A Contrastive Study of American and Chinese University Students’ … · 2011-09-07 · Cultural Speech Act Research Project (CCSARP) launched by Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989)

111

2011 年 1 月中国应用语言学（季刊） Jan. 2011

第 34 卷第 1 期 Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Quarterly) Vol. 34 No. 1

A Contrastive Study of American and Chinese University Students’ Complaining Strategies*

YUAN ZhouminNanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications

AbstractThis paper aims to make a contrastive study on complaining strategies between American

and Chinese university students, based on the descriptive study of the collected data, with

reference to the social variables of social status and social distance. It is found that Chinese

and American university students are significantly different in the choice of complaining

strategies produced to professors, intimates, friends and strangers. The Chinese show greater

respect to professors than Americans do. Generally, as to interlocutors with equal social status,

Americans’ complaining degree displays a gradually descending tendency along a social

distance continuum, while the Chinese have intimates and strangers at the both ends, with

friends in the middle. No significant difference has been revealed in the choice of complaining

strategies to parents, but Americans tend to be more polite than the Chinese. This challenges

Brown and Levinson’s formula, Wx = D (S, H) + P (H, S) +Rx, which implies the same weight

for each of these three factors. The study proves that in private conversations, the variable of

social distance carries more importance than the variable of social status.

Key words: complaining strategies; social status; social distance; complaining degree

1. Introduction

In the domain of cross-cultural pragmatics, the most influential research is the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Research Project (CCSARP) launched by Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989). The project makes a contrastive study of how the speech acts of request and

* This research is supported by the Teaching Reform Grant from Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications. Grant No.:JG00910JX32, and also sponsored by Qing Lan Project of Education Department of Jiangsu Province.

112

A Contrastive Study of American and Chinese University Students’ Complaining Strategies

apology are realized among eight languages and language varieties. Many other scholars have also contributed greatly to the study of speech acts such as apologies, compliments, greetings, invitations and refusals from the perspective of cross-cultural pragmatics and speech act realization patterns, with politeness levels being contrastively illustrated (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Liao, Chao-chi & Bresnahan, 1996; Olshtain & Cohen, 1983; Wolfson, 1981). But few are leveled at complaints—a typical FTA which is not usually employed for rapport inspiring, but instead for hostility-eliciting. This paper aims to make a contrastive study on complaining strategies between American native speakers and Chinese EFL learners based on the descriptive study of the collected data, with reference to the social variables of social status and social distance.

2. Literature review

Complaints, in general, can be defined as a set of speech acts that are characterized by dissatisfaction and unhappiness uttered by the speaker. The present paper borrows the definition from Laforest (2002: 1596) who defines complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction addressed by an individual A to an individual B concerning behavior on the part of B that A feels is unsatisfactory”. And this B is identified as the cause of the problem, i.e., the individual responsible for the behavior that is deemed unsatisfactory. The research focuses on the study of direct complaints in which interlocutors make face to face verbal complaints.

Studies on complaints within China are at an initial stage. Within these, early studies focused on the introduction and interpretation of some theoretical issues. Zhao (2003) described in general the performing conditions, syntactic patterns and pragmatic strategies of direct complaints; Later scholars conducted contrastive empirical studies. Li et al. (2006) examined differences in the degrees of severity in expressing complaints between EFL learners in China and native speakers from the United States, and between Chinese sub-groups. Zhu (2008) explored how the three groups of students (American native speakers, Chinese learners of English, non-English majors) complain, to find similarities and dissimilarities in terms of their strategy, use and wording features. These studies show a clear picture of the main features, pragmatic functions and cultural difference of complaints. In more recent studies, Yuan (2007, 2009) carried out two empirical studies based on discourse completion tests, with one aiming to find the difference of semantic components, lexical and syntactical features and discourse organization patterns between junior and senior English majors, and the other attempting to study the direct complaints by Chinese, especially on complaining strategies, realizations, level of speech act , distribution and typical linguistic expressions within complaining strategies. Up until now, to the best of the author’s knowledge, there are few studies aiming at the empirical contrastive study on complaints between Chinese and American participants.

Many studies abroad attempt to find the difference on the use of complaints between or among different language systems. House and Kasper (1981) compared complaint speech between English and German in terms of directness and modality markers,

113

YUAN Zhoumin

suggesting that German speakers select higher levels of directness and use fewer down-graders than English speakers do. However, they finally explained that this difference did not mean that German speakers are not intrinsically less polite than English speakers and that it appeared that they were unfairly compared to an English norm. They adopted four criteria to determine directness levels, from which many other studies seek inspiration. The first criterion takes account of implicit or explicit mention of the offense. The second concerns whether or not the speaker’s negative evaluation of the act is expressed explicitly, the third whether or not the addressee’s agentive involvement is implicitly or explicitly expressed, and the fourth whether or not the negative evaluation of the addressee’s action and the addressee himself are implicitly or explicitly expressed. Laforest (2002: 1617-1618) holds the view that

Complaints have preferential realization strategies that can be linked in part to the intimacy

of the relationship between the interactants and the entry into the argument is negotiated in

the speech turns that follow the complaint response sequences. And the argument only breaks

out if the complainer questions the value of the complainee’s response.

