http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cmlr/571/571-Li.

html

Published in the Canadian Modern Language Review - Volume 57, No. 1,

September / septembre 2000

To see more articles and book reviews from this and other journals visit
UTPJOURNALS online at UTPJOURNALS.com

The Pragmatics of Making Requests in the L2 Workplace: A

Case Study of Language Socialization1

Duanduan Li

Abstract: The workplace is one of many sociocultural contexts where novices

within a culture, like immigrant women, become socialized into new discourse
systems and cultures. As second language (L2) speakers, the process of language
socialization in the workplace involves double socialization: as a novice in a new
work environment and as novice operating within a new language and culture.
Focusing on L2 requesting behaviour, this ethnographic case study deals with the
important issue of the pragmatics of higher-stakes social communications. The
contextualized examples provided here illustrate how, through exposure and
participation in social interactions and with the assistance of experts or more
competent peers, an immigrant woman came to internalize target language and
cultural norms and develop communicative competence in ESL in the workplace.
More specifically, she learned to make requests more directly than she had been
accustomed by adopting certain sociolinguistic strategies and expressions. The
research on which this paper is based represents a new direction in TESOL
workplace-oriented research, combining interlanguage pragmatics, ethnography,
and language socialization.

Résumé : Le milieu de travail est l'un des nombreux contextes où les néophytes
d'une nouvelle culture, comme les femmes immigrantes, se socialisent dans de
nouveaux systèmes de discours et de nouvelles cultures. Pour ces individus qui
sont locuteurs d'une langue seconde (L2), le processus de socialisation
linguistique en milieu de travail implique une socialisation double : en tant que
néophyte dans un nouvel environnement de travail, et en tant que néophyte
fonctionnant au sein d'une nouvelle langue et d'une nouvelle culture. Axée sur les
comportements de requêtes en L2, cette étude de cas ethnographique aborde la
question cruciale de la pragmatique des communications sociales d'une
importance cruciale. Les exemples contextualisés fournis ici illustrent comment,
grâce à l'exposition et à la participation à des interactions sociales, et aidée
d'experts ou de pairs plus compétents, une femme immigrante en est venue à
intérioriser la langue cible et les normes culturelles de même qu'à développer une
compétence communicative en anglais langue seconde au travail. Plus
précisément, elle a appris à formuler des requêtes plus directement qu'elle n'avait
été habituée en adoptant certaines stratégies et expressions sociolinguistiques.
La recherche sur laquelle s'appuie cet article représente une nouvelle orientation
dans la recherche portant sur le TESOL en milieu de travail, combinant la
pragmatique interlinguale, l'ethnographie et la socialisation linguistique.

Introduction

The last few decades have seen a dramatic increase in the amount, quality, and
intensity of communication among individuals of different cultural backgrounds, a
trend that is very apparent in North American educational and workplace settings.
As a result, more people from different ethnolinguistic backgrounds and traditions
are interacting with one another to accomplish their personal and professional
goals. However, because preferences for interactional style in such contexts are
deeply rooted in interlocutors' ideological origins and cultural identities (Hymes,
1971; Gumperz, 1982, 1990; Tannen, 1981, 1994), people do not necessarily
share the same interactional styles. These differences lead potentially to
situations of communication breakdown, misunderstanding, frustration, or simply
feelings of inadequacy that may prevent people from even attempting to
communicate with others. It is therefore important to understand better the
nature of intercultural communication, particularly with newcomers in
multicultural workplace settings, and to consider ways of improving lines of
communication and resolving areas of conflict among speakers who may not
share the same social, linguistic, and cultural points of reference.
Studies of immigrant women, in particular, have observed the recent trend of
high labour force participation, especially of women from previously communist
countries (cf., Buijs, 1993) who, with their `middle-class values and a strong
anti-Communist ideology,' in Simon's (1992) view, demonstrate `a strong work
ethic and aspirations for social mobility' (p. 232). However, as important as a
strong work ethic and ambitious aspirations and ability may be, language is still a
fundamental tool for realizing personal and professional goals, and being able to
use language effectively (e.g., being able to master the intricacies of making
requests in English and overcoming one's reticence, avoidance strategies, or
indirectness, as in the case presented below) may be crucial.

Approaches to interlanguage pragmatics research on requests

Many studies in interlanguage pragmatics, focusing primarily on speech act

performance, have been conducted to provide a deeper understanding of cross-
cultural communication styles, second language acquisition (SLA), and differences
in L2 speech act realization between people from different first language (L1)
backgrounds (e.g., Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990; House & Kasper,
1987; Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993). Among the numerous speech acts studied,
requesting behaviour has been a continuous focus for many researchers because
of both the complexity of the relationship between form, meaning, and
pragmatics in requests, and the high social stakes involved for interlocutors when
choosing among linguistic options (e.g., Blum-Kulka, 1991; Blum-Kulka &
Olshtain, 1984, 1986; Rintell & Mitchell, 1989; Weizman, 1989, 1993). That is,
while making requests may be risky business - a face-threatening act (FTA) in
any language - it is all the more risky for immigrants using an L2 when seeking
assistance with basic needs (e.g., applying for welfare, housing, medical care) or
pursuing career development (e.g., workplace relationships, job opportunities,
and promotions). Failure to execute a request properly and have it fulfilled
adequately may seriously affect their own livelihood and well-being as well as
that of their families. However, previous research on interlanguage requests has
dealt basically with ESL learners in generic social encounters or in educational or
even hypothetical contexts; little known research on L2 pragmatics or on
requesting behaviours has been conducted with immigrants in the workplace.
Most previous interlanguage pragmatics studies have used data primarily drawn
from experimental, contrived, or controlled situations, usually with the production
of single-sentence responses to written prompts in what are called Discourse
Completion Tasks (DCTs, see, e.g., Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Blum-Kulka, 1991;
Cohen & Olshtain, 1993; Rintell & Mitchell, 1989; and related overview of
interlanguage pragmatics research in Ellis, 1994). The focus is typically non-
native speakers' `deviation' from native speakers' norms.
Ethnography provides a very different approach and perspective. As Gowen
(1992) explains, `[i]n an ethnographic approach, ... cultural and social
differences are expected and acknowledged rather than taken as signs of deficit'
(p. 131). Saville-Troike (1989) emphasizes that ethnographic modes of
investigation are essential if SLA is to be described and explained adequately:

We can begin to understand how language is learned only if we examine the

process within its immediate social and cultural setting, and in the context of
conscious or unconscious socialization or enculturation. (pp. 220-221)

