relative Power) (B) Imposition of the Request (Short Notice, Taking Time, etc) (C) Politeness (Respect, Humble, Appropriate Language Use) (D) Friendliness (E) Comfort (Less Concern, Relaxed) (F) Preciseness (Exact, Clear, Brief, Concise) 89 Table 17 shows the number of subjects who used grounders i n the post-requests. Grounders i n the post-request were l i m i t e d to those which were v o l i t i o n a l l y used without being asked or prompted by the requestee. Therefore, the grounders which appeared as answers to the requestee's questions i n the post-request were not counted, since they were not used as strategies. The comparison of the r a t i o of grounders i n pre- and post-requests indicate d i f f e r e n t strategies used by NSE and NSJ subjects i n c a l l i n g a professor. The NSE subjects preferred to reach the head act faster with less use of grounders, leaving the d e t a i l s to the l a t e r negotiation, whereas NSJ used many grounders i n pre-requests, leaving the decisions to the requestees. Table 17: Grounders (Post-request) (N=20 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (A) 3 ( 15%) 1 ( 5%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) (B) 2 ( 10%) 1 ( 5%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 10%) 0 ( 0%) (C) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 10%) (D) 6 ( 30%) 6 ( 30%) 2 ( 10%) 3 ( 15%) 4 ( 20%) 3 ( 15%) (E) 2 ( 10%) 2 ( 10%) 1 ( 5%) 2 ( 10%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) (F) 2 ( 10%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 1 ( 5%) 2 ( 10%) 3 ( 15%) Mean % 12 .5% 9.2% 4.2% 5% 6 . 7% 6.7% *The items of (A)-(F) are the same as those i n Table 17 90 Table 18: Sweeteners, Disarmers, Cost Minimizers (Pre-request) (N=2 0 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (S) 2 ( 10%) 1 ( 5%) 2 ( 10%) 1 ( 5%) 2 ( 10%) 5 ( 25%) (D) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 10%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) (C) 1 . ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( o%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) Mean % 6 . 7% 1. 7% 6 . 7% 1. 7% 3.3% 8.3% *(S)=Sweetener, (D)=Disarmer, (C)=Cost Minimizer Table 19: Sweeteners, Disarmers, Cost Minimizers (Post-request) (N=2 0 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (S) 3 ( 15%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 4 ( 20%) 3 ( 15%) 5 ( 25%) (D) 6 ( 30%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) (C) 6 ( 30%) 0 ( 0%) 6 ( 30%) 3 ( 15%) 2 ( 10%) 3 ( 15%) Mean % 25% 1. 7% 10% 11.7% 8 . 3 % 13 .3% *(S)=sweetener, (D)=Disarmer, (C)=Cost Minimizer Sweeteners, disarmers, and cost minimizers are v o l i t i o n a l politeness strategies i n Brown and.Levinson's framework (1978) . Sweeteners were related to p o s i t i v e politeness because the expressions such as, "I know you are r e a l l y good at proofreading", were used to s a t i s f y the hearer's need f o r approval. On the other hand, disarmers and cost minimizers were 91 related to negative politeness because disarmers such as, "I know you are r e a l l y a busy person or cost minimizers such as, "I could come to your home i f i t ' s more convenient...", were used to minimize the imposition of the face-threatening act. Table 18 shows the number of subjects who used sweeteners, disarmers, and cost minimizers i n pre-requests and Table 19 shows those i n post-requests. It was found that sweeteners were constantly used by subjects i n a l l the groups i n pre- and post-requests i n both contexts (see Tables 18 and 19). Disarmers were not a popular supportive move among most subject groups except for NSE subjects who were making a request to a professor. Cost minimizers were found to be used more i n post-requests than i n pre-requests due to t h e i r nature. The cost minimizer played the function of mitigating the requestee's burden to carry out the request. Therefore, i t was usually placed i n the i n t e r a c t i o n with the requestee a f t e r the request. Table 20: Total of Sweeteners, Disarmers, Cost Minimizers (N=20 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (S) 5 ( 25%) 2 ( 10%) 2 ( 10%) 5 ( 25%) 5 ( 25%) 10 ( 50%) (D) 7 ( 35%) 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 10%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) (O 7 ( 35%) 0 ( 0%) 6 ( 30%) 3 ( 15%) 2 ( 10%) 3 ( 15%) Mean % 31.7% 3.3% 16.7% 13 .3% 11.6% 21. 7% *(S)=Sweetener, (D)=Disarmer, (C)=Cost Minimizer 92 Table 20 shows the t o t a l amount of sweeteners, disarmers, and cost minimizers and demonstrates that JSE subjects used these supportive moves less than NSE and NSJ subjects e s p e c i a l l y i n making the request to a professor. This may have been due to t h e i r lack of l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t y and nervousness. They might have been absorbed i n conveying important information p r e c i s e l y to the professor and might not have thought about strategies f o r achieving t h e i r request goal. Actually 75% of JSE subjects c a l l i n g a professor thought that t h e i r conversation was not successful because of nervousness, lack of language a b i l i t y , and f a i l u r e i n explaining d e t a i l s (Table 6). Table 21: Total of Supportive Moves (N=20 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (A) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% (P) 25% 25% 35% 50% 40% 40% (G-Pre) 27.5% 36.7% 50% 48.3% 54 .2% 57 . 5% (G-Post) 12 .5% 9.2% 4.2% 6.7% 6 . 7% 6 . 7% (S) 25% 5% 10% 25% 25% 50% (D) 35% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% (C) 35% 0% 30% 15% 0% 15% Mean % 22 . 9% 10.8% 19 . 9% 20 . 7% 18% 24 . 9% *(A)=Checking on A v a i l a b i l i t y , (P)=Preparator, (G-Pre)=Grounder i n Pre-request, (G-Post)=Grounder i n Post-request, (S)=Sweetener, (D)=Disarmer, (C)=Cost Minimizer Table 21 shows the percentage of the t o t a l number of supportive moves used by each subject group i n pre- and post-93 requests. The resu l t i s surprising i n that i t contradicts the findings of previous speech act studies. Most of the previous studies using the DCT (Discourse Completion Test) found that non-native speakers used more supportive moves than native speakers. However, t h i s study showed small differences between non-native and native speakers when they were c a l l i n g a fri e n d . Contrary to previous studies, JSE subjects c a l l i n g a professor used supportive moves less than NSE subjects. In written questionnaires such as a DCT, native speakers may t r y to f i n d most e f f i c i e n t expressions that they could write i n the l i m i t e d space i n the written dialogue, while, i n the open-ended role play, they had plenty of opportunity to use supportive moves i n both pre- and post-requests. On the other hand, non-native speakers might miss the opportunity to use supportive moves because of t h e i r language a b i l i t y . Therefore, for t h i s reason, i t i s possible that the t o t a l amount of supportive moves did not d i f f e r as much as found i n DCT studies. Next, as shown i n Table 22, the strategy type of the head act was categorized into three levels (direct, conventional i n d i r e c t , and nonconventional indirect) and analyzed according to the coding scheme used i n the CCSARP project. It was found that JSE subjects used more di r e c t expressions than NSE subjects. This study confirmed the findings of previous studies that non-native speakers were more direc t than native speakers. Though directness and politeness are c l o s e l y related, the coding scheme used i n CCSARP does not s t r i c t l y measure politeness 94 l e v e l . It has been said that the degree of politeness increases as directness decreases. But i n actual conversation, the d i r e c t request i n the coding scheme can be in d i r e c t and sound p o l i t e with the use of in t e r n a l modifications which operate within the head act. For example, "I was hoping that you could write a reference l e t t e r " , was categorized into "direct" l e v e l because the sentence was semantically included i n the "want statement" category which referred to the speaker's wish that the hearer carry out the act. However, the sentence such as, "I was hoping that you could write a reference l e t t e r " , sounded very p o l i t e with the use of the past tense and modal. Table 22: Directness Level C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ ( A ) 6 ( 30%) 11 ( 55%) 20 (100%) 3 ( 15%) 14 ( 70%) 17 ( 85%) (B) 13 ( 65%) 9 ( 45%) 0 ( 0%) 16 ( 80%) 6 ( 30%) 3 ( 15%) (C) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) TA) Direct (Mood Derivable, E x p l i c i t Performatives, Hedged Performatives, Obligation Statements, and Want Statements) (B) Conventional Indirect (Suggestory Formula and Preparatory) (C) Nonconventional Indirect (Strong Hint and Mild Hint) In addition, t h i s scheme did not work i n the case of the Japanese language because the sentences categorized i n the "direct" l e v e l could be p o l i t e when used with h o n o r i f i c s . For example, the Japanese sentence "suisennsho (reference l e t t e r ) o 95 (object) kaite (write) itadaki (get from out-group, referent honorifics) t a i (want) n (nominalizer) desu (copula) kedo (but)" was semantically included i n the "want statement" category ("direct" level) because the sentence c l e a r l y stated the speaker's wish that the hearer carry out the act. However, the use of h o n o r i f i c s and ambiguity with the use of an unfinished sentence made t h i s expression sound very p o l i t e . Table 23: Politeness Level of Head Acts (NSE and JSE) (N=20 per each group) C a l l i n g a prof. C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSE JSE (A) 1 0 1 0 ( 5%) ( 0%) ( 5%) ( 0%) (B) 12 0 16 0 ( 60%) ( 0%) ( 