Requests: An Analysis of College Freshmen's Oral English in Role Play

• Main Authors: Wei-Zue Chen, 陳薇竹
• Other Authors: Hsueh-O Lin
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2005
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/41582860524449582041

碩士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 英語學系 === 94 === The present study aims to explore how the EFL learners’ requests differ from the ENSs. Two sets of data: 6 ENSs and 6 EFL college freshmen were gathered. Data were elicited by interactive role play. The findings were coded into request strategies, lexical/phrasal downgraders, request supportive moves (RSMs) in terms of general types and distributions, and distributions across different power and distance contexts. Chi-square tests were adopted to examine any inter-group significant differences. In request strategy types, the EFL learners did not use explicit performatives while the ENSs did not use any mood derivables. The EFL learners were revealed to be more direct than the ENSs in request strategies by using more direct strategies and fewer indirect ones than the ENSs. Toward strangers [+D], the EFL learners used more direct strategies but fewer indirect ones than the ENSs. The effects of distance are more pronounced on the ENS group than the EFL one. As for lexical/phrasal downgrader types, the ENSs did not use politeness marker nor appealer, the EFL learners did not use consultative markers. On the whole, the EFL learners used “please” more frequently while adopting downtoners and consultative markers less often. While the EFL students consistently used more “please,” the ENSs tended to use more downtoners to superiors [+P], subordinates [-P], strangers [+D] and familiars [-D] respectively. In addition, to superiors [+P], the ENSs tended to use more subjectivizers and consultative markers. When addressees are strangers [+D] or familiars [-D], the EFL learners tended to use few downtoners while the ENSs used no politeness marker. Concerning RSMs types, the EFL learners did not use appealers, and good wills whereas the ENSs used all 12 types. Learners’ limited RSMs and lexical/phrasal downgraders suggest their limited proficiency. Generally, the EFL learners used identifications more frequently. The EFL learners used more preparators and fewer grounders toward equals [=P]. Toward subordinates [-P] or familiars [-D], the EFL learners used consistently few DMs, constantly used by the ENSs. In addition to these findings, our further analysis informed us that the integration of different strategies and modifiers can often achieve a higher degree of linguistic indirectness that mitigates face-threats in subsequent requests. Moreover, the EFL learners often used fewer subsequent requests and refusals than the ENSs. Factors of inadequacy of these pragmatic deviations were categorized into cultural influence, limited proficiency, methodological limitations, and the textbook influence. In view of the findings of the study, classroom activities and textbook designs are suggested. Future research is expected to look into the effects of teaching requests.