The Use of Face Strategies in Intercultural Settings: A Comparative Study focusing on Asian and European Language Learners

(1)

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Master Thesis

The Use of Face Strategies in

Intercultural Settings

A Comparative Study Focusing on Asian and

European English Learners

Julia Otten

supervised by Dr. E.A. Bannink

(2)

Introduction

This study aims to examine potentially different face strategies in English among European English language learners and Asian English language learners. Be-cause the concept of face differs in different parts of the world, chapter 1 ex-plicates the divergences of how ‘face’ is understood in the west and how it is perceived historically in China and other countries in Southeast Asia which share Confucian traditions (i.e., Confucian heritage cultures). Moreover, this chapter elaborates on the initial acceptance of face without its cultural dimension (i.e., the universalist approach), the deconstruction of this concept of face, and more recent approaches to face which also take its cultural aspect into account.

Because face is inherently intertwined with discourse and language, chapter 2 focuses on teaching techniques of English as a foreign language in general, with a special focus on communicative language teaching (CLT) and cooper-ative learning, as these techniques do not only teach students ’what to say’ (concentrating on form) but also ’how to say it’ (concentrating on fuction and social relationships). Hence, communicative language teaching and cooperative learning can be said to offer implicit training of face strategies.

Unfortunately, communicative language teaching and cooperative learning, although officially also applied in Asian classrooms, may not be fully com-patible with the prevailing norms and values of these countries. In chapter 3, I will therefore elaborate on the traditional teaching techniques in Confu-cian heritage countries, the relatively recent implementation of communicative language teaching and cooperative learning in the educational system, and its consequences.

Due to the fact that the concept of face is understood differently in West and East, and because teaching techniques in these regions are not necessarily employed in the same way, the question posed in this paper is: do English learners from Confucian heritage cultures apply English face strategies when speaking English, or does their culture and native language interfere? In order to answer this question, I will compare a group of Asian English learners with a group of European English learners to see whether their face strategies do indeed differ.

(5)

In chapter 5, I will discuss the methodology of the study, which will include the selection process of the participants, the participants’ background, an elabo-ration on the design of the study and the tasks the participants had to perform, as well as an explanation of the procedures.

In chapter 6, I will present the results, which will focus only on disagreement strategies, task initiation and backchannel responses, due to the copious amount of data. A discussion of these findings and the conclusion of this research can be found in chapter 6.4.

(6)

Chapter 1

Face, an introduction

1.1 The concept of face in Western research

In English, the figurative or metaphorical use of ‘face’ in the sense of ‘social image’ has been in use since the end of the 19th_{century and was first introduced}

by missionaries and diplomats. It is hypothesized to be a borrowing from Chi-nese, originating either from diu lian (‘to lose face’) (Ervin-Tripp et al. 1995, 45), or from a literal translation of the characters mian(zi) and lian (Mao 1994, 454). It was not until almost a century later that ‘face’ was first introduced to the Western scientific world by Goffman who defined it as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (1967, 5). Although, according to Goffman, the specific social image is chosen by the individual, it has to be “supported by judgments and evidence conveyed by other participants” (Goffman 1967, 6). Consequently, in each new conversation the individual has to reclaim his social identity and new participants constantly have to re-evaluate the specific stance taken by their conversational partner. Face is therefore volatile; it is internal to the conversation and not located “in or on [the] body” (Goffman 1967, 7). How-ever, once a person has claimed face – or is granted face – the individual is likely to want to maintain that social image and, in addition (and for reasons only known to the individual), will try to preserve the face of other participants as well. This maintenance, notes Goffman, is not the objective of the conversation but rather one of the conditions to facilitate smooth dialogue. Unfortunately, some interactional objectives (e.g. speaking one’s mind, solving problems, or perhaps performing a task) that a speaker may have are inherently threatening to his own or another participants’ face. To counteract these “incidents”, a discourse participant employs face-work, which are strategies or “actions taken by a person to make whatever he is doing consistent with face” (Goffman 1967, 12).

(7)

A decade later, Brown & Levinson (1978) built upon Goffman’s theory on face, claiming that face is a universalist trait of communication. They note that there is an “extraordinary parallelism in the linguistic minutiae of the utter-ances with which the persons choose to express themselves in quite unrelated languages and cultures” (Brown & Levinson 1978, 55). These parallels are found not in the similarity in which these languages are used, but in the corre-spondence in which they diverge from Grice’s (1967, 1975) rational maxims for cooperation in communication. Individuals, when communicating, hardly ever vocalize what is is they want exactly, yet in almost all cases the interlocutor knows what performative speech act his conversational partner is trying to ac-complish, sometimes even if it is in a language he/she does not speak. These universalist traits are explained by Brown & Levinson by the fact that all people around the world are endowed with rationality and thus follow the same line of reasoning to determine what the objective of the conversation is, and what means to use to achieve their ends. Moreover, they are aware that both they and their conversational partners are also endowed with ’face’: “the public self-image that every member want to claim for himself” (Brown & Levinson 1978, 61). Face consists of two related parts: negative and positive face. The former is defined as “the want of every ’competent adult member’ that his actions be unimpeded by others”, whereas the latter entails “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others” (Brown & Levinson 1978, 62). In conversation, these two ‘wants’ can be threatened by various impositions that we have to lay on others and vice versa. Brown & Levinson list various strategies to counteract these ‘face threatening acts’ (FTA’s), which range from proceeding to do the FTA without any form of mitigation, doing the FTA, but including “redressive action” (either focusing on the hearer’s positive or nega-tive face), going “off-record” (i.e., remaining vague), or refraining from the FTA altogether. Each strategy has its own rewards, and each strategy has more value over others depending on the circumstances (Brown & Levinson 1978, 68-74).

Although derived from Goffman’s disquisition on face, Brown and Levinson’s theory markedly differs from the former’s ideas. There seems to be a switch in focus here, moving from Goffman’s conversationally negotiated public identity - external to the self - to the claiming of a “public self -image” (italics mine) and individualistic speaker wants (i.e. negative and positive face; the want to be unimpeded and the want to be approved of), indicating that in Brown and Levinson’s theory face is largely speaker-oriented. Mao (1994, 455) notes that this “self-oriented characterization of face”, which is heavily influenced by Western notions of individualism, may prove problematic when attempting to implement it in research focusing on non-Western cultures. As we will see below in paragraph 1.3, Brown & Levinson’s theory has received a considerable amount of criticism from scholars around the globe with regard to its universalist approach and its incommensurability with the Chinese concept of face, of which I will give a brief overview below.

(8)

1.2 Face’ in China: lian and mianzi

In Chinese, three different characters are given for face: lian, mian(zi) and yan. All three characters encompass the literal meaning of face as ‘the front of the head’, but also a more figurative notion of ‘reputation’, ‘prestige’, or ‘honor’. The latter character, yan, however, is rarely used in its figurative meaning, and will therefore not be discussed.