80%) ( 0%) (C) 5 1 2 0 ( 25%) ( 5%) ( 10%) ( 0%) (D) 0 11 0 5 ( 0%) ( 55%) ( 0%) ( 25%) (E) 0 0 0 3 ( 0%) ( 0%) ( 0%) ( 15%) (F) 1 0 1 0 ( 5%) ( 0%) ( 5%) ( 0%) (G) 1 6 0 9 ( 5%) ( 30%) ( 0%) ( 45%) (H) 0 2 0 3 ( 0%) ( 10%)' ( 0%) ( 15%) (A) "I need someone to have a look at i t (B) "I'm wondering i f you could . (C) "I was hoping that you could (D) "Could (Would) you ....?" or "I'd l i k e you to (E) "Can you ....?" (F) "I need your reference l e t t e r " (G) "I want you to ...." (H) "Please .. . . " 96 Table 23 shows the politeness l e v e l of head acts used by NSE and JSE subjects which were categorized according to the perception of politeness e l i c i t e d i n the study of Tanaka and Kawade (1982) and H i l l and et a l . (1986). Table 24: Results of the Post-study questionnaire No.4 i n the Second Task: "What do you think were differences between asking a favour of a professor and asking a favour of a fr i e n d i n l i g h t of politeness? (N=20 per each group) NSE JSE NSJ (A) 9 ( 45%) 6 ( 30%) 6 ( 30%) (B) 6 ( 30%) 2 ( 10%) 9 ( 45%) (C) 3 ( 15%) 7 ( 35%) 4 ( 20%) (D) 2 ( 10%) 0 ( 0%) 2 ( 10%) (A) P o l i t e vs. Less Po l i t e (B) Formal vs. Informal (in the Case with NSJ, the Use of Honorifics vs. No Use of Honorifics) (C) Nervous vs. Comfortable (D) Hesitant vs. Demanding It was found that most NSE subjects i n both contexts had chosen sentences such as "I was wondering i f you would ...." and "I'm hoping that you would be able t o . Though the NSE subjects stated i n post-questionnaires that they were r e l a t i v e l y p o l i t e and formal when c a l l i n g a professor and r e l a t i v e l y less p o l i t e and informal when c a l l i n g a fr i e n d (Table 24), t h e i r actual use of language did not show any differences as f a r as politeness l e v e l was concerned. Even i f the re l a t i o n s h i p with 97 the requestee d i f f e r e d , politeness was s t i l l required when they were asking a favour of somebody. On the other hand, JSE subjects used fewer p o l i t e expressions than NSE subjects. It was also evident that JSE subjects preferred to use, "Could (Would) you write a l e t t e r of recommendation?", or, "I want you to proofread my paper" (Table 23). This confirmed findings of previous studies that non-native speakers were more di r e c t than native speakers and preferred to use preparatory expressions such as, "Could (Would) you ....?". Indeed, expressions such as, "I want you to write a l e t t e r of recommendation" to the professor sounded very rude and impolite. Moreover, the politeness levels chosen by JSE subjects when c a l l i n g a professor were r e l a t i v e l y higher than when c a l l i n g a f r i e n d . Table 25 shows the politeness l e v e l of NSJ subjects' requests which demonstrates a clear d i s t i n c t i o n of language use depending on t h e i r relationship with the requestee. NSJ subjects chose (A), (B), or (C) with a professor, whereas they chose (D), (E), or (F) with a friend. The directness l e v e l used i n CCSARP cannot measure these d i s t i n c t i o n s because the meanings of the sentences between (A) and (D), between (B) and (E), and between (C) and (E) were semantically nearly the same. The only difference was that (A), (B), and (C) were used with h o n o r i f i c s , and (D), (E), and (F) were used without ho n o r i f i c s . This was not a strategy that could be chosen by the subjects but a s o c i a l l y expected l i n g u i s t i c rule. The operation of discernment i n 98 Japanese was also confirmed i n the choice of head acts Table 25: Politeness Level of Head Acts (NSJ) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) NSJ (N=20) Professor Friend (A) 10 ( 50%) 0 ( 0%) (B) 6 ( 30%) 0 ( 0%) (C) 4 ( 20%) 0 ( 0%) (D) 0 ( 0%) 6 ( 30%) (E) 0 ( 0%) 12 ( 60%) (F) 0 ( 0%) 2 (.10%) (I'm hoping that you could...) . ... te i t a d a k i t a i n desukedo . (I would l i k e you to ....) . ... te itadake naideshouka?" (Could you ....?) . ... te hoshii to omotte ...." (I'm hoping that you can ....) . ... te moraitain dakedo . . . . " (I want you to ....) . . .. te moraenai?" (Can you ....?) Table 26 shows the results' of the post-study questionnaire, which indicated that the main factors which d i f f e r e n t i a t e d conversations with a professor from conversations with a f r i e n d were the p o s i t i o n of power and authority of the professor, the impositive s i t u a t i o n of asking a favour, politeness, and nervousness. However, as far as head acts were concerned, the 99 expressions of NSE subjects did not show many differences due to context, while NSJ subjects made a clear d i s t i n c t i o n i n language use depending on the interlocutor. Table 26: Results of the Post-study questionnaire No.2: "What made you speak to the professor (friend) i n the way you did?" (N=20 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (A) 4 ( 20%) 6 ( 30%) 12 ( 60%) 11 ( 55%) 8 ( 40%) 17 ( 85%) (B) 7 ( 35%) 5 ( 25%) 7 ( 35%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) (C) 7 ( 35%) 7 ( 35%) 6 ( 30%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) (D) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 13 ( 65%) 16 ( 80%) 12 ( 60%) (E) 7 ( 35%) 11 ( 55%) 6 ( 30%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) TA) The Relationship with the Requestee (Social Distance, Relative Power) (B) The Impositive Situation of Asking a Favour of the Requestee (C) Politeness (Respect, Humble, Appropriate Language Use) (D) Comfort (Less or No Concern, Relaxed, Natural, Friendly) (E) Nervousness (F i r s t Time to Talk with the Professor, C a l l i n g Her/Him at Home, Lack of English A b i l i t y ) Both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfer were found i n the use of English by the JSE group. Most of them chose expressions such as, "Could (Would) you ....?", or, "I want you to ....", as shown i n Table 23. According to responses on the post-questionnaire, preparatory expressions such as, "Could (Would) you ....?", seemed to be the only ones they knew to show politeness. Actually, one subject wrote that "Could you ...?" i s 100 a p o l i t e expression and that "Can you ....?" i s less p o l i t e . There was the p o s s i b i l i t y that they had not learned expressions such as, "I'm (was) wondering i f ....", or, "I was hoping that you could ....", as i n d i r e c t p o l i t e forms. If so, t h i s r e s u l t could be a t t r i b u t e d to a transfer of t r a i n i n g . On the other hand, pragmalinguistic transfer seemed to be operating i n the preferred expression of "I want you to write a l e t t e r of recommendation", since i t seemed to be a l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n of the Japanese expression (B) ".... te i t a d a k i t a i n desukedo ...." i n Table 25. The l i t e r a l meaning of (B), i f the ho n o r i f i c s are removed from the sentence, i s almost the same as "I want you to ...". The Japanese expression (B) i s p o l i t e with the use of h o n o r i f i c s . Therefore, i t was predictable that JSE subjects transferred the l i t e r a l meaning, but could not transfer the function of politeness signalled by honorifics to t h e i r interlanguage because English has d i f f e r e n t devices for conveying politeness. As a result, JSE subjects' expressions turned out to be very d i r e c t and sounded impolite. Moreover, sociopragmatic transfer seemed to be operating to influence the s h i f t of directness i n the interlanguage of JSE subjects. According to responses to the post-questionnaire, NSJ subjects had an obligatory f e e l i n g that they needed to use ho n o r i f i c s for professors but not for friends. The NSJ and JSE subjects' s e n s i t i v i t y to s o c i a l status was r e f l e c t e d i n the increase of directness i n the JSE subjects' use of English. As one of the JSE subjects pointed out i n the post-questionnaire, 101 they seemed to change "Could you ....?" into "Can you .. .?" or increased the use of imperatives such as "Please ...." when making the request to a friend. The use of "I want you to ...." also increased r e l a t i v e l y compared with requests to a professor. However, NSE subjects did not change t h e i r politeness l e v e l according to the si t u a t i o n . This i s something that Japanese teachers and learners should keep i n mind i n making requests. 4 . 