Similarly, Kasper and Dahl (1991), in reviewing current research methodology in

the field of interlanguage pragmatics, made the appeal that `clearly there is a
great need for more authentic data, collected in the full context of the speech
event' (p. 245).
Therefore, in order to look at the interactive nature and the social function and
consequences of requests that are embedded deeply within particular historical,
social, and cultural contexts, this study takes an ethnographic and
phenomenological (or experiential) approach to examining, describing,
understanding, and interpreting the situation facing ESL learners in the
workplace. I examine the linguistic experiences of one Chinese immigrant
woman, Ming, as she learns to make requests in English, her second language
(L2). Using a longitudinal, ethnographic, case study approach - one seldom used
in pragmatics research - I track the developmental processes and experiences of
Ming's language socialization. Furthermore, by drawing on data from multiple
sources (e.g., from not only Ming, but others in her social and educational
network, such as her program director, instructor, and colleague), I am able to
provide both emic (insider) and etic (outsider) perspectives of the sociolinguistic
phenomenon of making requests. In addition, unlike most other studies of
interlanguage requests, I view a request not just as a speech act realized in a
single utterance or pair of utterances but as a pragmatic activity that is achieved
sometimes over a series of utterances or accomplished only after an extended
period of time. Lastly, in this study I also draw heavily on self-reports or narrative
accounts of speech acts, not just observed events. In this way, I capture
circumstances and incidents deemed most significant to participants themselves
in terms of L2 pragmatics.

Language socialization perspectives in second language

pragmatics research

In a recent overview of research on L2 pragmatics development, Kasper (2000)

identified four prominent theoretical approaches or perspectives evident in the
applied linguistics literature: (1) pragmatics and grammar; (2) cognitive
processing; (3) socio-cognitive theory; and (4) language socialization. It is this
fourth perspective, also the one most recently applied to second language
pragmatics (usually in studies of L2 classroom interaction), that is adopted in the
present study.
Language socialization theory considers language learning as the simultaneous
acquisition of linguistic knowledge and sociocultural knowledge (Ochs, 1993;
Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a, 1986b). Children, for example, do not learn linguistic
codes in isolation but learn about the world as they learn a language. Ochs
(1988) described language acquisition as a process of language socialization:

A basic task of the language acquirer is to acquire tacit knowledge of principles

relating linguistic forms not only to each other but also to referential and
nonreferential meanings and functions. Given that meanings and functions are to
a large extent socioculturally organized, linguistic knowledge is embedded in
sociocultural knowledge. On the other hand, understandings of the social
organization of everyday life, cultural ideologies, moral values, beliefs, and
structures of knowledge and interpretations are to a large extent acquired
through the medium of language. (p. 14)

Studies in language socialization have explored both L1 socialization (e.g., Duff,

1996; Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1988; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986b) and language
(re)socialization of L2 learners in various learning contexts (e.g., Duff & Uchida,
1997; Duff, 1995; Willett, 1987, 1995; Jupp, Roberts, & Gumperz, 1982). It is
argued that people not only experience their primary language socialization
during childhood but also continue to experience language socialization
throughout their lives as they enter new sociocultural contexts and assume new
roles in society.
The workplace is an important but little studied context where novices to a
culture become socialized into new discourse systems and environments. By
referring to immigrants as novices, I do not mean that they do not have expertise
in other areas of their lives or that they experience language socialization only at
work. Indeed, all of us, especially given the changing nature of work, are
constantly learning how to use language more effectively in our jobs. But for L2
speakers, the process of language socialization in the workplace involves double
socialization: often, they are novices in the new working environment - which
may be in a different field from their prior training and experience - and they are
novices in the new language and culture.
Scollon and Scollon (1995) discussed two kinds of socialization into a new
company: formal and informal. Formal socialization refers to organized
orientation classes or handouts provided by the company informing novices about
company or office forms and procedures. Informal socialization refers to the
process whereby a person learns from other members, through observation or
informal guidance, about what exactly is needed in particular circumstances.
Participating in these forms of socialization over a period of time allows people to
feel more at ease and more confident that they are fitting into the new position -
and, in their own manner, they too have an impact on the culture of the
workplace by the way they in turn socialize their colleagues.
The case study presented here illustrates how, through sociocultural exposure
and participation in social interactions and with the assistance of experts or more
competent peers, an immigrant woman, Ming, came to internalize and develop
communicative competence in ESL in the workplace. The research on which this
paper is based also represents a new direction in TESOL workplace-oriented
research, combining interlanguage pragmatics, ethnography, and language
socialization (see Li, 1998).

The study2

This study was conducted at an inner-city immigrant job-training program

operated by the Chinese American Association (CAA) and later at workplaces in a
metropolitan city in Northeastern United States. The fieldwork and the follow-up
study lasted 18 months (January 1996 to July 1997). The training program
offered 20-week full-time clerical courses such as office skills, computer literacy,
and accounting, with instruction conducted exclusively in English. Twenty Chinese
immigrant women from Mainland China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Burma
participated in the larger study, with four serving as key participants (Li, 1998). I
believe that learners such as these represent an understudied but vital
constituency of immigrant ESL learners, for whom the expression of needs and
wants through English requesting behaviour is usually neither optional nor trivial.
For them, making requests is tied up with their survival, wellbeing, and
productivity within their adoptive land.
The contexts of observation in the larger study included their classrooms,
program, community, and workplace, and data were collected by participant
observations (by me), audio recording of daily interactions,3 researcher's
journals, participants' journals, ESL essays, and formal and informal oral
interviews. My role in the larger study, in addition to being a researcher, was as a
volunteer ESL instructor of conversation classes at CAA, which is how I came to
know the participants.4 As a Chinese woman myself, living, studying, and
working in the United States since the early 1990s, I could understand the
women's linguistic and sociocultural circumstances and experiences very well, and
we were able to communicate quite freely.