The concept of face in its metaphorical sense dates back at least two millennia (Kádar & Pan 2012, 1), deriving from ancient Confucianism. Cheng (1986, 337) notes: “Confucianism, with its theory and practice [...] is the unequivocal ide-ological background and foundation of the concept of face and face-word in the Chinese language”. Even so, it had received little attention in Chinese history as it was thought of as a “small tradition” within the stream of Confucianist thinking. The ‘Westernization’ of China in the 19th century, however, sparked a renewed interest in these historical notions concerned with socio-morality as a panacea for corruption and the general decline of the nation (Kádár & Pan 2012, 4).

Famous Chinese authors published essays on face, but it was not until 1944 that the first scientific article was published on the Chinese notion of face. Although China – along with the rest of the world – has changed considerably since 1944, recent studies show that adherence to the practices of face is still an important factor in many Chinese lives (cf. Aziz 2005) and therefore I will include below a description of the Chinese notions of lian and mianzi.

1.2.1 Morality and integrity: lian

Although the expression ‘to lose face’ may have originated from Chinese du lian, they do not share analogous connotations. Whereas ‘losing face’ in English is seen as unpleasant and, where possible, avoided by individuals, it does not entail the same consequences as losing lian in Chinese. Lian is intrinsically linked to a person’s integrity and morality. Hu (1944, 45) states that lian is “the respect of the group for a man with a good moral reputation”. Losing lian by behaving socially disagreeably or immorally, therefore, means losing the respect and confidence of society and - in the worst cases - becoming a social pariah. It is no wonder then, that the Chinese go through great lengths to stay on the right side of morality and to safeguard their own, but also the other’s face. Lian is “both a social sanction for enforcing moral standards and an internalized sanction” (Hu 1944, 45).

Moral conduct, however, does not entail the same behavior for everyone. Lian is also intertwined with hierarchy, meaning that individuals of higher social standing should be extra careful to maintain lian, as they are under greater scrutiny than their less important countrymen and the loss of lian will therefore

(9)

be felt to a greater extent. Once lian is lost, the culprit is not the only one who has to bear the consequences, for this loss is also reflected on family, close acquaintances and superiors.

On the surface, lian – with its inherent morality – may perhaps be linked to Brown & Levinson’s notion of positive face (i.e. the want to be approved of). However, the Chinese concept of lian goes much deeper than its Western counterpart. The idea of lian is deeply pervasive in Chinese society, precisely because losing lian would mean that not only the individual would lose face, but also other members of society. Whenever this can be avoided, it should be at all costs.

1.2.2 Reputation and prestige: mianzi

Whereas lian refers to an individual’s moral integrity, mianzi is a closer ap-proximate of the English use of face, denoting ‘prestige’ or ‘reputation’. Hu (1944, 45) notes that it is “a reputation achieved through getting on in life, through success and ostentation”. This means that mianzi is not linked in any way to a character’s socio-morality, but is an indication of an individual’s social standing.¨ı¿1₂

Contrary to lian, there are many collocations associated with mianzi. A per-son’s mianzi can, for example, ‘be borrowed’ (i.e., using the prestige of a(n) (remote) acquaintance to reach one’s own objectives), ‘struggled for’ (i.e. com-peting against another individual of similar social standing for the approval of the group), ‘added to’ (i.e. increasing a person’s prestige by saying something favorable for him/her) , ‘padded’ (i.e., showing just enough deference for your interlocutor to remain on his good side), etc. What all of these examples show is that mianzi is initially linked with, but not limited to, social standing. It can be built on additionally, accumulating mianzi by connecting with the ‘right’ people, relying on one’s own abilities, and by deferring from actions that may cause the group to think of you unfavorably (i.e., by regarding one’s own face and the face of others).

As mianzi can be gained, so can it be lost. Losing mianzi, however, entails far less serious consequences than losing lian. Of course, a damaged reputation is unfavorable, even if this is due to failure to comply to the public’s expectations or due to misfortune, but it is only temporary, as mianzi can be regained. Lost lian, on the contrary, is incredibly hard to restore – if restorable at all – as the public no longer supports and respects the unfortunate individual, causing him to fall outside of the group. Likewise, not having mianzi means a person has failed (so far) to achieve any success in life, and therefore has no reputation. Having no lian, on the other hand, means that society no longer has confidence in the moral integrity of one’ s character. Losing mianzi, therefore, does not

(10)

necessarily lead to loss of lian, whereas loss of lian almost always entails loss of mianzi.

Determining an individual’s mianzi is thus partly based on (the absence of) a person’s lian, but there is an additional interrelationship between the two. What is considered to be loss of lian, or what is simply loss of mianzi is not an objective given. Some (perhaps overly) face-sensitive individuals may consider certain social actions as a loss of lian, whereas the public may simply condemn it as a loss of mianzi. Likewise, different regions within China are likely to differ in view of when behavior constitutes a depreciation of mianzi, or when it is clearly loss of lian. Which consequences specific negative behavior brings forth is thus negotiated within a culture and varies across space, but also across time, as human beings are both products and producers of culture (Hoffman 2002, 38).

1.3 Individualism vs. collectivism -

deconstruct-ing the universalist theory

In trying to present an overview of the various articles on Chinese lian and mianzi, Jia (1998) has distilled four major characteristics of the Chinese concept of face. First of all, face is relational (or affective/emotional) in Chinese culture. By maintaining face, and by paying attention to other’s face, it becomes a tool to promote harmonious relationships between interlocutors. Jia dubs it a“conflict-preventive mechanism”. Cheng (1986) states: “Face is both the goal and the means for strengthening and expressing the harmonization of human relationships among men in society” (qtd. in Jia 1998, 45).

Although all communication is both informational (the message) and tional (face-work), it is clear that within the Chinese concept of face the rela-tional aspect takes place over the informarela-tional aspect of a conversation. The Western concept, however, emphasizes what is being said over how it is be-ing said. As an example, Scollon & Scollon (2001) note that ancient Chinese rhetoric pays attention to how one can state one’s mind without offending any-one, whereas in ancient Greek rhetoric the importance of winning arguments through skillful argumentation is emphasized.

The second characteristic of the Chinese concept of face is that it is “deeply moral” (Jia 1998, 46). As described above, Chinese lian is intricately linked to the moral integrity of a person’s actions and losing face therefore means to be condemned “by the group for immoral or socially disagreeable behavior” (Hu 1944, 46). Ho (1975, 868) notes that mianzi (i.e. ‘prestige’ or ‘reputation’) is “not altogether devoid of moral content”, meaning that mianz i is inextricably linked to lian: generally speaking, one can not gain prestige and reputation and simultaneously fail to be of moral integrity. Even though the Western concept

(11)

of face derives from the Chinese concept, this morality is not present in any of the Western definitions of face.