As she has said, the purpose of her study is to “characterize the complaint/complaint-response sequence in everyday conversations between people who are on intimate terms” (ibid.: 1595). Thus she does not make the contrastive study between languages and no effort is made to investigate how social variables give different impacts on the choice of complaining strategies produced by different language speakers. Other similar studies include Olshtain and Weinbach (1993), Boxer (1993), Trosborg (1995), Murphy and Neu (1996) and Tatsuki (2000) which shed little light on complaining strategies of Chinese participants, still less is the consideration of social variables such as social status and social distance.

To sum up, previous studies on direct complaints proceed from the theoretical introductions and interpretations to the more detailed empirical studies in which two approaches are identified. One is to find the difference between two languages on the use of complaints, from the perspective of politeness and directness, the other is to conduct in-depth study in terms of its realization patterns, such as lexical and syntactical expressions. So far, few studies focus on the contrastive research of the complaining strategies between American and Chinese university students, especially with reference to the social variables of social distance and social status. The present study attempts to fill in the gaps in this field, aiming to make a contrastive quantitative study of complaining strategies between American and Chinese university students. The measure of interpersonal relationship between interlocutors involves two key terms in the study of contrastive pragmatics and sociolinguistics, namely, social distance and social status.

Social distance is one of the foremost factors that determine the way in which interlocutors

converse precisely, because it is an important determinant of the degree of comfort or

politeness/deference in a verbal exchange. This in turn determines the constraints felt and the

liberties taken in speech exchanges (Boxer, 1993: 103).

114


Social status is considered primarily as a social ladder of higher or lower status with regard to speakers’ occupation or level of power on the basis of social stratification. These two terms work as ostensive social variables having the potential of interacting and/or overriding each other, depending on the context of the interaction.

In addition, the contrastive study between Chinese EFL learners and American native speakers is of great significance to foreign language teaching and learning. In the absence of proper pragmatic instruction, non-native speakers may frequently transfer their native-language pragmatic rules while communicating in L2 (Chen, 2009), which partly accounts for the “occurrence of frequent pragmatic failures in speech act productions of Chinese EFL learners” (Chen & Li, 2006). The contrastive study of complaining strategies between American and Chinese participants can reveal pragmatic rules of each language system in producing the speech act of complaining. Therefore, the result is both useful for Americans communicating in Chinese and Chinese communicating in American English, facilitating L2 students pragmatic competence by maximally promoting their positive pragmatic transfer while minimally being trapped in negative pragmatic transfer. This study will thus assist heterogeneous communicators to predict the other culture reactions under similar situations(Liao & Bresnahan, 1996: 726).

3. Methodology

3.1 Research questions The purpose of this study is to characterize contrastively the complaining strategies of everyday conversations of American and Chinese university students with reference to the variables of social distance and social status. Specifically, it aims to answer the following two questions:

1. Are there any differences between American and Chinese university students in the choice of complaining strategies to persons of high social status？If so, what are they?

2. Are there any differences between American and Chinese university students in the choice of complaining strategies along a social distance continuum? If so, what are they?

3.2 Group interviews as a basis for questionnaire designThe main framework of the paper is largely constructed from the quantitative study of the collected data from questionnaires, in which respondents might choose their own preferred strategies through the comparison with other alternatives presented in the questionnaire. In order to learn the common complaining contents and strategies between American and Chinese participants, the researcher first conducted a group interview to investigate the most usual complaining contents and complaining strategies that are culturally treatable for both American and Chinese university students. Twelve native speakers of Chinese university students and five American university students were interviewed regarding their perceptions of complaints in order to tap the norms

115

YUAN Zhoumin

of each speech community for the purpose of the questionnaire design; a colleague of the researcher’s helped take ethnographic notes of the students’ speech. After the group interview, the researcher gains first-hand, material of complaining contents and usual complaining strategies, which are displayed as follows:

Common complains among university students:1. Strangers’ bumping 2. Queue jumping3. Teachers’ prolonged unpunctuality in their commitment4. Roommates’ noise making5. Parents’ unfavorable gift6. Unintentional breaking7. Postponed book returning8. Petty stealing9. Dissatisfying logistic service

Common Complaining strategies:1. Be ignorant of complaint2. Implied mentioning3. Explicit expression of the offensive act4. Request change in the on-going behavior5. Requiring compensation6. Questioning criticism7. Threat and physical attack

3.3 Questionnaire descriptionOn the basis of the group interview and the analysis of the results, the content and form of the questionnaire (see Appendix) were designed. The students were asked to choose the natural complaining strategy that they would address directly to the speaker. Five situations were arranged from one situation of complaining to a high social status professor, to one situation of complaining to parents, to three situations of complaining about peers. Specifically, Situation 1 involved high power and 3, 4, 5 equal power; Situation 3 involved the intimate social distance, 4 friends and 5 strangers.