5 ANALYSIS OF THANKINGS Table 27: Thanking Sequence (N=20 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (A) 2 ( 10%) 11 ( 55%) 8 ( 40%) 3 ( 15%) 13 ( 65%) 5 ( 25%) (B) 5 ( 25%) 3 ( 15%) 6 ( 30%) 8 ( 40%) 6 ( 30%) 8 ( 40%) (C) 11 ( 55%) 0 ( 0%) 1 ( 5%) 9 ( 45%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) (D) 2 ( 10%) 5 ( 25%) 2 ( 10%) 1 ( 5%) 1 ( 5%) 5 ( 25%) (E) - - 2 ( 10%) - - 3 ( 15%) (F) 0 ( o%) 1 . ( 5%) 1 ( 5%) 0 ( o%) 0 ( 0%) 1 ( 5%) (A) "Ok", "Yes", "Sure", etc. without Any Comment (B) "Ok", "Yes", "Sure", etc. with Comments (C) "Great", "Wonderful", "Super", "Perfect", etc. (D) "Thanks", "Thank you" (E) "Onegaishimasu" (Begging for the Requestee's Future E f f o r t s ) (F) Opting Out (Giving Up Making Requests i n the Middle) In t h i s role play, most subjects had t h e i r request accepted 102 by the requestee, though the professor or the f r i e n d had a t i g h t schedule. Table 27 shows how the subjects reacted and showed appreciation when t h e i r requests were accepted. There were small differences related to the contexts. However, c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y , several differences were i d e n t i f i e d . One was that, compared to NSE subjects, JSE subjects tended to use more simple "Ok" or "Yes" expressions without any comments or expressions of appreciation i n both situations. This was probably caused by t h e i r lack of confidence i n language a b i l i t y . The simple "Ok" or "Yes" might have raised a f e e l i n g of doubt whether or not the speaker r e a l l y understood the hearer's o f f e r of acceptance. Another difference was that eleven NSE subjects c a l l i n g a professor (55%) and 9 NSE subjects c a l l i n g a f r i e n d (45%) produced expressions such as "Great", "Wonderful", "Perfect" or "Super" when the request was accepted, while neither JSE nor NSJ did. Since many did not give e x p l i c i t "thanks" to the requestee, these expressions such as "Great" might function as t h e i r appreciation to the requestee i n the middle of the conversation. Actually, the e x p l i c i t "thanks" appeared i n closings. According to Tanaka (1988), Japanese learners of English tended to put less comments such as promises and confirmations a f t e r thanking than Australian subjects. Her finding was confirmed i n t h i s study. Since the enthusiastic expressions can be regarded as comments, i t i s evident that Japanese subjects used less comments. The enthusiastic expressions might not 103 represent conventional behaviour i n Japanese culture. The lack of the enthusiastic expressions i n JSE and NSJ subjects demonstrates that what does not exist i n LI but does i n L2 i s d i f f i c u l t for second language learners. It was found that the expression "Onegaishimasu" was preferred by NSJ subjects, though the number was not high. The l i t e r a l meaning i s "I'm asking you", but the function of the expression i s "begging for the hearer's future e f f o r t or concern of the request", which has been conventionally used i n Japanese conversation. The equivalent expression does not exis t i n English, therefore, JSE could not convey the functional meaning of "Onegaishimasu" i n English. 4 . 6 ANALYSIS OF CLOSINGS It was not easy to determine p r e c i s e l y where the c l o s i n g sequence began. In t h i s study, closing was defined as the ending part just a f t e r the hearer made the f i n a l concrete decision on the time and place to meet, or s/he made the f i n a l confirmation of the promises. As shown i n Table 28, there were s i m i l a r i t i e s between the subject groups i n terms of the use of "Ok", "Thanks", and "Bye bye". It i s obvious that "Thanks" or "Thank you" were expressed i n the clos i n g sequence. The NSE subjects' use of enthusiastic expressions was also i d e n t i f i e d i n the closing sequence. Almost half of the NSE subjects used enthusiastic expressions such as "Great" and "Wonderful" i n both contexts, while both JSE and NSJ 104 did not use many such expressions i n either context. The sociopragmatic transfer was i d e n t i f i e d i n the JSE subjects' interlanguage i n t h i s respect. The lack of such enthusiastic expressions might not hurt the feelings of the requestee but might have caused the requestee to wonder i f the requester was happy with the consequences. Table 28: Closing Sequence C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (A) 14 ( 70%) 14 ( 70%) 18 ( 90%) 19 ( 95%) 20 (100%) 15 ( 75%) (B) 9 ( 45%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 10 ( 50%) 3 ( 15%) 1 ( 5%) (C) 18 ( 90%) 19 ( 95%) 8 ( 40%) 15 ( 75%) 17 ( 85%) 14 ( 70%) (D) 19 ( 95%) 15 ( 75%) 17 ( 85%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) (E) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 6 ( 30%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 5 ( 25%) (F) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 7 ( 35%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 8 ( 40%) (B) "Great", "Wonderful", "Perfect", "Super", etc. (C) "Thanks", "Thank you" (D) "Bye Bye" (E) Apology such as "I'm sorry" (F) "Onegaishimasu" (Begging for the Requestee's Future E f f o r t s ) It was found that NSJ subjects tended to use apologies and "Onegaishimasu" (begging for the hearer's future e f f o r t s ) . The number of such expressions used by NSJ subjects was not high, however, they should not be neglected because they might have 105 functioned as an alternate for NSE's expressing joy. It may be that showing enthusiastic feelings i s pos i t i v e politeness, while apologies and "Onegaishimasu" are negative politeness. The manifestation of politeness d i f f e r s depending on cultures. Table 29: Language Use of Thanking i n English (NSE and JSE) (N=20 per each group) professor f r i e n d NSE JSE NSE JSE Thank you (very much) 15 ( 75%) 18 ( 90%) 2 ( 10%) 15 ( 75%) Thanks (a lot) 6 ( 30%) 3 ( 15%) 11 ( 55%) 4 ( 20%) *Some subjects used both "Thank you" and "Thanks" i n cl o s i n g . An examination showed an int e r e s t i n g l i n g u i s t i c d i s t i n c t i o n between formal and informal usage by NSE subjects. As shown i n Table 29, NSE subjects s h i f t e d r e g i s t e r from formal to informal depending on the context. They tended to use "Thank you (very much)" with the professor and tended to use "Thanks (a l o t ) " with the f r i e n d . On the other hand, JSE subjects tended to use r e l a t i v e l y formal expressions such as "Thank you (very much)" with both the professor and the friend. Table 3 0 shows the sty l e s h i f t of thanks i n Japanese. When the expression of thanks was uttered, the p o l i t e form was used exclu s i v e l y i n c a l l i n g a professor and the p l a i n form was used exclu s i v e l y i n c a l l i n g a friend. However, sociopragmatic transfer was not found i n JSE subjects' interlanguage i n terms of 106 st y l e s h i f t i n g . It may be that the JSE did not perceive "thank you" as a r e l a t i v e l y formal expression, since "thank you" i s commonly used among interlocutors i n close r e l a t i o n s h i p and i s regarded not as a formal but as a casual form of appreciation i n Japanese. Table 30: Language Use of Thanking i n Japanese (NSJ) NSJ (N=20) Professor Friend (A)Doumo arigatou gozaimashita 8 ( 40%) 0 ( 0%) (B)Arigatou 0 ( 0%) 14 ( 70%) (B) A P l a i n Form of Appreciation such as "Thanks" Table 31: Language Use of Goodbyes (N=20 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ (A) (B) 19 ( 95%) 15 ( 75%) 17 ( 85%) 20 (100%) 20% (100%) 0 ( 0%) (C) 0 ( 0%) 20 (100%) IA) "Bye Bye" i n English (B) "Shitsurei itashimasu" i n Japanese (Conventionally P o l i t e Form for "Bye Bye", Used for Older or Higher Status Persons) (C) "Bai Bai" i n Japanese (Casual Form for "Bye Bye") The Japanese expression of "Bye bye" also showed c l e a r s t y l e s h i f t i n g depending on the relationship to the requestee. "Bai bai" i s a casual expression for a goodbye, while "Shitsurei 107 itashimasu" i s a conventional p o l i t e form used to older or s o c i a l l y high status persons. However, sociopragmatic transfer did not operate because the two Japanese expressions of "Bai bai" and "Shitsurei itashimasu" were included i n one expression "Bye bye" i n English as shown i n Table 31. 4 . 7 ANALYSIS OF APOLOGIES AND PROMISES OF REWARD F i n a l l y , the recognizable feature of apology for c a l l i n g the requestee at home and promise of reward were independently analyzed. The apology for c a l l i n g at home tended to appear i n the early stage of the conversation and the promise of reward i n the middle or ending. However, t h e i r appearance was inconsistent. Table 32: Apology for C a l l i n g the Requestee at Home and Promise of Reward (N=20 per each group) C a l l i n g a professor C a l l i n g a f r i e n d NSE JSE NSJ NSE JSE NSJ. (A) 10 ( 50%) 1 ( 5%) 5 ( 25%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) (B) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 7 ( 35%) 0 ( 0%) 4 ( 20%) (A) "I'm sorry to c a l l you at home, but ..." (B) " I ' l l buy you a coffee ..." As shown i n Table 32, apologies were used excl u s i v e l y when c a l l i n g a professor, while promises of reward were used exc l u s i v e l y when c a l l i n g a friend. The apologies demonstrated negative politeness which were intended to avoid p o t e n t i a l 108 offensive behaviours and the promises of reward demonstrated p o s i t i v e politeness intended to maintain close r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Both NSE and NSJ subjects tended to use these strategies, however, JSE seemed to have d i f f i c u l t y i n using them. Since Japanese subjects used the strategies, i t i s probably not due to LI transfer. Therefore, i t may have been due to a lack of language a b i l i t y . They might have been concentrating on keeping the conversation i n L2 and might not have had time to think about these strategies. 4 . 