The third aspect of Chinese face is that it is inherently hierarchical. In Con-fucian heritage cultures, all relationships are considered both vertically and generationally, i.e., societal hierarchy and hierarchy within kinship. Western culture does, of course, take hierarchy into account – especially in professional discourse – but it plays a less prominent role compared to the fully saturated hi-erarchical culture in Asia. As a result of the West’s emphasis on individualism, there is a general belief in egalitarianism. Although some relationships can be seen as hierarchical (e.g. professional relationships) there are also a large num-ber of interconnections where there exists no power or status disparity, which include for example kinships or student-student relationships. Scollon & Scol-lon (2005, 142-144) note that in Asia, all relationships (including kinship) are hierarchical in nature, as culture is dictated by the Confucian assumption that society is based on unequal relationships. Ascending generations, for example, are more important than descending generations. Within the family, the father is higher in hierarchy than the first-born. If one of two boys who are roughly the same age marries, his status becomes automatically higher than his unmarried peer (Hu 1944, 47). Consequentially, Asians are always fully aware of the hi-erarchical relationships between individuals and are made aware of appropriate face strategies from a very early age. Moreover, this emphasis on hierarchical face strategies leads one to assume that all relationships and therefore all face strategies should be hierarchical to some extent. This is also mirrored in in-class relationships. Obviously, the teacher is at the head of the hierarchy, but among students there is a pecking order as well: classes are organized with class prefects, unit leaders and sub-leaders for small groups (Phuong-Mai et al. 2006, 6).

The fourth and last characteristic Jia describes is the sense of community. As mentioned, Hu speaks of face as “public censure” and that having face is determined by the confidence of the group in an individual’s moral integrity and is not established by the individual alone. According to Ho, there is no such thing as individual face, as it can only be “considered in relation to that of others in the social network” (Ho 1975, 882). Perhaps this point can be considered to be the most prominent critique on Brown & Levinson’s universalist theory, who considered face-work as individual speaker wants. Several articles (cf. eg. Aziz 2005; Gu 1990; Ho 1975; Mao 1994; Yu 2003) consider negative face-work – concerned with territoriality, autonomy and privacy – as non-compatible with the Chinese concept of face and regard it as directly derived from an emphasis on individualism in the West (for an overview of critiques cf. Kasper 1990). This emphasis on the individual is completely alien to Asian cultures with their Confucian heritage1_{. In fact, even the sense of self could be considered as less}

1_{For convenience’s sake, in this paper ’Asian’ refers specifically to the southeastern part of}

(12)

individualistic in Asia compared to Western cultures. Hsu (1983) posits that the concept of an individual self is a Western ideal of individualism, which places a boundary between the biological being and the relationship it has with direct intimates such as relatives and close friends. Moreover, Hsu notes that the Western concept of self excludes culture as being part of this biological being. As a consequence, there is a certain need for independence and freedom of action within the Western politeness theory which is realized as negative face. The Asian sense of self, however, extends aforementioned boundary to include intimate society (said relatives and friends) and acknowledges that culture plays a vital role for the individual. Consequently, because the community is also part of the self, Asian individuals tend to have a heightened awareness of the consequences of their actions (lian) for themselves and the members of their social group.

What we can infer from juxtaposing these four characteristics of the Chinese concept of face with the Western concept of face, is that there seems to be a dichotomy between East and West. Whereas East posits the Confucian notions of collectivism and hierarchical relationships as a starting point for the assump-tions about face, the Western theory uses individualism and egalitarianism as its base. Of course, this division is never as black and white in reality as it is on paper. Not every single member of “the Asian or the Western discourse community” – if there even is such a thing – will react in the same way to specific stimuli. By comparing the different aspects of Chinese face and West-ern face my intention was not to overgeneralize or stereotype, but to point out that the Brown & Levinson’s definition of face as a universal construct is un-tenable as it is based on solely Western notions of individualism. To analyze any non-Western discourse in terms of face, an alternative approach to face is needed.

1.4 A cultural approach to face

In A cultural approach to discourse (2005), Shi-xu points out that within Dis-course Analysis – of which politeness theory forms a part – the conventional theorem is that culture is an epiphenomenon of discourse: i.e., culture is ex-ternal and, ergo, discourse is universal. Shi-xu rejects this view, and instead argues that culture is central to one’s life and therefore to discourse. If discourse is always culturally influenced, we have to adopt a pluralist view and acknowl-edge that there are different versions of discourse and that other people’s way of speaking may differ from our own ways and the notions that underlie it. Language use is thus central to identity: the manner in which we communicate shows who we are or who we are trying to be. Similarly to discourse, iden-tity can not be regarded as a mere reflection of the “consciousness of the self” (Shi-xu 2005, 167) isolated from its cultural contexts, but rather as “a situated

excludes countries and regions such as Russia (which, in this case, is closer to Europe than to Southeast Asia), the Middle East, the Caucasus region and Central Asia.

(13)

construction of the self, in relation to social others, through symbolic – espe-cially discursive – practice in a concrete social cultural context” (Shi-xu 2005, 168).

This definition is very much in line with a more cultural approach to face, as face constitutes a form of social identity or image. Face, however, is “a nego-tiated [italics mine] public image, mutually granted each other by participants in a communicative event” (Scollon & Scollon 2001, 45). This negotiation of the public identity is done through strategies of involvement and independence, where the former entails any assertion “that the speaker is closely connected to the hearer” and the latter grants “independence to the hearer” (Scollon & Scollon 2001, 47). Both strategies are always present in any form of communi-cation, as exclusive use of one strategy engenders definite damage to either the speaker or the hearer’s face. Likewise, too much or too little use of one strategy may also cause the speaker or hearer to lose face. Scollon & Scollon therefore note that “all communication has to be carefully phrased with respect to face, both involvement face and independence face” (Scollon & Scollon 2001, 48).

Establishing new face relationships is based on two different elements: the first being a set of basic assumptions of how such a relationship is supposed to be. This set of assumptions is culturally marked and relationships between similar participants (father-son relationships for example) may differ in various cultures (i.e. most likely to be a hierarchical relationship in Asia and a more egalitarian relationship in the west2_{). The second element is constituted by negotiation of}

these assumptions, either accepting them for what they are or modifying them to fit the current situation. Three different factors influence face strategies: power, distance and the weight of imposition. Power refers here to the “vertical disparity between participants in a hierarchical structure” (Scollon & Scollon 2001, 52) and distance to the closeness of the relationship. With these ‘building blocks’ one can construct three different face systems: 1. a deference politeness system, where there is no power disparity, but there is a certain amount of distance between the interlocutors, 2. a solidarity politeness system, without any power disparity and no distance between the individuals, 3. a hierarchical politeness system, where there is vertical disparity between the participants. In this case, whether there is distance between the individuals or not is irrelevant. Again, culture imposes its norms and values on how these different politeness systems are realized, i.e., what the specific face values required are. Power and distance are relatively stable elements and there is only a small chance that these will change over time, although obviously there is always the possibility of promotion/demotion or becoming closer friends or colleagues. The weight of imposition (i.e. the amount of pressure a request will put on your interlocutor),

2_{Obviously, this differs per country or region, and in some cases even per person, but}

generally one could argue that historically the Confucian heritage cultures in Asia foster hierarchical relationships, whereas the Renaissance has fostered egalitarian relationships in Europe and North America.