Complaining strategy is conceptualized as the way speakers convey their direct complaints. It is classified based on the severity of the complaining force. The possible complaining strategies follow a continuum from the most polite to the least, forming a seven point scale. This continuum is a modified model of Olshtain and Weinbach (1993: 111) and Laforest (2002: 1601) on the basis of the group interview. The seven strategies corresponding to the seven point scale are described as follows:

Type A: Ignoring and making no complaint. The speaker feels it unnecessary to make a complaint, thus ignoring the past or on-going offensive act.

Type B: Allusion to the offensive act: below the level of reproach. The speaker does not speak something directly related with the offensive act; she/he gives the person

116


responsible for the act a hint that the offensive act has made him or her feel unsatisfactory. For instance, one of your friends forgot your birthday at your reminding again; you say, “My birthday is on 12th November.”

Type C: Expression of annoyance or disapproval. This encompasses various realizations that are vague and indirect. It does not explicitly mention either the socially unacceptable act or the hearer, but does express general annoyance at the violation. The distinction between this type and Type B is that the speaker in the latter delivers his/her own dissatisfaction. For instance, following the preceding example, you say, “Such lack of consideration.”

Type D: Explicit complaint. It refers to realizations where the speaker has made the decision to use an open face-threatening act toward the hearer, but instigate no sanctions. For instance, you could say, “You should not forget it” or “How can you forget it in a minute?”

Type E: Accusation and warning. This is more severe and sharper than Type D in that it not only involves an open face-threatening act, but also imposes potential sanctions against the hearer. You may say, “I won’t show up at your birthday party” in the same example.

Type F: Immediate threat. This is an open attack. It can also consist of curses and direct results. For example, “You are an idiot.”

Type G: Physical expression. This means fight and physical attack.

3.4 ParticipantsAll the participants were selected from sophomores and juniors who were familiar to the researcher and who were not stereotyped in attitudes about campus life. The English participants were randomly chosen at the University of Massachusetts. Altogether 96 undergraduates were sampled, 91 of them Chinese participants chosen randomly from Anhui University and Anhui Agricultural University. The Chinese students were learning English as their foreign language but did not major in language since language majors are acknowledged to be more sensitive to language perception and production.

3.5 Data analysisSPSS 13.0 (Statistical Package for Social Science) was adopted to analyze the collected data. A

cross-tabulation table for each situation with the significant p-value is displayed. The statistical

method used in the study was the non-parametric method of the Chi-square independent test,

employed to determine whether the occurrence of one variable affected the probability of the

occurrence of the other variable. To use the Chi-square test, the following two conditions must

be satisfied: the observed frequencies must be obtained in a random sample; each expected

frequency must be greater than or equal to five (Larson & Farber, 2004: 506). As to this study,

the former requirement was met. When the latter requirement was breached, Fisher’s Exact

Test was applied instead.

117

YUAN Zhoumin

4. Results

4.1 Complaining to one of high status (Situation 1)

Table 1. American participants and Chinese participants in their complaining strategies in Situation 1

Nation Situation 1 Total

Str1 Str2 Str3 Str4 Str5 Str6

American38 16 34 4 2 2 96

39.6% 16.7% 35.4% 4.2% 2.1% 2.1% 100%

Chinese 42 35 8 6 0 0 91

46.2% 38.5% 8.8% 6.6% 00 0 100%

Fisher’s Exact Test value = 27.719; p-value = .000

Situation 1 aims to find the difference in the choice of complaining strategies between Chinese and American university students when they make complaints to a person of high social status. The American participants were more liable to choose Strategies 1 and 3 while the Chinese participants were more likely to use Strategies 1 and 2. The percentage of using Strategy 3 was respectively 35.4% of the American participants and 8.8% of the Chinese. Another striking difference was that no Chinese participants choose Strategy 6 to complain to one of high social status whereas 2.1% of the American participants preferred it. The Fisher’s Exact Test shows p-value is 0.000 (less than 0.05), which indicates that a significant difference exists in the choice of strategies in complaining to one of high social status between American and Chinese university students (see Table 1).

4.2 Complaining to parents

Table 2. American participants and Chinese participants in their complaining strategies in Situation 2

Nation Situation 2 Total

Str1 Str2 Str3 Str4 Str7

American60 22 10 2 2 96

62.5% 22.9% 10.4% 2.1% 2.1% 100%

Chinese 44 29 14 4 0 91

48.4% 31.9% 15.4% 4.4% 0 100%


The strategies chosen in complaining to parents by the American and Chinese participants showed no significant differences as indicated by Fisher’s Exact Test (p-value = 0.154), but differences could be found according to the collected data. Table 2 shows that Strategy 1 was the Americans’ frequent choice, the percentage of which was much higher than that of

118


the Chinese. The percentages of choosing Strategies 2 and 3 by the Americans was much lower than those by the Chinese. This indicates that the American participants tended to be a bit more polite than the Chinese participants did. But when the severity of complaint slides to the end of the right side, Chinese people are not encouraged to choose more severe complaining strategies. A general hypothesis may be drawn: Chinese youngsters are making efforts to set themselves free from the traditional family model in which children are viewed as parental accessories. Though this conclusion needs to be further verified, it definitely serves as a heuristic source for the social science and pedagogy to motivate and launch new discoveries.