For this article, I will discuss just one of the key participants, Ming - one of the
youngest in the group and one who had most recently immigrated to America -
and her circle of interlocutors. The data include Ming's narratives of her
sociolinguistic interactions in China and the United States, interviews with two of
her interlocutors (e.g., her program director, Mary, and classmate, Hui),
recordings of Ming's interactions with me, and my own reflections on Ming's
requesting behaviours. Note that my analysis is not based on Ming's speech act
performance in exactly the same context across points in time, as would be the
case in a more controlled, quantitative study. Rather, I examine her performance
of requests (past and present) in several different types of contexts at different
points in time, which she and others (including me) considered both illustrative
and significant.
One of the salient characteristics of cultural ways of speaking that is frequently
explored in interlanguage pragmatics studies, including the present study, is the
level of directness of speech acts. Speakers of all languages seem to make full
use of a requestive repertoire consisting of direct and indirect strategies, but
languages and speakers differ in terms of which strategies are preferred in which
particular situations, and for which particular purposes. These differences are
believed to be realizations of the distinctive values of different cultural groups
(Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Blum-Kulka, 1987; Blum-Kulka & House, 1989;
Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Tannen, 1981; Young, 1994). This study examines
Ming's requesting behaviours over time, and aims to account for the differences
between the more indirect requesting strategies she used in Chinese-language
work-related encounters (e.g., in China) and those that she developed in English
based on her experiences in a workplace training program and subsequently at
work in the United States. Unlike many previous studies of L2 requests, all
examples in the study are based on real-life (as opposed to simulated or
imagined) encounters. Also, the purpose is not to focus on Ming's apparent
deviation from native-speaker norms but on the development of her
communicative competence and the formation and evolution of her social identity
(or identities) as a more fully integrated, English-speaking worker and member of
society (Peirce, 1995).

Case study: Ming

Ming is the subject of this case study. (For case studies of others in the larger
study, see Li, 1998.) In this section, I present Ming's life story and experiences
using language at work in China, and, after her immigration to America, in the
job-training program and subsequently at work. I selected Ming because the
critical requestive incidents of the other three key participants who had been in
America for a longer time (10-20 years) occurred mostly at government social
welfare institutions and in low-income workplaces such as fast food restaurants or
garment factories. In comparison to their experiences, Ming's story vividly reflects
the language socialization journey of a new generation of immigrant women; this
is a process of discovery and self-discovery, a struggle of negotiating and
(re)constructing new identities as people like Ming adjust to life and language use
in America and seek not only survival but also professional development at the
same time. By examining Ming's requestive acts in authentic contexts of use -
with their own historical antecedents, interpersonal negotiations, personal and
societal significance, and often elaborate and extended discourse realization, I
show how she changed her communication style by learning what she called the
`American Way' of conducting discourse in the workplace. In doing so, she
learned to express her pragmatic intentions more directly and effectively.
Ming was a 29-year-old, newly arrived immigrant woman with a college degree in
Chinese language and literature from Mainland China when she enrolled in the
CAA program. Her parents, both well known scholars in China, had immigrated to
America in 1990. As an adult non-dependent, Ming applied for immigration
separately and waited in China for five years until her application was finally
approved. A gifted and educated young woman, Ming had had a range of work
experiences in China as a high-ranking secretary in a joint-venture company, an
amateur fashion model, and a hostess for a special literature talk show on a
provincial radio program. When this study started, Ming had been in the United
States for just one month. As a newcomer, she was very gentle and agreeable,
very cautious in speaking or asking questions, as if always contemplating what
was the best or safest thing to say or to do. Whenever she opened her mouth,
she started correcting herself in English, monitoring herself frequently. The
program counsellor characterized her as `artistic, humanitarian and
accommodating.'
Ming was thoughtful, analytical, observant, and eager to learn. Many times she
brought into the ESL classroom interesting observations she had made about life
in America. For example, she mentioned frequently in classroom discussions that
American people spoke `very directly.' She was also impressed by the freedom of
choice people had in America, especially when compared to China. She wrote her
reflections in an essay:5

I came to The United States in the end of last year ... I have learnt a lot of new
things that I never touched before. And my thinking was changed in some way.
In China ... everything was set up. You can't change it by yourself. If you don't
want to ask troubles, one way you could go was follow thousands people's step,
waiting the time give you something till retired. I had no more chance in my life.
But in the United States, things are so different. I am not supposed to follow the
other people's step. There are many chances and challenges here, I can choice
the way that I really want to go. Even though the fast rethym, high paid [speed]
to the life make me nervous ... it give me positiv power to be developed. I prefer
to stay here, see how high I can develop and how beautiful life I will have
someday. (Essay, 2/6/97, emphasis mine)

Perhaps Ming's caution stemmed from her experience in China when `everything
was set up' for her and she had no other choice but to `follow other people's
steps' if she did not want to encounter `trouble.' It could be dangerous for her to
say what she wanted; it was essential to wait until `time give you something till
[you] retired.' These words sounded sad and hopeless from such a promising
young woman. That was why, even though the fast life in America made Ming
nervous, she still preferred to remain here because she could find both chances
and challenges for her development. Indeed, many times when she talked about
her past work experience, she still had a lingering fear of the complicated politics
in her all-controlling `working unit' in China:

I worked in the board office for a joint-venture company, so there are those
people who had relationship with the boss or the boss' partner. So they always
ask me to do this or to do that. ... I feel unhappy because their ability is not so
strong, not so good. But they can ask me to do this and that. The relationship in
the unit is terrible. Different parts in the unit: this part wants you, that part also
wants you. If you join this part, the other part will consider you an enemy. So
terrible! I was always in the `third country.' ... I was scared ... I had a lot of
headache. I have to think a lot. Because if I make one step mistake, then a lot of
trouble will come ... (Interview, 4/2/96, author's emphasis)

This excerpt reveals Ming's original social or communicative orientation and style
to a certain degree. She was the kind of person who tended to think a lot before
taking action; she was tolerant of being `asked to do this and that' by other
people even though she felt unhappy; and she tried hard to avoid trouble because
she was afraid of the serious consequences of making what she called `one step
mistake.' The excerpt also illustrates the social organization of work in China and
the role of the work unit, which used to be (and still is in most cases) extremely
important. For example, in addition to salary and career development, the work
unit provided and controlled many benefits (e.g., housing, child care/education,
medical care, retirement, etc.), and transfer from one unit to another used to be
very rare and difficult.

When Ming first came to the CAA clerical training program, she seemed to have
retained her indirect communication style. Generally speaking, she did not feel
free to make requests. If ever she did make them, they were mostly tentative
and circuitous. The following two examples depict Ming's requestive behaviours in
the job-training program and reveal both the indirectness of her requests and the
somewhat puzzling but inoffensive effect of her communicative style on her
interlocutors (e.g., her program director and me).