(14)

however, is a fluctuating factor. An increased weight of imposition will lead to more distance and therefore an increased use of independence strategies.

Scollon & Scollon’s strategies of involvement and independence depend heav-ily on Brown & Levinson’s positive and negative face, but includes the cultural aspects that the latter’s theory missed. Consequently, there are some impor-tant points where the two theories diverge. First of all, Scollon & Scollon do not solely rely on speaker wants, but also take the hearer into account. Face is no longer something an individual can claim for himself, as Brown & Levinson asserted, but mutually negotiated by both speaker and hearer. As an example I will use an anecdote by Scollon & Scollon. A friend of theirs who had attempted to learn Spanish could never get the difference between tu (the informal pro-noun for ’you’) and usted (the formal propro-noun for you). He solved this problem by always using tu, intending to show warmth and friendship with this involve-ment strategy. Unfortunately this did not solve his problem, as a number of people took offense when he used a involvement strategy where an independence strategy was needed (i.e., his claim of involvement, or positive face, had failed as it was not accepted by the hearer). On the other hand, people befriended him, acknowledging that it was his poor language skills that caused miscommu-nication, but that he actually meant well (i.e., they accepted his involvement strategy). Although the friend tried to uphold a certain image, this image had to be accepted by the hearer to become reality, which – in this case – did not always work out as intended. Secondly, Scollon & Scollon’s involvement and in-dependence strategies should be seen as a continuum: both strategies are always present in all communication, with the speaker sometimes depending more on involvement and other times more on independence strategies. Brown & Levin-son’s theory, on the other hand, considers positive and negative face to be two different sides of the same coin. Positive and negative face are therefore related, but not interrelated; they do not form a continuum, but can occur separately. Thirdly, although Scollon & Scollon acknowledge that “any communication is a risk to face”, they do not provide a universal list of FTA’s or strategies to counteract these ‘face threatening acts’, as is the case with Brown & Levinson. Instead they analyze what factors influence the different existing face systems. According to Scollon & Scollon, a FTA or miscommunication arises when one does not choose the right face system (and therefore the right strategy) and thus fails to comply to cultural norms and values. They note that FTA’s espe-cially happen “across the boundaries of discourses [...] because it is difficult to know in [...] a new culture how to express these rather subtle differences in face values” (Scollon & Scollon 2001, 58). To illustrate this, we can use the same anecdote about the friend who learned Spanish. Due to his inability to discern the subtle differences between informal tu and formal usted, the man used an inappropriate pronoun on many occasions. Unintentionally, and perhaps even unknowingly, Scollon & Scollon’s friend made the same face threatening act over and over to the people around him, failing to comply to the cultural norms due to his poor language skills.

(15)

Chapter 2

Teaching English as an L2

2.1 A brief historical overview of approaches

Beliefs of how to successfully master a foreign language (i.e., a language not readily spoken in the land of origin) have radically changed over the last cou-ple of decades. Traditional language teaching focused mainly on the classical languages, Greek and Latin, and aimed at helping students to read literature in these foreign languages by fixating on grammar and translation. The goal of this method (not surprisingly called the Grammar-Translation Method or the Classical Method) – which is still in use in some classes nowadays –is for students to be able to successfully translate from one language to another. Con-sequently, this method mostly focuses on reading and writing as the primary skills to be developed, with grammar and vocabulary being the most important aspects that have to be mastered to be able to read and write. Grammar rules are explained in the native language by the teacher, who is considered to be the authority in the classroom. After explaining the rules, students work on ex-ercises such as ‘fill-in-the-blanks’, making use of deductive application of these grammar forms. Both grammar rules and vocabulary items are to be committed to memory. The time in these classes is divided between the teacher lecturing, the students making exercises, and the teacher-student interaction where the teacher asks questions and the students have to answer correctly. Occasionally, there are small time-windows for students to ask questions about the lesson content, but student-student interaction is non-existent. (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson 2011, 19-22).

Because this Grammar-Translation Method was initially intended for dead languages such as Greek or Latin, communication in the target language received no attention during classes. Larsen-Freeman & Anderson note that “it was recognized that students would probably never use the target language, but the mental exercise of learning it would be beneficial anyway” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson 2011, 13). However, initially, this method was also implemented

(16)

in language lessons that taught contemporary, ‘living’ languages, and the fact that students were not prepared for communication with this type of language learning dissatisfied many. As a reaction to the Grammar-Translation Method, oral-based approaches to language teaching such as the Audio-Lingual Method and the Direct Method appeared.

The Audio-Lingual Method taps into Skinner’s behavioral psychology and views language as forms of behavior. The target language has to become a new habit, while the native language is an old habit that has to be overcome. Therefore, all communication in the classroom is in the target language. In-stead of vocabulary and grammar exercises, the students are confronted with dialogue through which they learn vocabulary and grammatical structural pat-terns. These dialogues have to be repeated as closely as possible, until students know them by heart. The teacher functions as a leader and a model for cor-rect speech. Student-student interaction happens only through repetition of the dialogue between students (cf. Larsen-Freeman & Anderson 2011, 42-46).

The Direct Method is another communication-centered language learning ap-proach eschewing the native language of the learners. Its goal is to allow students to communicate – and think – in the target language. Because no translation is allowed in Direct Method classes, students should be able to directly access the new language, without any interference from the native language. New words are learned through the use of pictures, drawings, pantomime, etc. and the new vocabulary is practiced by using these new words in sentences. Grammar is acquired inductively; there is no explicit explanation of the rules of language. Although there is interaction between all classroom attendees (i.e., both student to student, teacher to student and vice versa), it is almost exclusively initiated by the teacher, who is still very much at the center of the lesson. Contrary to the Grammar-Translation Method, the content of Direct Method lessons is based on real every-day situations (as opposed to the literary situations of the G-T method), as students are supposed to apply the target language outside of the classroom (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson 2011, 28-31).

It should be noticed that of the above three methods, none can be considered to be superior over the other. All three approaches are still in use across the world alongside language classes where techniques from different approaches are mixed and matched. In most Western parts of the world, however, a shift in language learning policy occurred, which considered communication to be the key to language learning. Although both the Direct Method and the Audio-Lingual Method also focus on students oral skills to promote communication, both researchers and teachers noticed that language learners could not always use their newly acquired skills in real situations. Apparently, the methods used did not prepare students sufficiently for real communication and consequently, a new method for language learning was developed: Communicative Language Teaching, or CLT.