8 CONCLUSION In t h i s chapter, telephone conversations were analyzed according to the sequential order of openings, requests, thankings, and closings. There were s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences i d e n t i f i e d c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y and contextually. Some forms and functions appear to exist i n one culture but not i n the other culture. For example, greeting sequences and how-are-you sequences exist i n Japanese, but the functional use of the sequences was not the same as English i n the telephone conversations i n t h i s study. Enthusiastic expressions are not a common feature i n Japanese culture. Thus, what existed i n L2 but not i n LI seemed d i f f i c u l t for second language learners to use unless they were aware of the c u l t u r a l differences and used the expressions consciously. On the contrary, what existed i n LI but not i n L2 was also d i f f i c u l t to transfer. For example, the JSE subjects wanted to 109 transfer the function of honorifics i n order to show politeness, but could not do so because of the lack of an equivalent ho n o r i f i c s system i n L2. However, English has d i f f e r e n t ways of showing politeness, which the second language learners need to know. The problem seemed to be that these d i f f e r e n t systems were not taught i n English classes i n Japan. Pragmalinguistic f a i l u r e occurred when JSE subjects transferred the semantic meaning used i n LI into t h e i r use of L2. Two sentences which have the same meaning may be p o l i t e with the use of honorifics but may be p l a i n and casual without h o n o r i f i c s . Therefore, when JSE conveyed the l i t e r a l meaning and uttered, "I want you to write a l e t t e r of recommendation", to the professor, i t was very d i r e c t and sounded impolite. In a r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n , the professor might not accept the request, f e e l i n g i n s u l t e d by the inappropriate use of English. What was suggested from the analysis i s that knowing the functional aspects of language use i s important for second language learners. What i s more, i t should be noted that the appropriate use of language cannot be decided without considering the whole discourse of given contexts. A l l the contexts such as the interpersonal relationship with the requestee, the distance and power of the person, the degree of imposition of the request, and the necessity of the request must be taken into consideration to determine the appropriate use of the language. 110 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 5.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents an overview of the study followed by implications of the results for teaching. F i n a l l y , the li m i t a t i o n s of the study and implications for further research are presented. 5.1 THE PROBLEM AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY 5.1.1 The problem The fundamental problem i s the lack of comprehensive and contrastive discourse analysis of requests on the telephone, focusing on English, Japanese, and the interlanguage of Japanese learners of English. Though many studies had been conducted on the speech act of requests, most of them have used written questionnaires such as Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs). DCTs have been c r i t i c i z e d i n terms of t h e i r v a l i d i t y and have the following l i m i t a t i o n s : (1) The subjects can develop t h e i r best possible answer which might d i f f e r from the utterance i n r e a l i n t e r a c t i o n with the interlocutor (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986) . (2) When subjects take a role which they have never experienced before, the answer might d i f f e r from a r e a l I l l l i f e utterance. (3) The b r i e f description given to the subjects might cause d i f f e r e n t interpretations depending on how they perceived t h e i r given role and the int e r l o c u t o r described i n the si t u a t i o n . (4) The answer to the DCTs i s only a small segment i n the whole conversation and does not provide other important a n a l y t i c a l sources such as how to open and close the conversation and how to negotiate and change the desired goal i n discourse. On the other hand, open-ended role play requires subjects to engage i n actual interactions, which provide researchers with much data for analysis. The discourse contains many interactions which also provide many implications for teaching and learning English. The discourse analysis of requests provide teachers and learners with pragmatic knowledge concerning not only how to make requests but also how to open the conversation, make a request, show appreciation, and close the conversation. The politeness strategies used by subjects can also be analyzed through the whole discourse. 5.1.2 Rationale for the study The request i s one of the most important speech behaviours that should be studied c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y i n s p e c i f i c contexts. Following are the main reasons for the study. 112 (1) The request i s an indispensable speech behaviour that a l l people i n any country must be able to perform when they need help or cooperation from others. (2) The request requires careful consideration before taking action because i t i s a face-threatening act that might damage the relationship between the in t e r l o c u t o r s . (3) The request requires politeness, the degree of which i s measured by considering the complicated combination of s o c i a l distance and r e l a t i v e power with the requestee, and the rank of imposition. (4) The perception of politeness and the r e l a t i o n of sentence forms with the intended function might d i f f e r c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y . The request i s an important but d i f f i c u l t speech behaviour. Even though one intends to be p o l i t e , politeness might not be conveyed because of cross- c u l t u r a l differences i n perception of politeness, the lack of l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t y , and pragmatic knowledge to convey the intended politeness appropriately. The study of requests i s very important to provide the appropriate forms that teachers and learners of English should know about. 5.2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND PRAGMATIC TRANSFER MODELS 5.2.1 Literature review The concept of speech act was introduced by Austin (1962) 113 and developed by Searle (1975). They demonstrated the functional aspect of language use. For example, there were various forms of sentences that function as requests. There i s also a case when one sentence might indicate d i f f e r e n t functions depending on the context or how the hearer perceives i t . The utterance "It i s hot here" might be just a description or a request for opening a door. Based on Grice's cooperative p r i n c i p l e (1975) and Goffman's concept of "face" (1955), Brown and Levinson (1978) proposed a comprehensive politeness theory. They explained the function of l i n g u i s t i c politeness using the notion of face as a basic want. They divided the concept of face into two kinds. One i s negative face and the other i s posit i v e face. They thought some speech acts could i n t r i n s i c a l l y threaten face and be a p o t e n t i a l l y face-threatening act (FTA). The speaker, when s/he wants to make a request, needs to use some strategies to minimize the FTA. The speaker chooses an appropriate form by assessing the weightiness of the FTA, which i s determined by the s o c i a l distance and the r e l a t i v e power between the interlocutors and the absolute ranking of imposition i n the p a r t i c u l a r culture. They claimed a u n i v e r s a l i t y to t h e i r theory. However, several Japanese researchers ( H i l l et a l , 1986; Ide, 1987, 1989) claimed that Brown and Levinson's theory needed to be expanded by adding the concept of " v o l i t i o n " and "discernment". The notion of v o l i t i o n covers most of the politeness strategies proposed by 114 Brown and Levinson (1978), since the strategies can be v o l i t i o n a l l y chosen by the speaker. On the other hand, the notion of discernment explains the use of honorifics which are the p o l i t e forms required to be used according to relationship i n the society. Discernment was distinguished from the strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson, since discernment cannot be v o l i t i o n a l l y chosen as a strategy but has to be acknowledged and required to be used by i n t e r l o c u t o r s . Based on these theories, many studies have been conducted to examine c r o s s - c u l t u r a l s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences i n requests. CCSARP may be the biggest project investigating the speech act of requests. The studies i n the CCSARP project provided general tendencies of requests by non-native speakers as follows: (1) Non-native speakers tended to make s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer utterances. ( i . e . more use of supportive moves) (2) Preparatory requests such as "Could you lend me your notes?" are preferred for a request proper sentence. (3) Directness of request sentences d i f f e r s depending on context. ( i . e . directness i s high when the addressee has low obligation to comply with the addresser's request) (4) Non-native speakers tend to use e x p l i c i t , transparent, unambiguous expressions. ( i . e . more use of d i r e c t expressions) 115 When speech act studies include LI controls, they usually examine the e f f e c t s of LI transfer. Both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfer has been found i n the previous studies. Pragmalinguistic transfer i n making requests occurs when non-native speakers transfer the LI preference of directness into the use of L2. For example, German speakers of English tend to use d i r e c t expressions for request such as "You should close the window" because they transfer the LI preference of using the modal of "should". Japanese learners of English also t r a n s f e r the preference of questioning patterns to express disagreement i n LI into the use of L2 and cannot convey the intended meaning, since the questioning strategy i s not a conventional f o r expressing disagreement i n American culture (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989) . Transfer of t r a i n i n g i s also included i n pragmalinguistic transfer. For example, Japanese learners- of English tended to use d i r e c t and straight forward expressions i n English, since they were taught a stereotype that Americans are more d i r e c t than Japanese. Sociopragmatic transfer occurs when the s o c i a l perception, interpretation, and judgement of the l i n g u i s t i c action i n L2 are influenced by those i n LI. Japanese learners of English are also found to transfer the s e n s i t i v i t y to the high- or low-status p o s i t i o n of the interlocutor into the use of English (Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990). .Especially advanced learners of English tended to transfer LI sociopragmatic knowledge into L2 116 because the p r o f i c i e n c y enabled them to say i n L2 what they would have said i n LI. 5.2.2 Pragmatic transfer models i n making requests Making requests i s planned speech. The requester usually thinks about the degree of imposition and the r e l a t i o n s h i p and r e l a t i v e power with the requestee. The context i s important to determine how the requester makes a request. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the requester i m p l i c i t y or e x p l i c i t l y plans strategies before taking action. Even though the requests are planned speech, many altern a t i v e s are possible through negotiation with the requestee. The strategy i s only planned beforehand, and not necessarily performed i n conversation as i n i t i a l l y planned. The requester needs to negotiate and change the desired goal through i n t e r a c t i o n with the requestee. The request i s more d i f f i c u l t and complicated for non-native speakers, since t h e i r perception of politeness and the functions of sentences they preferred to use i n LI are often d i f f e r e n t from what i s perceived i n L2. The following are models of pragmatic transfer: (1) Transfer caused by lack of pragmatic knowledge and dependence on l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n of LI into L2 regardless of i t s function. (2) Transfer caused by the application of previously learned 117 knowledge into L2. (3) Transfer caused by the application of a s o c i a l norm i n LI culture into L2. (4) Transfer caused by the application of LI discourse pattern into L2. 5 .3 METHODOLOGY F i r s t , subjects were recruited from undergraduate classes i n the Language Education Department at UBC, the pa r t i c i p a n t s i n UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme, and residents i n Ritsumeikan House. The researcher asked for volunt eers i n the classes i n the Language Education Department and the UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme. Subjects were 20 native speakers of English (NSE), 20 Japanese speakers of English (JSE), and 20 native speakers of Japanese (NSJ) . Open-ended or a l role play was used to e l i c i t the data f o r analyzing the requests made on the telephone. They were asked to make requests i n two given situations. One involved asking a professor for a reference l e t t e r ( s o c i a l l y high status, high distance). The other involved asking a fr i e n d to proofread ( s o c i a l l y equal status, close distance). Their conversations were tape-recorded on an answering machine attached to the telephone and l a t e r transcribed. Pre-study questionnaires and post-study questionnaires were also conducted to e l i c i t background information and t h e i r perception of t h e i r role play a c t i v i t i e s . Data were analyzed 118 q u a n t i t a t i v e l y according to the sequential order of openings, requests, thankings, and closings. The following was the procedure: • (1) Recruiting subjects (2) Arranging the schedule (3) Pre-study questionnaire (4) Ten-minute-preparation for role play * (5) Role play * (6) Post-study questionnaire * (7) Transcription (8) Data analysis * conducted twice on d i f f e r e n t days 5.4 FINDINGS AND PRAGMATIC TRANSFER MODELS 5.4.1 Findings Openings were analyzed according to the four sequences (summon-answer sequence, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n sequence, greeting sequence, and how-are-you sequence) proposed by Schegloff (1968) . In summon-answer sequence, i t was always the c a l l e d person who said "Hello" f i r s t as a response to the phone ringing, regardless of LI and context. After the summon-answer sequence, a l l the subjects engaged i n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (ID) sequences, however, the rate of i d e n t i f y i n g only from voice increased i n c a l l i n g a f r i e n d because of the close relationship with the c a l l e d . S i g n i f i c a n t 119 c r o s s - c u l t u r a l differences were not i d e n t i f i e d except for the JSE subjects' redundant ID questions to the c a l l e d who stated her/his name. Subjects preferred to use the family name with the t i t l e "Dr." when addressing the professor and f i r s t name with no t i t l e when addressing the friend, except for the NSJ subjects who also used family names even when addressing the fri e n d . In the greeting and how-are-you sequence, i t was found that the greeting "Hi" and "How are you?", which was preferred by most NSE subjects on the telephone, was not a common feature for Japanese subjects i n t h i s study. Sociopragmatic transfer was i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s respect. This i s an important finding f o r Japanese teachers and learners. The lack of the how-are-you sequence might cause an unsatisfactory f e e l i n g on the part of native speakers of English. Next, requests were analyzed i n terms of supportive moves. A preparator ( i . e . "Can I ask a favour of you?") was consistently used i n each group i n both situations. However, NSE subjects preferred to use more in d i r e c t expressions i n using preparators than JSE subjects i n both situations. On the other hand, NSJ subjects made clear d i s t i n c t i o n s i n terms of t h e i r language use depending on who they talked to. NSE subjects tended to use r e l a t i v e l y less grounders than JSE and NSJ subjects i n pre-request. NSE subjects seemed to prefer to leave the d e t a i l s to l a t e r negotiations. As f o r sweeteners, disarmers, and cost minimizers, JSE subjects tended 120 to use these supportive moves r e l a t i v e l y less than NSE and NSJ subjects, which may have been due to a lack of language a b i l i t y . A s u r p r i s i n g finding was that JSE subjects used fewer supportive moves than NSE and NSJ subjects, which i s contradictory to the results of previous studies i n which non-native speakers used more supportive moves than native speakers. This might have resulted from differences i n methodology. Most previous studies used the DCT which enabled native speakers to write the most e f f i c i e n t expressions they could and non-native speakers to write as many possible expressions as they could. On the other hand, o r a l role play provides opportunity for the native speakers to use supportive moves through the int e r a c t i o n , while non-native speakers might f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to use supportive moves because of t h e i r lack of spoken language a b i l i t y . In order to explore t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , more research and examination i s needed. The politeness l e v e l of head acts showed that NSE subjects used more p o l i t e forms than JSE subjects. It seemed that JSE subjects thought that "Could you . ..?" was the only p o l i t e form for making requests and did not know other devices to sound p o l i t e , though NSJ subjects distinguished p o l i t e forms c l e a r l y depending on the s i t u a t i o n . The analysis of thanking revealed that NSE.tended to give enthusiastic expressions such as "Great" and "Wonderful" when t h e i r request was accepted. On the other hand, JSE tended to say just "Ok" or "Yes" without adding any further comments. This 121 tended to make the conversation sound more one-sided. The analysis of closings also provided s i m i l a r r e s u l t s that NSE subjects used enthusiastic expressions, while JSE and NSJ did not. NSJ used apologies and "Onegaishimasu" instead. It was also found that expressions of appreciation mostly appeared i n the c l o s i n g part. An examination of the sentences used for thanking showed that NSE sh i f t e d the form depending on who they were t a l k i n g to, while JSE did not and that NSJ again made a clear d i s t i n c t i o n between the two contexts. F i n a l l y , apologies for c a l l i n g at home and promise of reward were analyzed. It was found that the apologies were ex c l u s i v e l y used for a professor and the promises of reward were used for a fr i e n d by both NSE and NSJ subjects i n order to maintain the formality or closeness, however, JSE subjects f a i l e d to use such formulas. 