Example 1: Request for job information

Close to the end of the training program, one by one, most of the students found
jobs and left. Ming became quite anxious because she had not yet obtained
opportunities for job interviews. One day, she went to the program director
Mary's office to ask for some job information. Here is Mary's account of the event
and, specifically, Ming's request:

I think she was here to request ... information. Or I think she came to me to
provide information, regarding her own situation. It's not really a request. Well, it
was. I think she was requesting my attention for her job opportunities. Yes,
secretarial ... Ming really wants a job because she felt pressure from her
parents. ... Yeah, she came to me last week. She just came in and said, `Mary,
can I talk to you?' and she mentioned that she felt pressure from her parents.
Her parents have been here for 5 years, and they used to be some professor or,
at least some professionals in Southern China. And now the parents have a
difficult life in this country. They stayed here for their kids. Now Ming is here they
really want her to get a job as soon as possible so their economic burden will be
relieved to a certain degree. So Ming feels that her parents want her to get a job
immediately. So she came to me last week and said, you know, is there anything
for her. (Interview, 4/30/96)
At first, Mary was not very sure whether Ming came to her to provide or request
information. This is where indirectness came into play. Ming did not feel the need
to be explicit in making a request. But on the basis of the information Ming
provided about her situation, Mary perceived that Ming was under pressure and
needed a job, and a secretarial job in particular. Although the interaction was
conducted in a manner that confused Mary initially, she was nonetheless
sympathetic, understanding, and attentive, and the interaction proceeded
harmoniously without leaving the impression that Ming was pushy or demanding.

Example 2: Request for assistance preparing for a job interview

The following lengthy excerpt from a discussion between Ming and me, as her ESL
instructor, further illustrates Ming's typically indirect style. It was 10 a.m., and I
had just observed a computer class. I was walking to the program office when
Ming ran after me and started talking with me. We stopped in the hallway and
chatted for a while. I recorded the following interaction:6

1 M: Duanduan, I have a interview today.

2 D: Oh, great! What's that?
3 M: It's a Hong Kong clothing company.
4 D: Wow, did you know you have an interview today?
5 M: No, two other students go there yesterday but the boss want to see more
people.
6 D: Oh, good for you. Have you had experience in clothing business before?
7 M: I am not sure of some things. I, I, don't know how to say::
8 D: To say what?
9 M: I worked in my factory before right? I, jiedai guke
10 D: Received clients?
11 M: Received clients, show them the example, of the, the example of the
clothing. I, introduced the production.
12 D: You showed them the samples.
13 M: Samples.
14 D: Um humn.
15 M: Eh::, So, I want to let them know that I have, uh, jiushi, jiechu (That is,
contact), I have, I saw the order, I, jiechu guo dinhuo dan. (I have had contact
with orders.)
16 D: I, I've taken orders. ((slowly)) I have taken orders.
17 M: But, it's not my job. It's other people's job. I just take them maybe just
take a look to the, to the leader. And then the leader have some idea, they sign
something and I take to the department leader.

18 D: Well, you just tell them what you did.

19 M: ((embarrassed laugh))
20 D: So what time is the interview?
21 M: ((nervously)) Twelve o'clock today! He don't need me to dress for
interview. Not so formal. So I feel not so good. ((laughing)) I don't know, this is
so casual, very unformal.
22 D: Do you think anyone here has some uh [fine clothes
23 M: [If I, if I wear another people's dress, it's more uncomfortable.
24 D: Well, if they say they don't require formal dress, it's ...
25 M: Yes. ((Looking into the office)) [So
26 D: [So you want to talk to Mary?
27 M: Finished.
28 D: Finished?
29 M: Yeah. The boss said the dress is not a problem. Because she had the,
sample? there, so if they hire one of us, we can dress, use his dress.
30D: So you just want to know how to express yourself there? How to say
something?
31 M: Yeah! Because you know, yesterday I prepare to a bank interview, but
today, changed.
32 D: OH:::, you want me to tell you how to do it? How to say something?
33 M: Yeah. ((Embarrassed laughing))
34 D: So what would you like to say?
35 M: I want to say I have some, uh, experience uh, concern, con, related to the
clothing.

((More than 50 turns followed, in which we discussed what kind of expressions

she could use for her interview regarding her past working experience. She took
careful notes in order to prepare before the interview.)) (Recording, 4/11/96)

This incident took place during the fourth month of the program when many
students were going to job interviews. One crucial component of the interviewing
process was to see if the candidates had had work experience, especially in North
America, related to the job for which they were applying. Therefore, how well
these women could connect their past work experience to the present job played
a very important role in impressing the interviewers and, therefore, enhancing
their job opportunities.

Clearly Ming had had something in mind when she ran after me after class and
started chatting with me in the hallway. At first I really thought it was just an
ordinary conversation and not specifically a request for me to do something. Even
though I provided a few words and phrases to help her express herself, I did it in
my usual way with the CAA students. During the whole conversation (more than
80 turns), Ming never explicitly brought up the request, but she kept chatting and
hinting. I could tell that Ming was nervous because she had prepared for a bank
job interview the day before, but it had suddenly been changed to a clothing
company interview and she did not feel comfortable because she was dressed in
`casual' and `unformal' attire (Turn 21), which she was afraid might be
inappropriate for a job interview. What she wanted to impress on the interviewer
was that she had some experience in the clothing business. It was not until Turn
32 that I finally perceived her intention, `Oh! You want me to tell you how to do
it? How to say something?' and she admitted `Yeah,' laughing with some
embarrassment. Using extended `small talk' in this requesting event was a
typical strategy for Ming, who preferred to provide grounders (reasons or
background information) to steer the course of the interaction in the direction of
her intended goal and to provide chances for her interactant(s) to perform a
polite act (i.e., to offer), without her having to perform a face-threatening act
(i.e., to make a request).
Thus, the indirectness in this request was not employed at the level of a single
utterance but at the level of the entire discourse. In other words, the request was
not performed or accomplished until after abundant `small talk' (or `supportive
moves') which seemingly had no relation to the intended requestive goal. This
kind of indirectness seemed quite characteristic of Chinese-background L2
learners and was evidently related to a combination of factors: their L1 (Chinese),
cultural background, personality, and circumstances. Yet even as a Chinese
person myself, I did not realize Ming's intended goal until many turns had been
exchanged.
Indirectness is said to be a `signature feature of Chinese communication' (Chang,
1999, p. 537). Zhang (1995) describes Chinese indirectness as follows:
Chinese indirectness, it seems, is associated with information sequencing. ... The
degree of indirectness is determined by the length of the supportive moves which
do not contain explicitly the intended proposition. The more one beats around the
bush, the more indirect one's speech becomes. (p. 82, author's emphasis)

Based on his pragmatics research analyzing Chinese conversation, Chang (1999)

observed that Chinese people `have a tendency to engage in indirect, ambiguous
verbal discourse' (p. 535) and that `direct confrontation is discouraged whereas
indirect forms of communication permeate aspects of Chinese daily life' (p. 539).
This does not mean that all Chinese interlocutors or all Chinese interactions are
invariably indirect; naturally, the degree of directness or indirectness among
Chinese interlocutors depends on their roles, relationships, history, the type and
purpose of a speech event, and so on. However, it does suggest a fundamental
cultural value, determined to some extent by the collective recognition of and
respect for certain ways of speaking. Chinese encounter a set of corresponding
sociolinguistic strategies and conventions from a young age which they are
expected to internalize and which they later may transfer to L2 interactions as
well. I will return to this issue of (in)directness in the Discussion section.