(17)

2.2 Communicative Language Teaching &

Co-operative Learning

CLT was developed by researchers in the late 1970s, as an answer to the communicative shortcomings of the methods previously described. Although, as mentioned above, both the Direct Method and the Audio-Lingual Method aimed at strengthening the oral abilities of language learners, both tried to do so by trying to enhance the linguistic competence of the students by doing drills or learning vocabulary without translation. However, according to Hymes (1971), linguistic competence alone does not suffice to be able to communicate properly; one also needs communicative competence. This acquisition of communicative competence is the drive behind CLT. Instead of memorizing vocabulary and grammar rules, students have to learn different forms, which can take different meanings and different functions and learn what forms to use in specific social situations. This shift in language learning goals has as a consequence that teach-ers and standardized text-books no longer are regarded as the central conveyteach-ers of knowledge. Instead, students form the center of learning, by communicating with each other in the target language as much as possible and by reading and listening to authentic material. The teacher no longer serves as a ‘knowledge guru’, but rather as a facilitator of and a mentor during communicative activ-ities. This does not mean that students are no longer expected to have any knowledge of the structural part of language, but rather that that knowledge is added on so students can develop communicative competence as well. Larsen-Freeman & Anderson note, however, that there is no single agreed upon version of what the precise interpretation of these activities should be, as – at the time of writing – there is a lack of “closely prescribe classroom techniques” (p. 115). Thus, it is possible that two CLT classrooms have widely varying content. What they do have in common, though, is that all classroom activities are done with communicative intent. Morrow (in Johnson & Morrow 1981) notes that a true communicative activity is subject to at least one of three different processes, and the more included, the more communicative benefits the exercise obtains. These three processes – which rely on information gaps, control of the exercises, and feedback – are explained below.

According to Morrow, most student activities lack an information gap. When communication takes place in real situations, speaker and hearer exchange in-formation they do not already know. When someone asks for the time in a normal situation, he does so because he actually wants to know the time. Dis-play questions (a question merely asked to disDis-play learned material, not to elicit information) rarely happen outside of the classroom, and are therefore not com-municative. Information can be both ideational (as in the former example) and interpersonal. Thus, even comments such as ‘Nice day, isn’t it?’ can be consid-ered to be a transfer of information, though not on a factual level, but rather in a social context. Speakers and hearers are “exchanging or confirming informa-tion about their social relainforma-tionship” (Johnson & Morrow 1981, 62). Activities

(18)

such as drills should therefore be considered as mechanical rather than commu-nicative, as no new information is transferred between the participants. In CLT classrooms, exercises have an information gap, so students learn how to elicit both ideational and interpersonal information. An example of a display ques-tion versus a communicative quesques-tion would be What is the weather like today? versus What will the weather be like tomorrow?. By answering the first question, no new information will be exchanged (the person asking the question already knows what the weather is like). The second question, however, is a referential question rather than a display question. The hearer does not know what the speaker is going to say in advance, and new information is being transferred.

Another trait of a good communicative activity is that interactants are pro-vided with a choice of what to say and how to say it. In regular communication, speakers have to decide within a limited time frame what ideas they want to ex-press, and how to appropriately formulate those ideas with regard to the hearer. The hearer, in turn, is also constrained by the fact that he/she does not know what to expect next exactly. Therefore, if an exercise is too tightly controlled, it does not simulate a real communicative situation properly. If, for example, a student has to describe one photo in a textbook based on a set formula (‘This is John. John is a man. The man is tall.’), the speaker’s options of formulating a sentence are too tightly controlled. Moreover, the hearer already knows what the speaker is going to say. For a proper communicative activity, the student should be able to choose from several pictures in a book, and should not be constrained by a set formula. In this case he/she would be able to use any forms under his/her command, which would also make it harder for the hearer to know what to expect.

The third process in regular communication regards feedback. Normally, when two individuals interact, they have a certain goal in mind. The speaker formulates his sentence in terms of this aim, and what the hearer replies will be evaluated towards that aim. However, the hearer does not necessarily have the same goals in the conversation, so what he/she replies will not only be based on what the speaker has said, but will also be shaped towards his/her own goals. If, in an exercise, there is no room for feedback, the interactants will not learn to negotiate properly throughout a conversation – a skill that is necessary in regular communication – and will therefore not be able to properly apply the foreign language. If, as in the example above, a student has to describe one picture based on a set formula, there is no room for feedback in the exer-cise, making it hard for the student to determine whether his description of the picture was a successfully understood by the hearer. If, however, the activity is changed to the student describing one picture (which he had to choose out of several) in his/her own words, the activity has an aim for both speaker and hearer. The speaker has to describe the photo accurately so the hearer will know what picture he/she is describing. The hearer has to interpret the description successfully in order to complete the activity. By getting feedback from the

(19)

hearer, the speaker can reformulate his/her description and correctly describe the picture. The hearer, by giving feedback, can modulate the clarity of the speaker’s description, thereby making it easier to understand and interpret.

What all of these processes have in common, and what is therefore central to CLT, is that they view efficacious communication not simply as ‘knowing what to say’, but also as ‘knowing how to say it’, i.e., they take social relation-ships between communicators into account. According to Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, successful language learners have to be able to “choose [...] the most appropriate form, given the social context and the roles of the interlocutors” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 122). Students are thus made aware of the social surroundings in which communication takes place and notice that there is no one-to-one correspondence with one form to one social context. Hence, one can argue that CLT classrooms offer implicit teaching of face strategies. This also becomes clear from one of the classroom technique examples in Larsen-Freeman & Anderson (p. 119), where students are made aware of the different forms com-munication may take when one disagrees with one’s boss, or when one disagrees with one’s colleague. The teacher elicits different answers from the students, so the students also become aware that there is not one single form that is correct, but rather that several forms can serve one purpose.

This emphasis on the social relationships between interactants suggests that if a language learner were able to learn the target language successfully through CLT, he/she automatically – albeit perhaps unconsciously – would acquire the different face strategies which are part of the target language. Subsequently, if a non-Western English learner were to study English through CLT techniques, he/she would accordingly become aware of the prevailing norms of individual-ism and egalitarianindividual-ism within the English (or Western) culture because CLT makes use of authentic discourse and all discourse is culturally saturated (Shi-xu 2005). However, becoming aware of the cultural differences between the native language and the target languages would place the non-Western English learner in a dilemma: there is a paradox between the individualistic and egal-itarian norms of English on one hand and the hierarchical and collectivistic Asian languages influenced by Confucius on the other. Thus, acquiring English successfully would mean that a learner from a Confucian heritage culture would have to adopt a hybrid identity to be able to speak the language native-like. Of course, adopting a hybrid identity is always a requirement when learning a second language as no cultures are entirely alike. However, there is a larger cul-tural gap between an Englishman and someone from e.g. China, than between said Englishman and someone from the Netherlands. Consequently, adopting the hybrid identity may require more effort from the Chinese speaker than from the Dutch speaker.

Although CLT could technically facilitate non-Western English learners to become accustomed to all aspects – and especially social relationships between

(20)

interactants – of the new target language, it is questionable whether it would have this desired effect. CLT was developed for Western classrooms and makes use of techniques that could (initially) clash with the traditional methods of teaching in Asian cultures. Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, for example, mention that teachers should “give students an opportunity to express their individuality by having them share their ideas and opinions on a regular basis” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson 2011, 124). CLT implementation in Asian educational systems is therefore not necessarily a logical step, as I will maintain in the following section.