4.3 Complaining to peers (Situation 3: Equal power and intimates)

Table 3. American and Chinese participants in their complaining strategies in Situation 3Nation Situation 3 Total

Str1 Str2 Str3 Str4 Str5

American2 10 48 26 10 96

2.1% 10.4% 50.0% 27.1% 10.4% 100%

Chinese 12 24 33 14 8 91

13.2% 26.4% 36.3% 15.4% 8.8% 100%


In Situation 3, the interlocutors are of equal power. They hold long-standing and intimate friendship between each other. This social context is characterized by rich shared knowledge and casual conversational styles. Its members acquire and retain this membership and personhood by the particular in-group language variety such as slang, gammons and patters. The complaining strategies they choose to deliver their anger and unhappiness would be loaded with these characteristics. Their choices must be closer to the severe and harsh right side along the continuum. As is indicated by Table 3, the significant differences can be found between the American and Chinese participants. Fisher’s Exact Test indicates they were significantly different in that the Americans were more willing to choose Strategies 3 and 4 and were less willing to choose Strategies 1 and 2. This difference indicates that more American participants than Chinese prefer to choose direct complaining strategies.

4.4 Complaining to peers (Situation 4: Equal power and friends)As to Situation 4, significant differences were found between the American and Chinese participants in that the Americans were more willing to choose Strategies 2 and 3 than the Chinese. Strategies 2 and 3 are more direct and harsher than Strategy 1, which the Chinese participants preferred. The Chinese preference to maintain long-standing interpersonal relationship and reluctance to unbalance group harmony provide a good account for this difference, while Americans are individual-oriented and are not hesitant to give vent to their inner thoughts.

119

YUAN Zhoumin


Str1 Str2 Str3 Str4 Str5 Str7

American32 28 28 2 2 4 96

33.3% 29.2% 29.2% 2.1% 2.1% 4.2% 100%

Chinese 55 22 10 2 0 2 91

60.4% 24.2% 11.0% 2.2% 0 2.2 100%


4.5 Complaining to peers (Situation 5: Equal power and strangers)Table 5 shows that with the decline of the degree of familiarity between interlocutors, both the Americans and Chinese were inclined to choose more indirect and more polite complaining strategies, but the American participants were more willing to use Strategy 1 (62.5%)


Str1 Str2 Str3 Str4 Str5 Str6 Str7

American60 18 12 0 2 0 4 96

62.5% 18.8% 12.5% 0% 2.1% 0% 4.2% 100%

Chinese 35 36 8 6 4 2 0 91

38.5% 39.6% 8.8% 6.6% 4.4% 2.2% 0 100%


Table 5 shows that with the decline of the degree of familiarity between interlocutors, both the Americans and Chinese were inclined to choose more indirect and more polite complaining strategies, but the American participants were more willing to use Strategy 1 (62.5%).

5. Discussions

Significant differences have been revealed except in Situation 2, in which the complaint was made to parents and the American participants chose a more polite strategy type to complain than the Chinese.

Situation 1 involves the complaining to a professor; here American and Chinese students are significantly different. This difference shows that politeness is what people in both cultures are concerned about, but the Chinese are more sensitive to the politeness applying to a high social status professor. They adopt a more reserved and modest complaining strategy than Americans do.

When Situation 1 is compared with Situation 2, it is found that American students are more polite to their parents than to professors in that they are more willing to choose Strategy 1 (62.5%).

120


In order to draw a detailed graph for the relationship between social distance and the severity of complaining strategies, the measure method adopted here is to calculate the average score of each situation. The participant choosing Strategy 1 is scored 1; Strategy 2 scored 2; and so on. The index of complaining degree (abbreviated as ICD) is calculated as:

ICD = total score/the total number of participants investigatedAs to Situations 1 and 2, social status between interlocutors is clearly marked as

HP; that is to say, the complainee imposes absolute high power upon the complainer. In these two situations presented in this study, the absolute ranking (R) of impositions in the particular culture is also stable and shows no difference. But the ICD, referring to Wx, which is the numerical value that measures the weightiness of the FTAx, turned out to be different in Situations 1 and 2 when the American participants are compared with the Chinese. As to professors and parents, Americans’ ICD is respectively 2.190 and 1.631.