Learning `the American way'

As a highly motivated L2 learner, Ming often expressed her desire to `learn the
American way' of speaking. In one class discussion, she said `I want to be
Americanized because I'm in America. I have to adapt myself to the environment
so I can have a good job, a good future.' It is therefore interesting to observe the
linguistic socialization and, in some cases, frustration she experienced
subsequently at work that enabled her ultimately to become a more successful
(and less indirect) requester in English. In what follows, I present three examples
reported by Ming about her workplace encounters, specifically her attempts to
request a more reasonable workload, respectful behaviour from co-workers, and
a reasonable amount of workspace.
After graduation, Ming found a job in a filing department at an American medical
equipment company. This was her first work experience in the United States.
Most of her co-workers were native English speakers, and she felt a little out of
place at first. In Scollon and Scollon's (1995) terms, she needed to learn the
specific `discourse system' of the company about office forms and procedures,
the way to interact with different members of the staff, and even the dress code.
Gumperz (1982) stressed the importance of communicative competence in the
workplace as `crucial to acquiring even a small measure of personal and social
control' (p. 4). Indeed, for immigrant women who may have little sense of
autonomy over so many aspects of their lives, it is extremely important to
acquire the English competencies that can give them more control.

Example 3: Request for a reasonable workload

As I have noted before, Ming did not have a very satisfying experience working in
China because of work-unit politics. She was always asked `to do this or to do
that' by people who, in her view, were not very capable but had a relationship
with the boss. Unhappy as she was, she never dared to convey her
dissatisfaction, and this strategy obviously protected her to a certain extent from
unforeseen troubles. However, by living and working in the United States, and by
observing other people, she found her old strategy no longer worked. In the
following excerpt from an interview, Ming reflects upon this illuminating
apprenticeship process. She was talking about the heavy workload she had to
endure during the first few months at the workplace:
1 M: But here ... at the beginning I had a little trouble to talk. The people [co-
workers] always encourage me, `Don't be afraid to talk! It's nothing wrong. If
you feel there is something, talk!' ... The co-workers ... because you know, they
talk so much. Sometimes I just don't know why you guy, I mean the people who
live in the American a long time, they talk so free! And so - confident. They just
talk so much. Just talk, talk, talk, and then ... I mean the way they talk about
their job they really show their opinion. They really, they really show that what
they want. ... Yeah. `That's what I'm gonna do. I WANT you to do THIS.' And
then the other say: `Well, I cannot do this. Let's figure out.' or something like
this. Yeah, sometimes it looks like argue but it's good for the work.
2 D: So you didn't do that, you didn't say it at the beginning?
3 M: No, anything they gave me, I took. And then finally my supervisor, he, he
can see (that I was exhausted) and say that `Relax!' ... But I am scared to ask
him, you know maybe he will think that I am not competent. But later on I know
I have confidence to myself. I have the right to tell the truth. And I know if I say
something, and they don't like it, they cannot do anything to me because I am a
good worker. So I start to show my opinion. (Interview, 6/17/97, author's
emphasis)

From her description in Turns 1 and 3, Ming's communicating behaviour seemed

to be influenced still by her work experience in China. She felt that showing one's
opinion, especially when different from that of others, sounded argumentative
(Turn 1). She therefore tolerated the unreasonable workload and would not say
anything about it because of her fear of being regarded as incompetent. However,
by observing what people around her were doing (i.e., talking openly, freely,
confidently, and directly), and with her co-workers' coaching (`If you feel there is
something, talk!' Turn 1), she started to change her communication style. The
first case where Ming expressed her opinion was when she and the filing group
went to ask the supervisor for more people to work in their department:

I just say, `well, right now recently, we get too much work. And we did try very
hard. The truth is, we cannot, even we try our best, we still cannot finish the
work. So we feel that the filing group right now people we have is not enough to
handle, so we need more people. So we needs your help. Hopefully you can give
us some actions.' (Interview, 6/17/97)

For Ming, it was a breakthrough to say to her supervisor what she thought about
the job, especially regarding the heavy workload and the need for assistance. In
this case, she still reported using an inductive approach, carefully grounding her
request by providing elaborate reasons before bringing up what she wanted - that
everyone was trying their best and that as a group they were soliciting
concessions (the group aspect is apparent in the use of `we' or `us' eight times
and no uses of `I' or `me'). But after several preliminary utterances, she did say
what she wanted in plain terms, appealing to the supervisor for both cooperation
and action: `We need more people.' She told me that if the situation were in
China, she would not feel free to say anything. She would just have to `take it' or
to speak indirectly, saying, `I am sorry I am very tired,' especially to a leader. In
contrast, she observed that such a strategy would backfire in America: `But you
know if you are here, I say I'm very tired, people will just say, `Go to sleep!'
((Laugh)) ... You know if you say something indirectly, they just say, `WHAT?'
(Interview, 6/17/97).