(21)

Chapter 3

Foreign Language Teaching

in Asia

3.1 Changing traditions

The traditional method for learning English in China and similar Confucian heritage cultures corresponds largely to the old methods used in the west for foreign language teaching. The text-books used in schools are standardized and divided up in units, which consist of a short English text, a vocabulary list to be memorized, subsequent exercises to practice grammar and a short extract of classical literature. The class is teacher-fronted and explanations are conducted in the mother tongue. Students learn receptively by listening and taking notes. Due to the hierarchical relationship between teacher and students interrupting the teacher to ask questions would be considered bad classroom etiquette and is therefore never done. Examinations cover what students have learned from their text-books, focusing on grammar and vocabulary (cf. Ouyang 2000; Xu & Warschauer 2004; Rao 2010.).

In the last few decades, Asian countries – in trying to radically reform educa-tion – have abandoned the tradieduca-tional method on paper in favor of the Western model of CLT. However, no research had been done in advance to ensure that CLT was also compatible in Asian classrooms. Phuong-Mai et al. (2012) state that this implementation without critical thinking was caused by a belief in false universalism: the idea that a method successful in the west would render the same results in a new (Asian) environment. Moreover, they note that many countries also introduced CLT due to beneficial economic consequences: adopt-ing a Western theory for education – and as such showadopt-ing a pro-Western stance – would most likely result in extra loans or grants. CLT, however, was developed with Western classrooms in mind, and therefore does not take any other cul-tural aspects of pedagogy into account. Implementing CLT in Asian classrooms engenders therefore several difficulties, which will be discussed below.

(22)

3.2 Cultural divergence.

As discussed in section 1.3, there are conflicting notions which underlie Western and Asian culture. Phuong-Mai et al. (2006), following Hofstede & Hofstede (2005), state that cultures can differ along five dimension. Due to reasons of space, I will only discuss the three dimensions which are most important for this paper.

The first dimension concerns the power distance: “the extent to which less powerful members of institutions expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Phuong-Mai et al. 2006, 4). As mentioned before, the west favors egalitarianism, whereas Asian culture is based on hierarchy. CLT requires – as mentioned in section 2.2 – the teacher’s role to be facilitative. He/she no longer tells the students what to do, but aids them in their learning progress, for which they are responsible themselves. If, however, one grows up with omnipresent hierarchical structures as Asian students do, it is most difficult – and for some maybe impossible – to accept this type of learning.

The second dimension concerns uncertainty avoidance: “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertainty or unknown situations” (Phuong-Mai et al. 2006, 9). Phuong-Mai et al. state that students from Con-fucian heritage cultures prefer structured tasks and clear goals. In section 3.4, I discuss a paper by Ouyang (2000) in which he describes his personal experience of what happens when CLT replaces traditional Grammar-Translation methods in China without any modification. Ouyang’s students tried to apply the stan-dards used in the Traditional Method to measure their progress with CLT. This proved to be impossible, as the communicative activities in CLT classrooms lack objective aims: doing the tasks does not entail that one’s knowledge of the target language has increased measurably. The process of learning is merely added on. Discussions and open-ended group tasks, as often found in CLT, prove paramount for the learning process, but lack clear goals and structure.

The last dimension I will discuss here regards individualism vs. collectivism. As mentioned in paragraph 2.2, CLT is based on Western values and allows for students to express themselves individually by partaking in discussions. In the west, such discussions entail that the students challenge each others conclusions and/or reasoning, whereas in Asian society group harmony is key and Western style discussions – based on ancient Greek rhetoric – are rare (as mentioned in paragraph 1.3). In collectivistic societies, the group members go through great length to maintain both students’ and teachers’ face.

3.3 Practical constraints

Besides conceptual constraints, CLT also faces classroom and institutional constraints (Butler 2011, 41-43). The average number of students per

(23)

class-room/teacher is considerably higher in Asia compared to Western classes. Con-sequently, there may not be enough room for the students to move about when doing group work, while teachers lack time to sufficiently guide all students. As one student notes in Rao’s research on students’ attitudes towards communica-tive activities: “There is chaos when we are asked to interact with each other by moving around the classroom, which is only spacious enough to hold all of us. I feel quite frustrated when such an activity is going around” (Rao 2002, 93). Furthermore, most institutions – although formally having adopted CLT as means of instruction – still subject students to grammar-translation oriented assessments. Consequently, a large number of students and teachers feel that CLT prepares insufficiently for the exams, and rely on more traditional meth-ods of teaching (cf. Li & Baldauf 2011). Butler (2011, 42) notes, however, that recently more countries started implementing “communicative components” in their exams, which suggests that this may no longer be a concern in the future.

Rao’s (2002) study of Chinese students’ attitudes towards communicative ac-tivities in the classroom also shows that students are not necessarily rejecting all type of CLT exercises. Almost all participants in his study responded favorably to communicative activities such as having discussions in pairs or small groups, class discussions guided by the teacher, or reporting in English on interesting articles. On the other hands, the students also appreciated non-communicative activities such as teacher-fronted explanation of grammar rules, audio-lingual drills, and teacher-evaluated learning assessment.

3.4 Remaking discourse systems?

Whereas the west mostly focuses on individualism and egalitarianism, Asian communities are more collectivistic and hierarchically structured. Implementing CLT – with its student-centeredness and its focus on communicative competence rather than grammar and vocabulary – is at odds with the traditional teaching methods in Asia. Ouyang (2000, 398) notes that basing classroom content on CLT does not simply mean changing the form and subject matter of a lesson, but also the “remaking of discourse systems”. The old notions of hierarchy (the teacher placed above student) and social identities in education (the teacher as a ‘guru’ of information and the student as empty vessels which have to be filled with knowledge) have to be replaced if CLT is to work. The question is whether this is possible and whether it is desirable.

Where the first half of the question is concerned, the answer is ‘yes’: yes, it is possible to ‘rewire’ language learners from Confucian heritage cultures and accustom them to CLT. (Ouyang 2000). However, this is an arduous process, and it takes time. Ouyang describes the ordeal teachers trained in the Tradi-tional Method had to go through to be able to adjust to CLT. They had already been successful English teachers for years when selected to follow an extensive two-year CLT training program at a renowned university. The teachers started

(24)

their new schooling in high spirits, but soon felt disillusioned as none of the new classroom activities corresponded to their old notions of what education should be. With the Traditional Method they were used to measuring progress by “the increasing mastery of clearly identified, discrete language points” (Ouyang 2000, 405), whereas with CLT progress is difficult to determine because learning is considered to be a continued process, with no definite points that can be mas-tered (cf. Ellis 1996). Moreover, they felt abandoned by their teacher, who – in their eyes – “withheld” correct answers from them, and simply encouraged them to take responsibility for their own learning progress. The new students still con-tinued to abide by the Traditional Method: they did not want to do their own decision making with regard to their learning, as this would – from their point of view – undermine the authority that a teacher should have in a classroom. In short, the notions they had of language teaching (i.e., the traditional ideas of classroom interaction) hindered them in embracing the entirely different con-cepts of CLT. Because the university adopted a ‘sink-or-swim’ stance towards the trainees, most of them managed – with “incredible efforts, self-discipline, and hardship (Ouyang 2000, 409) – to come to terms with the requirements of CLT, and obtain a degree. Although in the end most of Ouyang’s teachers managed to make the switch to CLT, they had to overcome several hurdles, which can all be traced back to the aforementioned cultural differences.