Table 6. Nationality ICD differences in complaints made to a professor

Nationality ICD for professors ICD for parents

Americans 2.190 1.631

Brown and Levinson based their formula on western context and presented their formula of calculating Wx (Brown & Levinson, 2003: 581). They think that the following factors would influence the assessment of the seriousness of an FTA:

1. The social distance (D) of S and H (a symmetric relation)2. The relative power (P) of S and H (an asymmetric relation)3. The absolute ranking (R) of impositions in the particular cultureThus Wx = D (S, H) + P (H, S) + Rx However, the applicability of this formula remains open to question, because the

importance of the three variables are not proportionally sequenced. According to the situations stated above, D (S, H), P (H, S) and Rx do not necessarily play an equally significant role in a particular social context. It is assumed that the weightiness of the FTAx is not a simple combination of the three variables.

The three situations of equal power, ranging from intimates to strangers, elicit strategies of complaint to students with different social distances. When these three situations are compared lengthways, it is noteworthy that, with social distance skewing toward that of strangers, Americans’ degree of complaining falls down, while the Chinese display a different tendency. The result is summarized in Table 7.

Table 7. Nationality ICD differences in the complaints uttered to intimates, friends and strangers

Nationality ICD for intimates ICD for friends ICD for strangers

American 3.33 2.27 1.77

Chinese 2.80 1.66 2.06

121

YUAN Zhoumin

This relationship could be viewed graphically, with social distance continuum being the X-axis and the degree of complaining being the Y-axis. The complaining degree of American students gradually falls with social distance sliding to strangers along the scale continuum while for Chinese students, intuitively, intimates and strangers are both revealed at the rising ends, with friends at the bottom.

Intimates Friends Strangers

4

3

2

1

Y

X

— American⋯ Chinese

Figure 1. The relationship between the complaining degree and social distance (American and Chinese peers)

6. Conclusion

The complaining strategies analyzed here illustrate that Chinese and American are significantly different in their choice of strategies when they complain to professors, intimates, friends and strangers. The Chinese show greater respect for professors than Americans do. No significant difference has been revealed when they complain to parents, although Americans are more polite than Chinese in this regard. This shows that in private conversations, the variable of social distance enjoys more importance than the variable of social status. The general strategy in peer conversations presented in this paper is: Americans’ complaining degree displays a gradually descending tendency along a social distance continuum, while the Chinese’s complaining degree has intimates and strangers at the both ends with friends in the middle.

The study suggests that the politeness systems between the two nations are different. A certain act which is taken to be impolite by Chinese may be polite or not so offensive in Americans’ minds. It should be assessed in its own politeness system. Any contrast of the linguistic form on politeness between languages regardless of its position in its own politeness system of that language is not advisable.

The study also provides insights for both foreign language teaching and second language acquisition. The systematic differences could serve as a guide for improving non-native speakers’ transitional competence. Native speakers’ perceptions about non-native speakers’ productions provide support for researchers’ intuitions about appropriateness and acceptability. Where there is a disjuncture between what is salient in one language and what is not in another, the non-native speaker either “hears” a difference that does

122


not exist in the target language or does not “hear” a difference that native speakers do hear (Murphy & Neu, 1996: 211). Awareness of the differences would improve non-native speakers’ perceptions. For teachers of English as a second or foreign language, they should teach and clarify these pragmatic differences between language systems. Students should know what to say and how to claim their rights in social or academic settings without imposing threat or censure upon hearers.

For intercultural communication, this study sheds light on how to eradicate misunderstanding and censure when communicators are involved in verbal confrontations. Before starting conversation, interlocutors must bear in mind that they are talking with people from another culture that endows its people with distinctive conversational models and politeness systems. Knowing these differences can assist them in adjusting and improving their models and patterns to balance the conflictive forces for the ease and smoothness of ongoing exchanges. From the perspective of cultural transmission, skewing toward any culture is unnecessary and dangerous. Losing cultural heterogeneity, one would be assimilated into the target language culture and treated like a native speaker who can enjoy the shared knowledge, thus, relapsing into passiveness in communication.

Despite its findings and theoretical implications stated above, this study, nevertheless, shows its own limitations.

It focuses on the questionnaire production of complaining strategies of five daily university situations by a small number of participants in universities. Though we are convinced that the questionnaire based on group interviews urges student participants to elicit their true and natural choices, ideally, a large range of participants and a long time observation and investigation would ensure the experiment is carried out in a natural and spontaneous setting. This study is also limited to the study of complaining strategies. A set of complaints should include openers, complaining and follow-ups that need to be further studied.

References

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. 1989. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. New

Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act

realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-215.

Boxer, D. 1993. Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of

Pragmatics, 19, 103-125.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.

Chen, X. R. 2009. 新编语用学教程[A New Course in Pragmatics]. Beijing: Foreign Language

Teaching and Research Press.

Chen, X. R. & Li, M. 2006. 中国英语学习者语用习得研究述评[Pragmatic acquisition of

Chinese EFL learners: A survey]. In X. M. Zhang (ed.), 第二语言习得研究的新探索 [New

Explorations in SLA], 15-22. Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Press.

House, J. & Kasper, G. 1981. Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (ed.),

123

YUAN Zhoumin

Conversational Routine, 157-186. Mouton, The Hague.