Example 4: Request for respect at work

There were five employees, all women, in the filing department in which Ming
worked: Ming, her good friend Hui (another Chinese immigrant woman who
graduated from the CAA program and was also a key participant in the larger
study), a Polish woman, and two young American women. According to both Ming
and Hui, the `American girls' did not like to talk with the three non-native
speakers and sometimes treated them disrespectfully, throwing paper at them
when they should have handed it to them or using swear words when speaking to
them. Ming reflected on how she and the other two non-native speakers called for
a meeting with the supervisor and their American colleagues to deal with this
awkward situation and how, much to her (and Hui's) surprise, she spoke up both
at the meeting and afterward to complain about the status quo and to request
better treatment:

I just say that I ... cannot take it any more. We are come here to work, you
know, why you treat us this way? Because of our English? Or because of our skin
or something? So I said, I said to myself, `I have the right to say something.' So
we three girls together asked for a meeting or something. And they gave us the
meeting, gave us the chance to talk. (Interview, 6/17/97)

Hui, in another interview with me, verified Ming's observation, mentioning that
the two American women talked only to themselves, using a lot of `dirty words,'
paying no attention to the other three people: `They didn't like to talk to us.
Sometimes working whole day, just one word, two words. That's it.' Furthermore,
Hui also felt that the American women were sometimes `rude' to the others with
their `bad attitude.' However, Hui was very excited to tell me about Ming's
unusually outspoken style at this meeting:

And I forgot to tell you, that day, I talk, Polish girl talk, even Ming, she talk!
Talking about the whole thing! She said, `We treat you like very good, but you
treat us like nothing ... ` (Interview, 5/4/97)

The word `even' in Hui's narrative expressed her surprise that Ming would be
brave or frank enough to talk in this manner, in contrast to her usual roundabout
fashion (although again, according to Hui, Ming always used collective first person
pronouns, so it appeared Ming was not just speaking on her own behalf). As a
result, the supervisor supported the three non-native speakers at the meeting
and advised the two American workers to get along with the others. After the
meeting, Ming kept showing her co-workers that she demanded respect as an
equal human being. If they threw paper at her, she would say, `Could you
please, give me, you know, in the polite way? I don't think it's nice to do this.'
She was still soft and polite but now also assertive. Besides the request, she even
added a little moral lesson, `I don't think it's nice to do this,' to justify her
request for respect. Thus, whereas in Example 3 Ming's co-workers were
socializing her to become more direct and vocal, in this example Ming herself was
socializing them into more civil public discourse in English. Therefore, the
language socialization was not at all unidirectional, with the native speakers
always serving as the `experts' on appropriate English workplace communication
patterns or representing idealized target-language norms.

Example 5: Request for a reasonable amount of workspace

The following, and final, example is another interesting episode in which Ming
described herself as having learned the American way.

They sometimes, I think, they occupies too much [space]. Like, they know what
they did, they just want to, you know, show how powerful they are. ... They leave
stuff anywhere. Then we just tolerate ... I tried, you know, to hold it for a few
days, but nothing changes, and more and more, more trouble.
I thought I am still scared of something when I talk to them because I think I
cannot talk as good like them right? And I feel ... how to say? Just feel I don't
want to make people feel bad. But the fact is if you don't show them, they'll
always have trouble, they are not going to check. It's not good for them either.
So one day, I just encouraged me and I TALK! And then I feel free! ... You know,
it's funny, I LEARNED THE AMERICAN WAY! `Honey, [in a mimicking tone, laugh]
could you please put that away, because I need more room.' And she was like-
[making a shocked face] `All right.' ... If you are not directly, they'll think maybe
they guess wrong, misunderstand. So I think in America, in America, best way is
directly, truthful, and things a little bit sweet, so it won't be so complicated.
(Interview, 6/17/97, author's emphasis)

It is noteworthy how Ming summarized what she perceived to be the American

way of communicating in the workplace, based on her observations: `directly,
truthful and things a little bit sweet,' an approach she thought would make the
speech act and situation less `complicated.' That was why she addressed the co-
worker she considered rude as `honey.' We cannot generalize that this is the only
American way or the most authentic or valid approach to making a request; it is
just one particular American way that Ming had evidently observed and adopted
because it seemed appropriate in this English-language sociocultural context,
even though it contrasted with her L1 pragmatic orientation of avoidance and
indirectness. The approach was also effective. It was part of a larger discourse
system into which Ming was being socialized from her participation in the social
and linguistic interaction at the company and elsewhere and which, to her
advantage, she was learning to master. Ming's requests were still polite, but she
was no longer afraid of speaking up, expressing what she needed and wanted, or
`imposing reception' on others (Peirce, 1995), particularly when she felt change
was called for in the interest of fairness and respect. Rather than avoid saying
something or proceeding in a long and convoluted manner, she chose what are
known as conventionalized indirect requests in English, such as `Could you please
-?' This type of request may be the most common in American English, yet its
illocutionary force is quite transparent; it clearly specified what Ming really
wanted the other person to do, unlike her previous, more indirect, evasive style.
Importantly, Ming was quite conscious of her own sociolinguistic development and
personal transformation and of the reasons for it (i.e., not to be pushed around
but not to damage relationships at work either):

I think the situation forced me to do that! ... You have to say, `Could you please,
you know, don't treat me that way? It's not respect.' Yeah, you have to say that.
Things push you too much. I really don't want to make people feel bad, you
know, really nothing unpleasant. ... And also I see the things. Because people did
this way, if you didn't adjust to it, you cannot connect. Right? So that it's not
good for the job relationship. And then another thing is, because you are here,
you are interested in them too, so I want to have something similar like that.
(Interview, 6/17/97, emphasis mine)

Consequences of Ming's requests

Ming's requests were expressions of her needs and desires in this new country
and workplace. Her language socialization process was different from that of the
older generations of Chinese immigrant women in the larger study and in society
in general, many of whom have low levels of education and have worked in low-
skill jobs, essentially in isolation, where interpersonal communication is seldom
needed. Their many years of work experience in America might not result in
much English language learning, just rudimentary English for survival purposes.
Ming's requests, however, had transcended the basic needs underlying survival-
level requests. They were sophisticated enough to meet her desires for
educational opportunities, job information, career advancement, personal respect
and recognition, as well as harmonious relationships at work.
The consequences of Ming's language socialization were very positive: they
helped her to learn necessary job skills in the job-training program, and to find a
decent position after graduation. Learning American ways of speaking and making
her needs and wants known, she felt liberated from her previous restrictive way
of expressing herself. Most importantly, the cumulative effect of changing her
requesting style was that she gained the respect of other people and became a
`stronger woman,' as she told me in a follow-up interview:

I changed! Most is stronger and directly. More directly. And I feel better,
stronger! And, how to say? It's easy to handle the situation than I had. Because I
am not afraid to talk! ... At the beginning I was so scared, always ((whispering))
say something like this, but now I am more like that `EXCUSE ME!' [In a strong
and confident voice] [laugh] I am strong! If you talk lower, and too afraid, they
think, `What are you doing there? I am not going to listen to this nonsense!' And
they, they think maybe its nothing important. You cannot get their attention, and
you cannot get their - respect. (Interview, 7/12/97, author's emphasis)

As a more empowered and emboldened woman, Ming became more vocal and
self-confident about her future in America. Indeed, after the completion of this
study, she became a part-time student at a community college while working full-
time in the medical equipment company. In this way she has, step by step, been
realizing the American dream which her parents, unfortunately, have not yet
realized. At the end of our last interview, Ming said,