However, the “stereotypical view of Asian students as more passive, less vo-cal, and preferring lecture-style instruction does not always accurately describe students in Asia” (Butler 2011, 40). As rightly pointed out by McKay (2002), it is often ignored that there is room for variety within culture. Consequently, there are numerous studies which show that CLT implementation in Asia should not be rejected on cultural grounds (cf. eg. Stevenson & Stigler 1992, Savignon & Wang 2003, Ha 2004, Chung & Huang 2009). The majority of the studies on CLT implementation in Asia, however, maintains that cultural values diverge too greatly to apply CLT in Asian classrooms in its current form. So, to answer the second half of the question as to whether it is desirable that a student’s discourse system is remade to fit CLT, the answer is ‘no’. In most cases, the students have to work too hard to be able to keep up with a educational system that is not suited to their cultural values.

So, should CLT be used in Asian classrooms at all? After all, there seems to be a copious amount of difficulties which surround its implementation. If most teachers and students seem to prefer the traditional methods of teaching, why implement a new approach at all? Indeed, the traditional methods of grammar-translation, combined with audio-lingual elements are not necessarily inferior to CLT but they do have different goals. If students merely want to be able to read a book in a foreign language, or an interesting article on the Internet, the traditional methods are well suited. However, if students also expect to be able to communicate with other English speakers, CLT has its advantages over Grammar-Translation and similar structural methods. Be that as it may, the

(25)

implementation of CLT in Asia has not rendered the expected results. Many students still have too little communicative competence to converse at a higher level with other English speakers. A great number of researchers have therefore argued that if CLT is to be implemented in Asia, it should not be the same pedagogy as used in the west, but rather a more culturally appropriate form (cf. eg. Ouyang 2000, Rao 2002, Phuong-Mai et al. 2006, Bannink 2010).

(26)

Chapter 4

Research question and

hypothesis

In chapter 1, I discussed the different concepts of face that are present in West and East, which arise from contrasting norms and values that underlie the respective cultures: individualism and egalitarianism for Western cultures and collectivism and hierarchy for Asian cultures. In chapter 2, I elaborated on different language acquisition techniques, maintaining that although all foster linguistic competence, only CLT has the potential to stimulate communicative competence. Moreover, within CLT (and similar techniques derived from it) the learner is also encouraged to think about social relationships which language can engender and can thus become aware of the different face strategies common in the target language. However, in section 3.4 it became clear that the current state of CLT implementation in Asia does not render the same effects as in Eu-rope. Furthermore, even when language learning through CLT is successful, the learner still has to be able and willing to adopt a hybrid language identity, due to paradoxical notions that underlie the different cultures and thus languages (in-dividualism and egalitarianism vs. collectivism and hierarchy). These cultural systems will to a certain extent keep interfering with our language systems. The question I address in this study is therefore: do English learners from Confucian heritage cultures apply English face strategies when speaking English, or does their culture and native language interfere? In order to answer this question, I will compare a group of Asian English learners with a group of European En-glish learners to see whether their face strategies do indeed differ. Taking the varying face strategies into account and the educational failure of CLT in its Western sense in Asia, plus a strong influence of Confucian heritage culture, my hypothesis is that Asian English learners are most likely to adopt some English face strategies, but will also show signs of transfer from their native language. Most likely, this will be especially evident in the speech of students with poorer language skills, who are probably less exposed to or less aware of the standard English face strategies. The European group, on the other hand, will probably

(27)

use face strategies similar to English as their cultures have largely the same underlying values of individualism and egalitarianism.

(28)

Chapter 5

The study

5.1 Participants

The participants were recruited on a voluntary basis. The majority of the stu-dents responded to an e-mail sent through the International Office of the faculty of Humanities and the International Office of the Global Exchange Program of the University of Amsterdam. A personal friend also offered to help with the research and recruited two Asian friends. Because all students volunteered to participate in the research, this study has a selection bias. It is quite likely that these type of students are more extravert, confident and linguistically compe-tent than those students who would not volunteer to participate in research, and it is possible that these character traits influence language use. However, since this research is such a small scale study, any rendered results will be too tentative to apply in general in any case.

Table 1 - European participants

Name Age Country Study Learning age

Proficiency level

1 _Abroad?

Aleksandra 26 Poland MA - Literature 6 4 No Brile 23 France BA - History - 2 Yes - DE Maria 21 Russia BA - Linguistics 12 3 No Michaela 21 Italy BA - Art History 9 4 Yes - USA Pascal 25 Germany BA - Religious Studies 12 4 Yes - BRZ Silvia 22 Italy BA - Linguistics 8 4 Yes - CHN

Timothy 23 Netherlands - 8 3 No

Vivian 24 Netherlands MA - Neuropsychology 10 3 No

1_{Participants were asked to rate their proficiency level on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5}

(29)

Table 2 - Asian participants

Name Age Country Study Learning

age

Proficiency

level Abroad? Biling 21 China BA - History 5 4 Yes - USA/NZ

Cissy 21 China BA - Economics 8 4 Yes - AUS

Diane 20 China BA - Business 7 4 Yes - USA

Dion 21 Hong Kong BA - Psychology/Media and Culture 3 3 No Dongshen 23 China MA - Business & Finance 6 4 Yes - UK May 25 Taiwan MA - Administration 7 3 Yes - AUS

Peter 35 Taiwan MA - Management (finished) 9 5 Yes - DE/JPN/UK

In total, 15 people participated in this study: eight of European origin (in-cluding Russia) and seven from Asia (China, Hong Kong, Taiwan). With the exception of Timothy and Peter, all students were attending a Dutch univer-sity at the time of writing. Both Peter and Timothy had already finished their studies and were now working in the Netherlands. Although Timothy did not study at university level, I deemed his English sufficient to participate in the study, due to his work in an international environment where he can successfully communicate with foreign customers.