Laforest, M. 2002. Scenes of family life: Complaining in everyday conversation. Journal of

Pragmatics, 34, 1595-1620.

Larson, R. & Farber, E. 2004. Elementary Statistics: Picturing the World. Beijing: Tsinghua University

Press.

Li, P., Zheng, S. T. & Yang, X. H. 2006. 影响中美学生抱怨话语严厉程度的因素分析[Factors

affecting the degrees of severity in the realization of the speech act of complaint]. Foreign

Language Teaching and Research, 1, 56-60.

Liao, Chaochi & Bresnahan, M. 1996. A contrastive pragmatic study on American English and

mandarin refusal strategies. Language Sciences, 18, 703-727.

Milroy, L. & Gordon, M. 2003. Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing.

Murphy, B. & Neu, J. 1996. My grade’s too low: the speech act of set of complaining. In S. M. Gass &

J. Neu (eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second language,

191-216. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.

Olshtain, E. & Cohen, A. D. 1983. Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds.),

Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, 18-35. Rowley: Newbury.

Olshtain, E. & Weinbach, L. 1993. Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In G.

Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics, 108-122. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Tatsuki, D. H. 2000. If my complaints could passions move: An interlanguage study of aggression.

Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1003-1017.

Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests Complaints and Apologies. New York: Mouton

de Gruyter.

Wolfson, N. 1981. Invitations, compliments and the competence of the native speakers.

International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 25, 7-22.

Yuan, Z. M. 2007. 英语专业学生抱怨语习得研究[English majors’ acquisition of complaints].

English Education in China, 3, 1-9.

Yuan, Z. M. 2009. 论汉语直接抱怨语[On Chinese direct complaints]. Applied Linguistics in China,

1, 48-59.

Zhao, Y. L. 2003.论英汉直接抱怨语[On English and Chinese direct complaints]. Foreign Language

Research, 2, 20-24.

Appendix

Imagine you are involved in the following situations, and choose the natural and true response

you would address directly to the related person in each situation, which is followed by the same

question. Please fill in the blank by choosing your response number of each question.

Question: What kind of method you will be likely to choose to express your complaints?

1. Ignoring and making no complaint

2. Allusion to the offensive act: below the level of reproach

124


3. Expression of annoyance or disapproval

4. Explicit complaint

5. Accusation and warning

6. Immediate threat

7. Others (Physical expression)

Situations:

1. Professor Smith came about 30 minutes late and made no apologies for the appointment he had

made with you.

You would like to respond

2. Your parents bought you a shirt, but you didn’t like the color.


3. Your roommate played the tape recorder in a loud voice and you couldn’t sleep.


4. Your friend rushed into the line before you while you were queuing to register for a training

course.


5. You were walking down the stairs when your schoolmate (who was a stranger to you) slightly

bumped into you.


(Copy editing: Ian Hunter)

125

IJCALLT Call for Papers

The Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT) would like to invite you to consider submitting a manuscript for inclusion in this scholarly journal. The following describes the mission, coverage, and guidelines for submission

to IJCALLT.

Mission The mission of the International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching

(IJCALLT) is to publish research that addresses the impact of information communication technologies

in advancing foreign/second language learning and teaching. This journal expands on the principles,

theories, design, and implementation of computer-assisted language learning programs. In addition to

original research papers, this journal welcomes CALL-related book reviews and case studies.

Coverage Topics to be discussed in this journal include (but are not limited to) the following: • CALL and second language acquisition • Computer games in language learning and teaching • Corpora • Courseware design • Distance language education • Evaluation of CALL program • Intelligence in CALL • Language testing in CALL environments • Mobile learning and teaching • Monitoring and assessment in online collaborative learning • Multimedia language learning and teaching • Research methodology in CALL • Social networking in language learning and teaching • Software programs for language learning and teaching • Teacher education

• Teaching approaches in the CALL context

Submission Prospective authors should note that only original and previously unpublished articles will be considered. Interested authors must consult the journal’s guidelines for manuscript submissions at http://www.igi-global.com/development/author_info/guide.asp prior to submission. All article submissions will be forwarded to at least 3 members of the Editorial Review Board of the journal for double-blind, peer review. Final decision regarding acceptance/revision/rejection will be based

on the reviews received from the reviewers. All submissions must be forwarded electronically.