5.4.2 Pragmatic transfer models and the findings Considering the results of t h i s study, there were cross-l i n g u i s t i c s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences. The s i m i l a r i t i e s d i d not cause troubles i n conversational exchanges. However, the differences were often problematic when LI features were transferred to L2 performance which sounded inappropriate or impolite. Pragmatic transfer models introduced i n Chapter Two were observed and supported i n t h i s study. The f i r s t model was the transfer caused by lack of pragmatic knowledge and dependence on l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n of LI into L2 122 regardless of i t s function. This model was i d e n t i f i e d i n the JSE subjects' use of dir e c t expressions such as, "I want you to proofread my paper". The expression, "I want you to was considered as a l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n of the Japanese expression "... te i t a d a k i t a i n desukedo . . . " . The Japanese expression i s p o l i t e with the use of honorifics, however, JSE subjects could not convey the function of honorifics because of the lack of the equivalent system i n L2, depending on the l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n . The second model was the transfer caused by the a p p l i c a t i o n of previously learned knowledge into L2. This model was i d e n t i f i e d i n the JSE subjects' preference for expressions such as, "Could (Would) you do me a favour?", i n using preparators or, "Could (Would) you write a l e t t e r of recommendation?", i n requests. Several JSE subjects responded i n the post-study questionnaire that the expression, "Could (Would) you ....?", was the p o l i t e form for asking a favour i n English. The expression i s acceptable but s t i l l sounds d i r e c t compared with the expressions such as, "I'm (was) wondering i f ....", and, "I was hoping that you could ....", which were used by most NSE subjects. The t h i r d model was the transfer caused by the a p p l i c a t i o n of a s o c i a l norm i n LI culture into L2. This model was observed i n the JSE subjects' s e n s i t i v i t y to the s o c i a l status v a r i a b l e . The NSJ subjects made a clear d i s t i n c t i o n i n t h e i r language use depending on who they were tal k i n g to. They had to show respect to a professor using language with honorifics, but not to a 123 f r i e n d . The s o c i a l norm was transferred to L2 used by the JSE subjects. In making requests to a friend, the JSE subjects seemed to change "Could you ....?" into "Can you ....?" or increased the sue of "I want you to ...." or "Please ....", while NSE did not change the directness i n request sentences depending on the i n t e r l o c u t o r s . The fourth model was the transfer caused by the a p p l i c a t i o n of LI discourse patterns into L2. This model was observed i n the lack of greeting and how-are-you sequences i n L2 used by JSE subjects. The JSE subjects had trouble using the sequences because the greetings and "How are yous" were not conventional i n t h e i r LI i n the contexts given i n t h i s study. The lack of enthusiastic expressions such as "Great" or "Wonderful" i n thanking also f e l l i n t h i s model. These examples demonstrate that what exists i n L2 and does not exist i n LI i s d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y and use for L2 learners. Thus, these pragmatic transfer models proposed i n Chapter Two were supported by the findings of t h i s study. 5 . 5 IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING This study revealed the lack of pragmatic competence of Japanese speakers of English i n making requests. Their TOEFL scores showed that they had obtained high l e v e l s of grammatical knowledge. However, they did not seem to have been taught pragmatic aspects of English such as how to be p o l i t e and how to be formal or informal appropriately according to context. 124 It i s time to change English Education from grammar-based to communication-based teaching. The lack of pragmatic knowledge and a b i l i t y to use the language appropriately depending on context may cause misrepresentation or regret. The following are implications for teaching: (1) More attention should be paid to the pragmatic knowledge i n teaching English for developing communicative competence of Japanese speakers of English. (2) Discourse analysis should be encouraged i n both LI and L2 i n order to a l e r t the students to the functional aspects of language. (3) Movies and TV drama should be used because students w i l l be able to access natural conversation and the authentic discourse. (4) Teachers should give students a l o t of opportunity to do a role play so that they get accustomed to using English appropriately i n given contexts. (5) The i n t e r a c t i o n between a teacher and students and between students should be encouraged i n English classes so that students have enough time to practice using English with learned pragmatic knowledge. 5.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The researcher o r i g i n a l l y intended to select the subjects randomly from undergraduate students- at UBC and p a r t i c i p a n t s i n 125 UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme. However, he could not f i n d enough applicants for the random sampling and was obliged to ask almost a l l the applicants to be his subjects as far as they met minimum requirements of the research. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalized to broader populations. Open-ended or a l role play i s supposed to be close to authentic conversation. However, i t has l i m i t a t i o n s i n that subjects might become nervous or could not f u l l y accommodate themselves to given roles and might perform d i f f e r e n t l y from t h e i r r e a l - l i f e interactions. One subject stated i n the post-questionnaire that she might have acted d i f f e r e n t l y i f she had a c t u a l l y wanted to apply for graduate school. Different p e r s o n a l i t i e s of 12 volunteer research assistants (VRAs) and t h e i r preference for conversational st y l e s might have also affected the responses of subjects. It was also found from the post-study questionnaire that subjects' images of professors d i f f e r e d depending on VRAs. Some subjects perceived that a professor was gentle, while others perceived that a professor was dominant. These differences might possibly affected the formality of t h e i r language use. Furthermore, since t h i s researcher i s a Japanese and not a native speaker of English, he had d i f f i c u l t y f i n ding subtle differences i n English usage depending on the context.-Especially, the d i s t i n c t i o n s between formal and informal language use i n English were not f u l l y explained. Therefore, the analysis may lack i n important aspects of the r e s u l t s that can be 126 i d e n t i f i e d from native speakers' view points. 5 .7 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH F i r s t , discourse analysis of requests i n various contexts should be pursued. This study focused on requests i n only two situations where subjects were a l l u n i v e r s i t y students and the degree of imposition was r e l a t i v e l y high. Since given contexts are important a f f e c t i n g variables, requests i n many other situations should be examined to e l i c i t possible d i f f e r e n t patterns depending on contexts. Furthermore, the channel used i n t h i s study was the telephone and requests through other channels might produce d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s . Other channels such as face-to-face communication and l e t t e r s should be analyzed to be compared with the r e s u l t s of t h i s study. Second, how English proficiency l e v e l a f f e c t request behaviours should be examined. Since JSE subjects i n t h i s study were already selected as participants i n UBC-Ritsumeikan Programme and were almost the same i n English proficiency, the researcher did not investigate how the pr o f i c i e n c y variable affected t h e i r requests. Investigation of differences due to p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l and previous English education would provide further evidence to support both theory and prac t i c e . Third, since politeness i s a r e l a t i v e notion depending on context, i t i s important to know how the requestee perceives the other's request behaviour i n terms of politeness. It i s possible that the perception toward politeness might d i f f e r depending on 127 context, culture, and personality of inter l o c u t o r s . For example, expressions which sound impolite i n LI might not be perceived as impolite when they were used by non-native speakers. Interviewing both requesters and requestees would give r i c h data sources for analyzing politeness and i t s perception. F i n a l l y , the data analysis of discourse would be enriched by examining turn taking, back channel signals such as "uh huh", tone of voice, pause and so on. These functional aspects are very important i n d a i l y conversation, but seem not to be taught i n English classes i n Japan probably because of the lack of studies r e l a t i n g to discourse analysis of natural conversations. It would be much easier for teachers to teach these important aspects of communication i f they had pragmatic knowledge concerning actual use of English. 5.8 CONCLUSION This chapter reviewed the study, implications f o r teaching, l i m i t a t i o n s of the study, and implications for further research. Results of t h i s study support models of interlanguage e f f e c t s on requests i n second language. However, they should not be generalized to broader populations because of the l i m i t a t i o n s i n the scope of the study. The study of discourse analysis i s inconclusive i n that t h i s study has not analyzed important aspects of discourse such as turn taking, tone of voice, etc. Further research i s needed, both formal and informal. This researcher intends to undertake further research i n t h i s f i e l d . 128 References Ando, S. (1986). Eicro no r o n r i , nihonqo no r o n r i . Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a t i o n i n face-threatening speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage (pp. 199-218). New York: Plenum. Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T.; & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer i n ESL refusals. In R.C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen & S.D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence i n a second language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House. Blum, S. & Levinston, E. (1978). Universals of l e x i c a l s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . Language Learning, 28(2), 399-415. Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean i n a second language: A study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied L i n g u i s t i c s , 3., 29-59. Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing i t safe: The role of conventionality i n indirectness. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 37-70. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 129 Blum-Kulka, S. & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n i n requesting behavior. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 123-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cr o s s - c u l t u r a l study of speech act r e a l i z a t i o n patterns (CCARP). Applied L i n g u i s t i c s , 5, (3), 196-213. Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: length of utterance and pragmatic f a i l u r e . Studies i n Second Language Acquisition, 8., 165-180. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals i n language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n (pp. 56-310) . Cambridge: Cambridge University. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals i n language usage. Cambridge University Press. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and tes t i n g . Applied L i n g u i s t i c s , 1, 1-47. Clancy, P. M. (1986). The acq u i s i t i o n of communicative s t y l e i n Japanese. In B. S c h i e f f e l i n & E. Ochs, (Eds.), Language a c q u i s i t i o n and s o c i a l i z a t i o n across cultures (pp. 213-250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, A., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of so c i o c u l t u r a l competence: The case of apology. Language 130 Learning, 31(1), 113-134. Coulmas, F. (1992). L i n g u i s t i c etiquette i n Japanese society. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. E h l i c h (Eds.), Politeness i n language (pp. 299-323). B e r l i n : Mouton De Gruyter. Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. W. (1986). 'I very appreciate': Expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied L i n g u i s t i c s , 7, 167-185. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1987). Cross-cultural and developmental sources of pragmatics generalizations. In J. Verschueren & M. B e r t u c e l l i - P a p i (Eds.), (pp. 47-60). Ervin-Tripp, S. & Gordon, D. (1986). The development children's requests. In R.E. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Communicative competence: Assessment and intervention (pp. 61-96). San Diego, CA: College H i l l Press. Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1989) . Internal and External modification i n interlanguage request r e a l i z a t i o n . In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Request and apologies (pp. 221-247). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Fraser, B. & Nelon, W. (1981). The association of deference with l i n g u i s t i c form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109. Godard, D. (1979). Same setting, d i f f e r e n t norms: Phone c a l l beginnings i n France and the United States. Language i n Society, 6(2), 209-219. Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: an analysis of r i t u a l elements i n s o c i a l i nteraction. Psychiatry, 18., 213-231. Reprinted i n J. Laver and S. Hutcheson (Eds.), Communication i n face to face i n t e r a c t i o n (pp. 319-346). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction r i t u a l : Essays on face to face behavior. NY: Garden City. Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and responses. Language i n Society, 5(3), 254-313. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, v o l . 3 (pp. 41-58).. New York: Academic Press. Gunderson, L. (1995). An investigation of the family, developmental, l i n g u i s t i c , and l i t e r a c y backgrounds of immigrant students. Presented i n 40th Annual Convention of International Reading Association, Anaheim, C a l i f o r n i a . Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. H i l l , B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., & Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of l i n g u i s t i c politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics. 10, 347-371. Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies i n New Zealand English. Language i n Society. 19(2), 155-199. Hymes, D. (1964). Directions i n (ethno)linguistic theory. American Anthoropologiest, G6.3(2), 6-56 Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the int e r a c t i o n of language and s o c i a l setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 8-28. Ide, S. (1987). Gendai no keigoriron - Nihon to oobei no hookatsu he [Current politeness theory: Japan and Westerns]. Gengo [Languages], 16 (8) , 26-30. Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of l i n g u i s t i c politeness. Multilingua, 8 (2/3) , 223-248. Ide, S. (1993). Nihonjin no uchi-soto ninchi to wakimae no gengosiyo. Nihongogaku, 42-53. Ide, S., H i l l , B., Carnes, Y. M., Ogino, T., & Kawasaki, A. (1992) . The concept of politeness: An empirical study of American English and Japanese. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. E h l i c h (Eds.), Ploliteness i n language (pp. 281-297). B e r l i n : Mouton De Gruyter. Ikuta, S. (1988). Strategies of requesting i n Japanese conversational discourse. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University. Kasper, G. (1981). Pragmatische aspekte i n der interimsprache. Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Kasper, G. (1989). Variation i n interlanguage speech act r e a l i z a t i o n . In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston & L. Selinker (Eds.), V a r i a t i o n i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n : Discourse and pragmatics (pp. 37-58). Clevedon: M u l t i l i n g u a l Matters. 133 Kasper, G. (1990). L i n g u i s t i c politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14., 193-217. Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8(3), 203-231. Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1992). Research methods i n interlanguage pragmatics. Studies i n Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215-247. Kinjo, H. (1987). Oral refusals of i n v i t a t i o n s and requests i n English and Japanese. Journal of Asian Culture, 11, 83-106. Kitao, K. (1988). Differences between politeness strategies used i n requests by Americans and Japanese. Doshisha Studies i n English, 44 & 45, 326-343. Kitao, K. (1989) . Politeness strategies used i n requests - A cybernetic model. Doshisha Studies i n English, 46., 41-54. Lakoff, R. (1972). Language i n context. Language, 48, 907-927. Lakoff, R. (1989). The l i m i t s of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua, 8., 101-129. Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese pattern of behavior. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. Leech, G. (1983). Princi p l e s of pragmatics. London & New York: Longman. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge Un i v e r s i t y Press. ' Makino, S. (1978). Kotoba to kuukan. Tokai Daigaku Shuppankai, 107-173. 134 Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the u n i v e r s a l i t y of face: Politeness phenomena i n Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426. Matsumoto, Y. (198 9). Politeness and conversational universals -Observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8 2/3, 207-221. Nakane, C. (1967). Tate-shakai no ningen-kankei: Tan-itsu-shakai no r i r o n [Personal relations i n a v e r t i c a l society: A theory of a homogeneous soc i e t y ] . Tokyo: Kodansha. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Richards, J. (1980). Conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 413-432. R i n t e l l , E., & M i t c h e l l , C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into method. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 248-272). Norwood, NJ: Albex. Robinson, M. A. (1992). Introspective methodology i n interlanguage pragmatics research. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as native and target language (pp. 27-82) . Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Rose, K. (1992). Method and scope i n cross c u l t u r a l speech act research: a contrastive study of requests i n Japanese and English. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of I l l i n o i s at Urbana-Champaign. Rose, K. (1994). On the v a l i d i t y of discourse completion tests i n non-western contexts. Applied L i n g u i s t i c s , 15, 1-14. Scarcella, R. (1979). On speaking p o l i t e l y i n a second language. In C. A. Yorio, K. Perkins, & J. Schachter (Eds.), On TESOL '79 (pp. 275-287). Washington, DC: TESOL. Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing i n conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6). 1075-1095. Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261-286) . New York: Academic Press. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closing. Semiotica, 8(4), 289-327. Schmidt, R. (1993) . Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, R. W., & Richards, J. C. (1980). Speech acts and second language learning. Applied L i n g u i s t i c s , 1(2), 129-157. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. B. K. (1983). Face i n interethnic communication. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 156-188). London: Longman. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech act: An essay i n the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol 3.: Speech acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. Interactional Review of Applied L i n g u i s t i c s , 10., 201-231. 136 Takahashi, T. & Beebe, L. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8 (2) , 131-155. Tanaka, N. (1988). Politeness: Some problems for Japanese speakers of English. JALT Journal, 9(2), 81-102. Tanaka, S., & Kawade, S. (1982). Politeness strategies and second language a c q u i s i t i o n . Studies i n Second Language Acq u i s i t i o n , 5, 18-33. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic f a i l u r e . Applied L i n g u i s t i c s , 4(2), 91-112. Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wierzbicka, A. (1985a). A semantic metalanguage for a cross-c u l t u r a l comparison of speech acts and speech genres. Language i n Society, 14, 491-514. Wierzbicka, A. (1985b). Different cultures, d i f f e r e n t speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-178. Wierzbicks, A. (1991). Japanese key words and core c u l t u r a l values. Language i n Society, 20, 333-385. 137 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE (about your background as a Canadian subject) Name: ._ Male Female 1. Age : ( ) Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 2. Major: 3. Is your parents' f i r s t language English? Yes No 4. If no, what i s your parents' f i r s t language? Mother: Father: 5. What languages are mainly used i n your family? English Japanese Others ( ) 6. Do you have any experiences staying or studying abroad? Yes No If yes, write the name of country, the length of stay, and the purpose. Country Length of Stay Purpose 7. Have you studied any second/foreign language before? Yes No If yes, write the name of the language, the estimated l e v e l (beginning, intermediate, or advanced) and the length of study. Language Level Length of study 8. If you are advanced i n any language, how long have you been studying the language? ( ) years How often do you use ( l i s t e n , speak, read, and write) the language per day? 0-lhr l-2hrs 2-3hrs 3-4hrs 4-5hrs more than 5hrs 138 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE (about your background as a Japanese subject) Name: Male Female 1. Age: ( ) Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 2. Major: 3. Is your parents' f i r s t language Japanese? Yes No 4: What languages are mainly used i n your family? English Japanese Others ( ) 5. Do you have any experiences staying or studying abroad? Yes No If yes, write the name of country, the length of stay, and the purpose. Country Length of Stay Purpose 6. How long have you been studying English? ( ) years 7. What was mainly emphasized i n English classes you have taken i n Japan? l i s t e n i n g speaking reading vocabulary writing grammar 8. How often did you speak English per day before you came to Canada? 0-lhr l-2hrs 2-3hrs 3-4hrs 4-5hrs more than 5hrs 9. How often do you speak English per day? 0-lhr l-2hrs 2-3hrs 3-4hrs 4-5hrs more than 5hrs 10. How often do you read English newspaper/magazine/etc per day? 0-lhr l-2hrs 2-3hrs 3-4hrs 4-5hrs more than 5hrs 11. How often do you watch North American TV and movies per day? 0-lhr l-2hrs 2-3hrs 3-4hrs 4-5hrs more than 5hrs 139 APPENDIX C Name: Procedure and things to notice about the role-play Procedure (1) Please read the given s i t u a t i o n c a r e f u l l y and prepare f o r the conversation for 10 minutes. (2) When you are ready, please go to a room and perform your role using a r e a l telephone. Please interact with the person you are t a l k i n g to-on the telephone as you would do i n a r e a l s i t u a t i o n . (3) When you have fin i s h e d the role-play, a questionnaire w i l l be delivered to you. Please f i l l i t i n . (4) When you have finished f i l l i n g i t i n , please return the si t u a t i o n paper and the questionnaire to the researcher, Akihiko Haisa. Notice (1) Please do not tal k about the s i t u a t i o n with others i n the room while are preparing for the role-play and are f i l l i n g i n the questionnaire. (2) When you prepare for the conversation, please'think i n your mind and do not write whole sentences that you might want to read on a telephone. It i s OK to make notes. (3) Since other subjects may do the same role-play on d i f f e r e n t days, please do not talk about the given s i t u a t i o n with your classmates. 140 APPENDIX D Dr. XXX XXXXXXXX (1) The s i t u a t i o n given to subjects (APPENDIX F) (2) How to answer the phone from the subjects 1. Your student w i l l c a l l you. When you have a phone-call from the student, please respond and react as you would do on the phone i n your d a i l y l i f e . You know that the student i s taking your Sociology course and s/he i s doing well i n your c l a s s . You have never talked with her/him before outside of c l a s s . 2. The student w i l l ask you to write a l e t t e r of recommendation. If the student does not mention the following things, please question them. "what s/he wants to study i n the graduate school" "when the l e t t e r of recommendation has to be submitted to the graduate office"...When you know that s/he has only one week before the due date, please ask her/him why s/he could not ask you e a r l i e r . "how much s/he wants you to write i n the recommendation l e t t e r " If s/he has already mentioned them, please confirm the following things again. "s/he wants to study International Relations i n the graduate school" "s/he has to submit a l e t t e r of recommendation (1 page on a l e t t e r size paper) within one week" 3. Please inform the student of your s i t u a t i o n that you are very busy t h i s week preparing for a presentation i n a conference held on the week-end and that you w i l l have time to write a l e t t e r of recommendation next week. 4. Responding to the students, please decide the time and place (your o f f i c e ) to meet the student early next week. 5. Please close the conversation as though i n t e r a c t i n g with a student. 141 APPENDIX E Ms./Mr. XXXXX XXXXXX (1) The s i t u a t i o n given to subjects (APPENDIX G) (2) How to answer the phone from the subjects 1. Your f r i e n d w i l l c a l l you. When you have a phone-call from your friend, please respond and react as you would do on the phone i n your d a i l y l i f e . You know her/him very well and often go for coffee with her/him. 2. Your f r i e n d w i l l ask you to proofread her/his paper for her/his Sociology course. If the fr i e n d does not mention the following things, please question them. "what i s the topic of the paper" "when s/he has to submit the paper" "how much s/he wants you to proofread for her/his paper." If s/he have already mentioned them, please confirm the following things again. "s/he i s writing a paper on environmental problems." "s/he has to submit the five-page paper within a week from today." 3. When you know that s/he has only one week from today before the due date, please t e l l her/him whether or not you can do i t well within the limited time and that you are not experienced i n proofreading somebody's paper. 4. Please inform the frie n d that you are very busy t h i s week having a guest from Japan and showing her around Vancouver t h i s weekend and that you w i l l have time to proofread her/his paper next week. 5. Responding to the students, please decide the time and place to meet your f r i e n d early next week. 6. Please close the conversation as though i n t e r a c t i n g with a fri e n d . 142 APPENDIX F *Your s i t u a t i o n You are a student studying at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia i n Canada planning to do graduate studies i n International Relations at UBC. You f i n d that you need to have a l e t t e r of recommendation (one page on l e t t e r size paper) submitted to the graduate o f f i c e within one week from today. You decide to ask a professor, Dr. XXX XXXXXXXXX to write a recommendation, because you are taking her/his Sociology course and are doing well. Since you are not sure whether or not s/he w i l l come to uni v e r s i t y t h i s week and time i s limited, you have to c a l l her/him at home to ask for i t . Please c a l l and ask the professor to write a l e t t e r of recommendation for you. She/He i s a well-known professor and t h i s i s the f i r s t time you have spoken with her/him outside of class. (Telephone number: XXX-XXXX) 143 APPENDIX G *Your s i t u a t i o n You are a student studying at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia i n Canada and writing a paper on environmental problems for a Sociology course. You have to write f i v e pages and have just f i n i s h e d writing the rough draft. You have only one week from today before the due date. You want somebody to proofread your paper because i t i s an important assignment for your grade. Ms./Mr. XXXXX XXXXXX i s one of your good friends and very good at writing. She/He does not take the Sociology course. Please c a l l and ask her/him to proofread your paper. You know her/him very well and often go for coffee with her/him. (Telephone number: XXX-XXXX) 144 APPENDIX H QUESTIONNAIRE (about the role-play task No.l) 1. What were you conscious of about the s i t u a t i o n that you are asking a favour of the professor? 2. What made you speak to the professor i n the way you did? 3. Do you think that you could conduct the conversation as successfully as you planned? Yes No _ If no, why was i t not successful? 4. Is there anything that you have noticed about the conversation? Name: Date 145 APPENDIX I QUESTIONNAIRE (about the role-play task No.2) 1. What were you conscious of about the s i t u a t i o n that you were asking a favour of your friend? 2. What made you speak to the fr i e n d i n the way you did? 3. Do you think that you could conduct the conversation as successfully as you planned? Yes No _ If no, why was i t not successful? 4. What do you think were differences between asking a favour of a professor and asking a favour of a fr i e n d i n l i g h t of politeness? Name: Date 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078090/manifest

Comment

Related Items