I just feel like there's more light in my life. Because you know, right now, where I
am going is the way I want to go. So, I feel, I feel, how to say? Step by step, I'm
going forward. ... All things I did, I think it's more close, you know, to what I
want. (Interview, 7/12/97)

Discussion

Ming's story shows that making a request in a second language is not only a
linguistic process but also one of socialization. Because sociocultural information
is encoded in the organization of conversational discourse, L2 learners (i.e.,
novices in a new language and culture) acquire tacit knowledge of principles of
social order, systems of belief, and sociolinguistic conventions through exposure
to and participation in language-mediated interactions. Language-in-use, then, is
a major tool for conveying sociocultural knowledge and a powerful medium of
socialization. In this section, I will consider further the issue of (in)directness in
L2 pragmatics, which emerged as a major theme in Ming's experiences of
learning English for the workplace. I will then discuss aspects of language
socialization, empowerment, and identity. Finally, I will consider some
pedagogical implications of this research.

(In)Directness in interlanguage pragmatics

Tannen (1994) offers two proverbs to illustrate different communication styles

between the East and the West: whereas Americans believe that `the squeaky
wheel gets the grease,' the Japanese say, `the nail that sticks out gets
hammered in' (p. 96). There is a similar Chinese saying: `The bird that sticks his
head out gets shot.' That is, sociolinguistic directness and social nonconformity
may, at least stereotypically, be valued more in North American contexts than in
Asian ones.
Ming's originally indirect requesting style, seen in her narratives of her Chinese
and American workplace behaviour and in her dealings with CAA program staff,
resulted partly from her personality and partly from the sociocultural context in
China, where she experienced her primary socialization, in which indirectness is
valued. Culturally speaking, Chinese people are taught from childhood to restrain
themselves from desiring and demanding, and, as was reported above, they learn
to communicate in an indirect way (for further discussion of Chinese social and
communication patterns, see Chang, 1999; Chang & Holt, 1994; Hu & Grove,
1991; King & Bond, 1985; Smith & Bond, 1993). In fact, Ming seemed indirect
even by Chinese standards. Furthermore, working in Communist China in the
early 1990s, where political power and personal connections were considered
more important than professional capabilities or a strong work ethic, also
reinforced the development of Ming's indirect style and reticence in workplace
communication. Speaking up could be politically and personally dangerous.
However, she was quick to adapt to the different sociolinguistic norms in the
United States through an ongoing process of observation, contemplation,
negotiation, instruction, and conflict resolution. Her L2 socialization and changes
in her requesting behaviour proceeded in tandem, in ways that were very evident
both to her and to others; these changes, in turn, enhanced her chances of
learning, becoming a more competent L2 requester, and feeling confident and
strong about herself, opening opportunities for her further development and for a
brighter future. Whereas my analysis may oversimplify the connection between
language socialization, mastery of (more) direct requesting strategies, and
personal and professional success, and may also construe the relationship as a
causal one, the process is undeniably more complex. What is interesting,
however, is that Ming's reconstruction of this process was so straightforward and
optimistic: with her new-found pragmatic strategies and ESL proficiency, she
could overcome situations of conflict and achieve harmony in the workplace.

Socialization, training, and empowerment

The language socialization process, as others have noted (e.g., Schieffelin &
Ochs, 1986a) is a lifelong process, sometimes frustrating, sometimes gratifying,
but, one would hope, ultimately empowering. Like the other immigrant women in
the job-training program (some of whom had been in America for many more
years), Ming had experienced and become aware of this process of language
socialization. In the training program, Ming and her classmates shared their ESL
requesting experiences in and out of classrooms and exchanged strategies that
worked in different situations. For example, many of them learned the value and
significance of uttering such powerful phrases as `I would like to speak to your
supervisor' in the context of difficult public service encounters.
The workplace and workplace-oriented training programs are therefore critical
sociocultural contexts where immigrant L2 speakers like Ming become socialized
into new discourse systems and cultures (Scollon & Scollon, 1995). Ming learned
how to overcome her reticent and indirect nature of saying what she wanted by
speaking `directly, truthful, and things a little sweet,' exhibiting the kind of
`cultural flexibility that translates into intercultural sensitivity' suggested by
Cushner and Brislin (1997, p. 177). She told me in one interview how she felt
about behaving in an American way as opposed to `the way I used in China,' and
that speaking more directly and openly did not mean she was no longer soft and
sensitive inside:

I, inside, still feel soft, you know, sensitive, but I just feel more comfortable to do
that way because people are this way. If you know, you can, how to say, if you
can touch them, the way they, how they think, it's easier. So I feel, if I go back
to my way, I mean the way I used in China, it's more difficult. (Interview,
6/17/97)

In a similar way, Hui, also reflected on workplace language socialization.

According to Hui, the job was not difficult but language use at work was. To
illustrate her point, she used the same incident as Ming, about the need to
request help in the company when they were too busy. Like Ming, she also felt
this learning process was useful and important:

It's useful for us. We feel better than before because before we didn't know how
to complain, how to ask for help. And when the problem happen, we don't know
how to, to, how to do it. But right now, we follow the company rule; we know
how to do ... how is the procedure for that. ... One year ago, at the office ... we
didn't know, we didn't know nothing. But after that, I learned something. I got
the experience. I know how to stay in the office, including relationship with co-
workers, with the boss, how to do your task, which way is the better way. It's for
me very important. (Interview, 5/4/97)

Socialization and multiple/blended identities

Ming thus regarded the learning/socialization process as very important in

realizing her goals and dreams. Through exposure to and participation in
workplace interactions, she came to acquire specific sociocultural abilities (Cohen,
1996) or sociocultural scripts (Hatch, 1992) with which to participate in
institutional discourse (Scollon & Scollon, 1995) in these socioculturally defined
contexts. However, this socialization does not and should not mean complete
assimilation. Even Ming, who had declared that she wanted to be Americanized
when she first came to the United States, changed her mind after one year of
working in her company:

I feel I am more adjusted to America, but I am still a Chinese. And I feel right
now, I don't know in the future, I don't want to change some part of me because
I feel that's good. And I feel comfortable to keep that one. What I, what I want to
do is, adjust myself. I don't want to [completely] change myself. Because I think
if I change myself everything, I lost myself. So I just want to develop myself ...
(Interview, 6/17/97)