All submissions and inquiries should be directed to the attention of: Bin Zou

Editor-in-Chief

International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching

Email: [email protected]



126

中文摘要



中文摘要

外语教师专业认同的变化及特点研究——以九位高校英语教师为案例

郝彩虹中国人民大学外国语学院 ....................................................................................................3

自20世纪90年代以来，教师专业认同研究已逐渐成为教育领域的一个重要研究主题，

但关于大学英语教师的专业认同，尤其是读博经历对其身份认同的影响，尚鲜有实证研

究。本案例研究通过访谈等质的研究方法，对某高校九位有过职后读博经历的英语教师的

专业认同变化情况及特点进行了探究。研究发现，读博经历对教师的专业认同产生了不同

程度的积极影响。但教师们认同变化的侧重点有所不同。和其他研究发现一致的是，九

位教师的专业认同也具有多层次、成就取向、学科关注的特点；另一方面，本研究发现政

策对教师专业认同有强影响，教师专业认同的形成和重构其实是教师个人标准、学科共同

体标准、院校标准、一般意义上公认的学术职业标准彼此之间角力、协商、寻求平衡的过

程。非英语专业博士背景的受访教师的专业认同与制度环境之间存在明显的紧张关系。

关键词：高校英语教师；专业认同变化；专业认同的特点；职后读博经历

教师对英语口语教学的认知及课堂教学行为的个案研究

李月娥石运章山东农业大学外国语学院 .................................................................................22

本文对某农业(省属)大学两位大学英语教师对口语教学的认知及其课堂行为进行了个

案研究，探索大学英语教师对口语教学的认知状况，及其与实际课堂教学的关系。重在探

讨教师认知与课堂行为的一致或不一致之处，尤其探讨了导致两者不一致的因素。结果

表明，教师有一套复杂的认知系统，教师认知在很大程度上影响了教师的实际课堂教学行

为，但是，受其他内外因素的影响，教师课堂教学行为也出现了与教师认知不一致之处。

关键词：教师认知；课堂教学；口语教学

关于中国西部地区中学英语教师职业倦怠调查与研究

何周春成都中医药大学外语学院 ..................................................................................................35

此研究是通过对86份有效问卷的描述性统计分析和一元方差分析，以及对三位被试的

前后两次问卷调查与半结构式采访记录的分析，得出结论：1）中学英语教师职业倦怠总体

情况并不严重；2）不同性别、不同教学年级以及不同学校的英语教师的职业倦怠症状没

有显著差异性，但“50岁及以上”的被试与其他年龄阶段的教师倦怠状况有显著差异；3）

性别、教学年级、学校等因素与职业倦怠不存在显著相关，但年龄和教龄与职业倦怠中的

“个人成就感维度”具有显著相关；4）引起中学英语教师职业倦怠原因有外部原因（如学

校不合理的评价体系、应试压力、管理学生压力等）和教师本身原因（如知识枯竭，缺乏

自我调节能力等）。

关键词：中学英语教师；职业倦怠；情感衰竭；去人性化；个人成就感

127

中文摘要

中国英语学习者博士论文写作中的强势词研究

韦瑶瑜华中农业大学外国语学院

雷蕾上海交通大学/华中科技大学 ...........................................................................................47

本文报告一项中国英语学习者博士论文中强势词使用情况的研究。研究者自建了中国

学生博士论文语料库和英语本族学生博士论文语料库来进行本项研究。结果显示，中国学

生和本族语学生使用强势词的总频数相当。然而，中国学生超用了totally, very和really，少

用了entirely和 highly。同时，中国学生使用的强势词搭配多于本族语学生，他们倾向于使用

clearly来强化转述动词，并倾向于使用强势词来强化普通形容词的词义。另外，中国学生使

用的强势词搭配多为与汉语意义一致的搭配。这些都显示了中国学生学术写作中的非本族

语特征。我们认为，中国学生超用强势词及其搭配，其主要目的是引起读者的关注及增强

一般形容词的意义。同时，中国学生的母语对他们使用强势词及其搭配产生了影响。本文

还讨论了本研究的教学有意义。

关键词：强势词；搭配；学术写作；中国英语学习者

从词汇联想看中国英语学习者的二语心理词汇

李辉浙江大学宁波理工学院 ......................................................................................................62

本文采用词汇联想测试方法，通过比较中国英语学习者和母语者的反应词的不同，

来探究中国英语学习者二语心理词汇的特点。结果表明：中国英语学习者和母语者的心理

词汇结构存在显著差异。与母语者相比，中国英语学习者的联想集中性较差，联想强度较

弱；中国英语学习者过分依赖词的形态来联想；词与词之间没有形成系统的、稳固的联系

网络；语义网络不完善。实验结果对二语词汇教学有一定的启示和帮助。

关键词：二语心理词汇；词汇联想测试；词汇教学

母语对英语写作的影响：学习者态度研究

纪康丽清华大学外语系 ...................................................................................................................77

