Wenying Jiang

Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs)

Abstract This paper focuses on how culture can be treated as an explanatory variable in cross-cultural pragmatic studies. It starts with a review of pragmatic maxims [Grice, H. Paul, 1989. Logic and Conversation. William James Lectures, 1967. (Reprinted in Grice, H.P. (Ed.), Studies in the Way of Words, pp. 22–40); Leech, Geoffrey N., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman; Journal of Pragmatics 14 (1990)237], discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the concept. It then presents the findings from a British-Chinese replication of Kims [Human Communication Research 21(1996)128] cross-cultural study of conversational constraints, and argues that the notion of maxims should be reconceptualised as sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). The notion of SIPs is defined and explained, referring to the sociopragmatic-pragmalinguistic distinction [Leech, Geoffrey N., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman; Applied Linguistics 4(1983)91] and other cross-cultural pragmatic approaches [House, Julianne, 2000. Understanding misunderstanding: a pragmatic-discourse approach to analyzing mismanaged rapport in talk across cultures. In: Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.), Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. Continuum, London; 145–164; Journal of Pragmatics 9 (1985)145]. SIPs are also discussed in relation to Brown and Levinsons [Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. CUP, Cambridge (Originally published ad ‘Universals in language usage: politeness phenomenon’ In: Goody, E. (1987), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. CUP, New York.)] perspectives on the impact of culture on language use. The paper ends with a call for more research to establish on an empirical basis the types of interactional principles that exist, and their interrelationships.

A comparative study on learning strategies used by Australian CFL and Chinese EFL learners

Abstract This study compared language learning strategies used by Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) learners in Australia and English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in China through Oxford’s (1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.) Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire survey. Two cohorts of learners, namely Australian CFL learners (N=101) and Chinese EFL learners (N=100), participated in this study. It was found that the most frequently used strategies by the Chinese EFL learners were compensation strategies and the least frequently used strategies were memory strategies while the most frequently used strategies by the Australian CFL learners were social strategies and the least frequently used strategies were affective strategies. Australian female learners used slightly more strategies than male learners, but no difference was found in the strategies used by the Chinese EFL male and female learners. No significant difference was found either in the strategies used by learners of different grade levels, regardless of whether they were Chinese EFL or Australian CFL learners. Scores of some individual categories significantly differed between the three levels of the Australian CFL learners and the four levels of the Chinese EFL learners. In general the Chinese EFL learners used more strategies when compared with those used by the Australian CFL learners. Pedagogical implications of the findings were also discussed. This study contributes to the research in language learning strategies in that it considers the typological distance between learners’ L1 and the target language for the first time. It also has clarified the seemingly inconsistent findings in the literature in terms of memory strategies use by Asian learners (Chinese learners in this case): when compared with other categories of strategies, memory strategies were used the least frequently by the Chinese EFL learners; when compared with learners from other cultural backgrounds such as the Australian or American, the Chinese EFL learners used memory strategies more frequently.