The age of each participant was combined to obtain a simple arithmetic mean age. I deemed this relevant to ensure that both groups do not diverge too much in terms of years of experience with (learning) English. The mean age lies at 23.4 for the entire group. When calculated separately for the European and Asian group, the mean age is 23.1 and 23.7, respectively. However, Peter’s age seems to be somewhat of an aberration in the Asian group, as he is 35. If his age is not taken into account, the Asian group scores considerably lower on average age: 21.8. The mean average for the age the participants started learning English (dubbed ‘learning age’ in table 1) is 7.92. The European group scores a mean learning age of 9.2, where the learning age varies between age 6 and 12. The Asian group, on the other hand, started learning English at a considerably younger age, with a mean average of 6.4, and learning age varying between as early as 3 years old till 9 years old. The groups’ years of experience with (learning) English is 13,9 years for the European group, and 15,4 years for the Asian group.

Proficiency levels of all participants are included to give a general idea of the students’ own perception of their English levels, which they could rate on a scale from 1 (poor language skills) to 5 (excellent language skills). Although this self-assessment is a good indication of the participants’ confidence in their language skills and thus, in a way, how confident they feel in a conversation,

(30)

this valuation does not indicate their actual language proficiency. Because all international students had to pass an English exam3 prior to their stay in the Netherlands, their English skills are at least at intermediate level or higher. The one Dutch student (Vivian – who attended Leiden University) had to meet simi-lar entry requirements for her master4. All participants are therefore sufficiently proficient to uphold a relatively complex conversation.

The participants were also asked to provide information about whether they had ever resided abroad before prior to their arrival in the Netherlands, and if so, where? The question only regarded extended stays abroad, holidays were excluded. This information provides useful knowledge about a participant’s linguistic competence in real life social situations and about any possible contact with different cultures and languages.

Although the original idea was that none of the students in the groups would know each other beforehand, this goal turned out to be unreachable. Due to the fact that I got little response to my e-mails to the international student com-munity asking for their help, I decided to make use of some personal contacts. Vivian, May and Peter (group 2) were therefore already acquainted before their conversation occurred, which may have influenced their interactions. Likewise, Brile, Maria, Pascal and Silvia all knew each other from one of their university courses. Although they were not friends, they had already seen each other a number of times before their conversation took place. Moreover, although Cissy and Diane responded independently to my e-mail, they had already made each other’s acquaintance during a course as well. This has as a consequence that not all groups share the same amount of social distance (one of the factors of face strategies, see paragraph 1.4 above) between the participants. People who are already acquainted - and friends even more so - are more likely to use an increased amount of strategies of involvement in their conversation than people who have just become acquainted. Therefore, the increased weight of impo-sition that the tasks try to place on the participants may not have as much effect on already familiar groups, as potentially face-threatening acts are felt as less threatening if uttered by a friend or acquaintance. On the other hand, all participants were exchange students (except for Timothy and Vivian) and were thus likely to quickly bond over similar experiences. Moreover, at the time of recording, they had been part of a Dutch university for at least one month and had therefore, presumably, become aware of the egalitarian discourse structure among teachers and students alike, which can possibly influence their choice for more involvement strategies as well.

3_{Information retrieved from:}

http://www.uva.nl/en/education/master-s/studying-at-the-uva/general-study-information/language-of-instruction/language-of-instruction.html.

4 _Information _retrieved _from:

(31)

5.2 Design of the study

The participants were divided in five groups, which were all provided with the same four tasks and a questionnaire. Each of these tasks were designed to have a cumulative degree of weight of imposition on the group members. Weight of imposition, as discussed in section 1.4, is one of the three different aspects – along with power and distance – which together form a face strategy (Scollon & Scollon 2001, 44-57). Since the factors of power and distance only evolve over time (if they evolve at all), the fluctuating factor for the tasks in this research -where only one conversation per group is recorded - is the weight of imposition. By increasing the weight of imposition in each task, an opportunity is created to determine whether European and Asian English language learners indeed differ in their face strategies. The four tasks will be discussed below.

5.2.1 Task 1 – Exchanging experiences

Task one encompassed an informal conversation:

Task 1: Discuss with your fellow exchange students what your Amsterdam/Netherlands experience has been like so far.

This task was meant to trigger zero or very few instances of talk which can threaten the participants’ face, and rather served as an introductory task for the students to get acquainted with one another and to create a comfortable environment to complete the remaining assignments.

5.2.2 Task 2 - Negotiation

In task two, the participants had to organize a party for a(n) (imaginary) friend.

Task 2: Imagine your best friend turns 25 in a couple of weeks. Obviously, you and your friends (i.e. your fellow students present here) want to throw her an unforgettable birthday bash which she will remember the rest of her life. Try and think of some ideas which will make it a memorable day and, all together, try to construct a plan you agree on. Be specific! For instance, if you want to take your friend out to dinner or plan on clubbing specify what (kind of) restaurant or club you will go to.

The participants had to solve this problem by means of negotiation. It was expected that everybody would entertain their own ideas of the perfect birthday celebration and that – because it was deemed unlikely that all suggestions would be the same due to the influence of gender, age and culture – fusing these ideas into one would call for a compromise. Negotiation, with ultimately a compromise, is inherently face threatening as there is a need for at least one

(32)

member of the group to alter or altogether abandon his/her idea. However, since the outcome of this task is open-ended, it is impossible for a participant to state a wrong answer, thereby making task two less face-threatening than the next assignment.

5.2.3 Task 3 – Problem solving

The third task was designed to elicit more friction:

Task 3: Try to solve this riddle together with your fellow students: ’A farmer has bought a wolf dog, a goat, and a cabbage on the market of a nearby village. On his way home, he has to cross a river using a small rowing boat. Unfortu-nately, this boat is so incredibly tiny that it can only hold the farmer and one of his purchases. Even more unfortunate is the fact that the wolf dog and the goat cannot be left alone on one shore together, due to the wolf dog’s insatiable appetite for delicious goat. Likewise, the goat cannot be on the same shore as the cabbage; that juicy green cabbage is just too irresistible for the goat. How can the farmer get all his belongings from one shore to the other, without anything being eaten?’

Contrary to task two, which had an open outcome in the form of a com-promise, task three subsumes only two valid answers5 _{. In this case, due to}

the closed outcome of the task, the participants were either right or wrong as they tried to solve this riddle, whereas in task two the answer was based on the negotiation of different ideas.

5.2.4 Task 4 - Discussion

The fourth task encompassed a discussion and was designed to trigger the most face-threatening acts.

Task 4: Discuss what the biggest cultural difference is between North-America and Asia. If you have never been to the US/Canada and/or any Asian country, try to think of anything you might have read, any documentaries or movies you might have seen, or people you know from the respective countries and base your argument on that knowledge.

Task 4 was expected to create the most weight of imposition, and therefore the most possible potential face loss. In a discussion, participants do not only scrutinize their interlocutors statements, but in turn have their perspectives questioned, which furthers the needs for delicacy.

5_{Option 1: First goat, then wolf dog, take the goat back to the other side, then cabbage,}

then goat again.

Option 2: First goat, then cabbage, take the goat back to the other side, then wolf dog, then goat again.

The Use of Face Strategies in Intercultural Settings: A Comparative Study focusing on Asian and European Language Learners

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Master Thesis