本文探讨母语修辞模式对中国学生英语写作的影响、其原因及学生对此的态度。调查

手段包括语篇分析、访谈、问卷和初中语文课本分析。结果显示，只有三分之一学生作文

存在论题滞后、衔接不当和离题等问题。这些影响不直接来自“八股文”等中国古代散文

模式，而与中学语文课本中现代汉语散文的写作模式相关。受调查学生认为，了解英语写

作规范很有益处。但同时保持中国人的写作习惯也十分重要。因为这种传统已经深入我们

的血液，具有独特价值。

关键词：母语修辞模式；英语写作；学生态度；对比修辞学

128

中文摘要

教师与学生对蒙古族大学生英语教学的信念调查

吴白音那北京外国语大学中国外语教育研究中心/内蒙古师范大学 .....................................93

教师和学习者对语言教与学的信念直接影响或决定着教师在教学过程中采取的措施及

学习者学习过程中的学习态度、学习动机和学习成绩。本文主要调查了蒙古族英语教师、

汉族英语教师和蒙古族英语学习者对蒙古族大学生的第二语言能力，课堂教学和编写教材

所使用的语言的信念。结果表明教师和学生之间，尤其是汉族英语教师和蒙古族英语学习

者之间关于蒙古族大学生的第二语言能力，课堂教学和编写教材所使用的语言等方面存在

着不同的信念。为了有效提高蒙古族学生的英语教学，应尽快解决影响蒙古族学生英语教

学的重要因素，即教师与学生之间的信念差异。

关键词：信念；教师；蒙古族学生；英语教学；第三语言习得

中美大学生抱怨策略对比研究

袁周敏南京邮电大学外国语学院 ................................................................................................111

本文以社会地位和社会距离为变量, 通过小组座谈和调查问卷的方式收集语料，对比

中美大学生选择抱怨策略的差异。文章发现, 社会地位与社会距离对说话人语言形式的选择

具有很强的制约性与调控性。中美大学生在对教授、知己、朋友、陌生人实施抱怨时均具

有显著性差异。美国大学生对社会地位比自己高的教授采取更为直接的抱怨策略；在社会

地位相当的情况下，随着社会距离的拉大，美国大学生的抱怨强度随之降低，而中国大学

生则在社会距离连续统上呈现出两头高中间低的趋势：从知己到朋友, 其强度随之下降, 从

朋友到陌生人则随之上升。文章提出在估算面子威胁行为因素时必须考虑到相对权势（社

会地位）、社会距离、相对文化强加值三个因素的不同权重，在相对文化强加值等同的私

人会话中，社会距离比社会地位拥有更高的权重。

关键词: 抱怨策略；社会地位；社会距离；抱怨强度

投稿须知及论文格式

《中国应用语言学》论文格式以APA格式为基础，但又略有不同，请投稿者注意。

一、投稿要求和正文格式：

1. 本刊只接受网上在线投稿，不接受纸质稿件和通过电子邮件投稿。

2. 本刊采用双盲同行专家匿名制评审制，论文正文中不要出现作者姓名和工作单位等个人信息。

3. 论文正文中要有中文提要（200字）、英文提要（100词）以及3—5个中英文关键词。

4. 文中小标题必须标序号，请用阿拉伯数字表示，不要用罗马数字表示。

5. 文中表格为不封口的三线表，即上面两条线，底边一条线。

6. 凡正文中出现的文献必须列在文后参考文献中；文后参考参考文献中列出的文献必须

在正文中引用，正文中未引用的文献不得列在文后参考文献中。

7. 正文中无论是间接引用还是直接引用文献，都要给出文献页码。例：（Hu, 2006：15-21）。如果对文献的转述需参考该书多个章节，可不加页码。直接引用必须加双引

号，间接引用和转述不加引号。

8. 转引格式如下：Peterson (as cited in Samovar & Porter, 1997: 3) states that language involves attaching meaning to …

9. 正文中用到汉字时，需注明拼音和英文释义。

10. 研究设计中的时态一般是过去时。

二、文后参考文献格式：（按照首字母顺序排列。注意大小写。) 1. 专著文献格式：

Ebel, R. & Frisbie, D. 1991. Essentials of Educational Measurement (5th ed.). New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.

2. 论文文献格式： Bolinger, D. 1965. The atomization of meaning. Language, 411, 555-573. 3. 专著中章节格式：

Peters, A. M. & Stephen, T. B. 1986. Interaction routines as cultural influences upon language acquisition. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (eds.), Language Socialization Across Cultures, 80-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4. 中文文献格式：（大陆以外地区的华人的姓名拼写应尊重本人的习惯。）

Wang, L. 2003. 汉语音韵 [Chinese Phonology]. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Lü, S. X. & Rao, C. R. 1981. 试论非谓形容词 [On nonfinite adjectives]. Chinese Philology, 2, 81-85. Lin, M. X. & Gao, Y. H. 2010. 大学生奥运志愿者对世界英语的态度：奥运后的反思

[Student volunteers’ attitudes towards world Englishes: A post-Olympic Games reflections]. Foreign Languages Education in China, 3(1), 3-10.

Chao, Y. R. 1980. 中国话的文法 [A Grammar of Spoken Chinese] (Ding, B. X. Trans.). Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. (Original work published 1965.)

投稿及阅读更详细的本刊论文格式和参考文献细则，请访问本刊网站：www.celea.org.cn

《中国应用语言学》编辑部

2011 年 1 月

Documents

A Contrastive Study of American and Chinese University Students’ … · 2011-09-07 · Cultural Speech Act Research Project (CCSARP) launched by Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989)