英语商务通用语交际中交际策略的语用研究---基于关系管理视角

CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTION

This chapter leads this thesis into a starting phase by briefly introducing the researchtopic and the definition of communicative strategies. Then, the research rationale iselaborated and three specific research questions are put forward. Finally, the overallorganization of the thesis is presented.

1.1 Research topic

Communicative strategies (CSs) were first discussed under the Second LanguageAcquisition (SLA) paradigm more than forty years ago, forming a new study area(Bjorkman, 2014). In recent years, as research on English as a lingua franca (ELF) hasbecome a hot topic, more and more studies tend to focus on CSs used in ELF settingsconcerning a large number of international domains. This thesis will examine the CSsemployed by speakers in ELF business interactions. The purpose of the work is to outlinethe CSs used in ELF business settings and then further identify the different functions ofthese CSs in terms of rapport management.

........................

1.2 Definition of CSs

Studies on definition of CSs started within the SLA paradigm. Under this paradigm, thedefinition of CSs was restricted to the “insistence of problematicity” (Kasper andKellerman, 1997: 2) in some early works. Later, concerns were raised on such insistenceof problematicity in the definition of CSs by some scholars who regarded CSs as a seriesof resources that speakers use to meet their communicative goals (e.g. Bialystok, 1983).These other definitions are broader in that they also involve efforts to increaseexplicitness and effectiveness in CSs (Canale, 1983) rather than focusing on problems ordifficulties speakers face. Nevertheless, the consensus in this paradigm was that problematicity was definitional to CSs (Kasper and Kellerman, 1997).

Within the ELF paradigm, however, in their studies on CSs, scholars have includednot only the cases in which a problem or difficulty has occurred and is clearly marked inthe interaction, but also potential problems that might occur because of the asymmetries(Bjorkman, 2014). That is to say, the definition of CSs under the ELF paradigm includesboth real and potential problems, which allows for carrying out research on pro-activework (Mauranen, 2007). In the present study, the definition of CSs is surely in accordwith the understanding of ELF researchers. Therefore, CSs here refer to all kinds oflinguistic resources (such as repetition and repair) that speakers use intentionally or atleast recurrently to solve both real and potential problems with the purpose of transferringinformation, or managing interpersonal relationship which is the focus of this thesis.

.........................

CHAPTER TWOLITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Previous studies on ELF

2.1.1 Overview of studies on ELF

This part mainly involves the definition of ELF as well as the origin, development andresearch status of ELF studies so as to give a general picture of this study area.Considering the definition of ELF, there hasn’t been a unified version yet. On the websiteof Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (),ELF is described as “an additionally acquired language system which serves as acommon means of communication for speakers of different first languages”.

The research on ELF was initiated by two German scholars in the 1980s: Hullen(1982) and Knapp (1985, 1987). At that time, however, as Knapp himself later pointedout, the interest was “mainly conceptual in nature, stressing the importance of ELF as anobjective for English language teaching and also postulating the necessity of empiricalstudies that could identify formal or functional aspects to be taken account of in teaching”(Knapp, 2002: 218). And outside Germany, not many scholars paid enough attention tothis kind of phenomenon.

The turning point seems to have occurred at the beginning of the 21st century withthe pioneering works of three European female scholars (Jenkins, 2000, 2007; Seidlhofer,2001, 2004; Mauranen, 2003, 2005, 2006a, b). Following their steps, the research on ELFhas been receiving increasing attention. And after more than ten years’ development, ithas become an independent research field now (Wen, 2012). In addition to the emergenceof many publications on the subject including journal articles and books, more ELF-focused doctoral theses have been completed and a dedicated ELF conference serieshas been established (Jenkins, 2011). A specialized journal, the Journal of English as aLingua Franca, has also been launched by the publisher de Gruyter Mouton in 2011.Besides, three major ELF corpora have been set up, namely the Vienna-OxfordInternational Corpus of English (VOICE), the corpus of English as a Lingua Franca inAcademic Settings (ELFA) and the Asian Corpus of English (ACE), providing data forELF studies.

...........................

2.2 Previous studies on CSs

2.2.1 Studies on CSs in ELF settings

According to Bjorkman (2014), when it comes to studies on CSs and other pragmaticphenomena in ELF settings, we find that most have focused on a selection of strategiesand the functions of these strategies, while some have included frameworks. And she hassummarized some studies that are most relevant to her research as table 2-1 shows.

Table 2-2 The communication strategies observed in Bjorkman’s (2014) work

From table 2-2, we can see that Bjorkman (2014) has divided CSs into self-initiatedCSs and other-initiated CSs and both of them can further be divided into several subtypes.Since there has not been such research on CSs in ELF business settings, this thesis willtry to work out a framework of a number of strategies used in ELF business interactionsbased on Bjorkman’s (2014) investigation. Moreover, we can find that Bjorkman (2014)has only explained these strategies with examples one by one without emphasizing theirdifferent functions. Therefore, this thesis will further focus on analyzing differentfunctions of the CSs emerged in the data from the perspective of rapport managementafter presenting a general framework.

........................

CHAPTER THREE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK................14

3.1 Spencer Oatey’s rapport management framework...........14

3.1.1 Rapport management: a framework for analysis.............14

3.1.2 Factors influencing strategy use......................16

CHAPTER FOUR CSS USED IN ELF BUSINESS INTERACTIONS AND THEIRFREQUENCY....................................... 22

4.1 Self-initiated CSs..........23

4.1.1 Self-initiated repetition........23

4.1.2 Explanation...........................24

CHAPTER FIVE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE CHOICE OF CSS AND THEFUNCTIONS OF CSS...............35

5.1 Factors influencing the choice of CSs..........35

5.2 Functions of CSs in terms of rapport management...........37

CHAPTER FIVEFACTORS INFLUENCING THE CHOICE OF CSS AND THEFUNCTIONS OF CSS

5.1 Factors influencing the choice of CSs

According to Spencer-Oatey (2007), there are three main categories of factor which caninfluence the strategy use, namely rapport orientation, contextual variables and pragmaticconventions. In this research, it is found that the factors influencing the choice of CSs inELF business interactions mainly lie in rapport orientation and contextual variables.

Firstly, with respect to rapport orientation, speakers from the two selected businessmeetings both hold the rapport-enhancement orientation which means a desire tostrengthen or enhance harmonious relations between the interlocutors, or at least therapport-maintenance orientation which means a desire to maintain or protect harmoniousrelations between the interlocutors (Spencer-Oatey, 2007). In this circumstance, speakerstry to employ all kinds of CSs when possible to solve both real and potential problemswith the purpose of maintaining or promoting communication and interpersonalrelationship. That is to say, the rapport orientation speakers hold facilitates their choice ofdifferent CSs which are available at a certain moment.

Secondly, as for contextual variables, Spencer-Oatey (2007) discussed fourimportant ones: participant relations, message content, rights and obligations, and communicative activity, among which participant relations and communicative activityare more prominent in the present study. Power and distance are two significantcomponents of participant relations. Power is a relationship between at least two persons,and it is nonreciprocal in the sense that both cannot have power in the same area ofbehavior (Brown and Gilman, 1972). In pragmatic research, power is typicallyoperationalized in terms of unequal role relations. Distance refers to solidarity, closeness,familiarity and relational intimacy between speakers, and it can be affected by thefrequency of contact, length of acquaintance, sense of like-mindedness and positive ornegative emotion. In meeting 1, the power relations between speakers are fairlyasymmetrical and speakers are predominantly acquainted while in meeting 2, the powerrelations between speakers are fairly symmetrical and speakers are acquainted. Therefore,there are some differences between the two meetings as well as among different speakersin each meeting with regard to the use of various CSs.

...........................

CONCLUSION

6.1 Findings

The present study first aims to outline a taxonomy of the CSs observed in ELF businessinteractions. The investigation of the data reveals seven different kinds of CSs in total.They are repetition, explanation, comprehension check, repair, clarification request,co-creation and sympathy. And they can be divided into two main categories, namelyself-initiated CSs and other-initiated CSs, adopting the ‘self’ and ‘other’ categorization inCA. Among these strategies, repetition and repair can either be within self-initiated CSsor other-initiated CSs. Co-creation can further be divided into in-group co-creation andout-group co-creation.

When it comes to the frequency of these CSs, the statistics demonstrate the quitehigh frequency of some CSs and the relatively low frequency of other CSs. There are alltogether 337 CSs observed in the two selected business meetings with 203 in meeting 1and 134 in meeting 2. And it can be found that the two meetings are similar to each otherwithin the two main categories of self-initiated CSs and other-initiated CSs. They bothinvolve a higher number of other-initiated CSs which is primarily caused by the highfrequency of clarification request and co-creation. In terms of self-initiated CSs, there isnot a big difference in frequency for each subtype with explanation being the highest andcomprehension check the lowest.

This research also aims to identify factors influencing the choice of CSs and thefunctions of these CSs in terms of rapport management. It is found that factors influencing the speakers’ choice of the CSs in ELF business interactions mainly includerapport orientation, participant relations (power and distance) and communicative activity.And all the factors especially those contextual variables can play both a standing and adynamic role in influencing language use. Within Spencer-Oatey’s (2007) rapportmanagement framework, we divide functions of the CSs into the support of one’s ownface needs and sociality rights, and the support of the other person’s. According to thedata, the support of self face needs and sociality rights can be further divided into thesupport of self quality face, identity face and association rights. And the support of theother face needs and sociality rights can be further divided into the support of otherquality face, equity rights and association rights. What’s more, it can be found that certainCSs are used to realize certain functions in such ELF business interactions. Repetition isthe strategy often employed by speakers to support self identity face and other qualityface. Explanation is mainly used to support self identity face, but it can also be used tosupport other equity rights as well as self and other quality face. Comprehension check isthe strategy always employed by speakers to support self identity face. Repair is thestrategy always employed by speakers to support self quality face. Clarification request isthe strategy always employed by speakers to support self association rights. Co-creationis often used to support self identity face and association rights, but it can also be used tosupport other quality face. Sympathy is the strategy always employed by speakers tosupport other association rights. And all of these CSs combined help to achieve rapportmanagement in the data.

reference(omitted)