Studies of the acculturation of immigrant groups also support the notion that
identifying with both the mainstream (dominant) culture and one's traditional
(L1) ethnocultural group is indicative of positive well-being (Cushner & Brislin,
1997). Other participants in the CAA training program had the same desire as
Ming to retain their traditional customs and ways, while participating in and
adjusting to mainstream behaviours, reflecting an additive model of acculturation.
In summary, Ming and the other immigrant women needed to find their own way,
with much assistance early on and a good deal of experimentation and
negotiation in various daily encounters later, to become more successful
communicators in their L2. The case study of Ming might suggest a relatively
unproblematic, linear process of shifting sociolinguistically from one end of an
indirectness-directness continuum to the other. However, this process is of course
a much more dynamic and vacillating one, and the strategies and levels of
directness used depend on the precise contexts of speech acts, the role relations
among interlocutors, the affective environment, and the risks and stakes
involved. However, Ming herself characterized her own acculturation and
transformation in terms of such a shift toward greater openness and directness, a
shift from the (or at least her) Chinese way to what she saw as the American
way. In other cases in the larger study, also involving Chinese women, greater
variability was sometimes seen in levels of directness expressed by participants
with different English-speaking interlocutors; again, this reflects elements of
personality, past experiences, culture, L2 context, and, in some instances, levels
of desperation. Ming, like the other participants, was in the process of forging a
new, blended identity as both Chinese and American, at home and in the
workplace. It is precisely this process of adjustment, education, socialization, L2
pragmatic development - and ultimately success - that SLA research needs to
promote and investigate further in a wide variety of workplace contexts and using
different research methods. One suggested direction, therefore, is to study the
development, co-construction, and outcomes of crucial speech behaviours, such
as making requests, in actual contexts of use and the impact that these
behaviours have on the lives of those who use them (and also those who work
and interact with them).

Pedagogical implications

Jupp et al. (1982) point out that, traditionally, adult language teaching has been
based on acquisition of the new linguistic system through models of language use
and rules. This is a unilateral form of learning that assumes that no changes have
to be made within the communicative environment with which the L2 speaker has
to cope. Jupp et al. argued that although teachers and learners would benefit
from having access to accurate information about the sociolinguistic conventions
of different groups, and especially of dominant groups, what is required is not the
straightforward teaching of sociolinguistic conventions as a body of knowledge.
Gumperz and Roberts (1980) explain that

the conventions of language use operate within such a range of situations and
have to take into account so many variables. There is no neat equation between
types of interaction and the conventions which an individual might use. Every
piece of good communication depends upon the response and feedback which
participants elicit from each other in the course of the conversation itself and so
every speaker has to develop his own strategies for interpreting and responding
appropriately. (p. 3)

If total accommodation were the goal, in Ming's case it would involve her learning
to swear and exhibit rude behaviour to her native speaker colleagues, which
according to her and Hui, were pervasive sociolinguistic norms in that context.
However, there were other, arguably better ways to proceed, as Ming
demonstrated, perhaps inspired by the same colleagues' advice (seen in Example
3): `If you feel there is something, talk!' In addition, her own preference was to
take action without hurting others. In other words, the processes of socialization
and pragmatic development involve conditions, options, choices, and
consequences that should be discussed in ESL classes.
Auerbach (1995) used one example of housing lessons in ESL textbooks which
taught students only `survival competencies' and about their responsibilities as
tenants, but not their rights or how to respond when landlords do not fulfil their
obligations. She criticized the message that survival depends simply on being a
`good' tenant, an oversight in her opinion. It is the sense of communication - of
language as a tool for struggle, for solving problems, and for taking on challenges
of a complex system - that learners themselves often mention as their reason for
studying ESL. In fact, their responses go beyond survival to include issues of self-
expression, self-esteem, and, significantly, self-fulfilment. The language learning
and language socialization process of Ming in this study also reveals that, even
though it was essential for her to know about the linguistic conventions of
requesting forms to express her needs and wants, what was vital for her success
in her requesting events was to know about her rights and the pragmatic
expectations of others in the workplace, which are conditioned by cultural
convention and social order.
As language teaching professionals, we must therefore deepen our understanding
of contexts of intercultural language use, developmental pragmatic processes,
and ways in which immigrant ESL speakers can be equipped to use language both
appropriately and strategically (to enable them to claim their agency) in their
multiple contexts of L2 use, including workplace settings (Bremer, Roberts,
Vasseur, Simonot, & Broeder, 1996; Clark, Fairclough, Ivanic, & Martin-Jones,
1990; Fairclough, 1995). Studying learners' ESL requesting abilities and teaching
them useful requesting behaviours (e.g., structures, such as `Could you please
-?' and ideals and goals, such as seeking a more equitable workplace) helps non-
native English speakers express their needs, wants, and desires for life in English-
speaking countries - often in high-stakes situations where the requests are urgent
and the needs are indeed great. Also, by cultivating a critical, linguistic awareness
in ourselves (teachers and researchers) and others (learners and their
colleagues), we become more capable of transforming workplace and other social
situations into more equitable sites in which all interlocutors are valued and can
strive for greater mutual understanding and social justice, as well as the
attainment of personal and professional goals.

Duanduan Li has been teaching English and Mandarin as a second language in

China and America for 20 years. She received her doctoral degree in Applied
Linguistics from Teachers College, Columbia University. Her research interests
include sociolinguistics, interlanguage pragmatics, cross-cultural communication,
and second language acquisition. She is currently teaching Mandarin as a second
language in the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at Columbia
University.

Notes

1 I would like to thank Patsy Duff and the anonymous reviewers of an earlier
version of this paper for their useful suggestions. I am also grateful to the
participants in my study for their cooperation.
2 For ethical reasons, pseudonyms are used for the training program, the city,
and all the participants (staff, teachers, and students).
3 The participants were informed in the consent form that data of their spoken
English were needed for research analysis. All the participants agreed to be tape-
recorded in and out of classrooms. Since I was carrying my mini tape recorder
with me almost everywhere, after a short while, they became quite accustomed
to it. Sometimes when the battery became weak or the machine stopped running,
they would remind me to check the machine so as not to fail to record what was
being said.
4 From January 21 to June 20, 1996, I taught ESL conversation classes at CAA.
After the training program, I kept extended contact with the participants and
conducted follow-up interviews about their workplace experience for one more
year. By teaching them in my classes, observing them in and out the program,
visiting their homes and workplaces, accompanying them to stores, hospitals, and
government institutions, sharing our life stories, and helping them with their
career and life aspirations, I got to know the participants well and have remained
good friends with them ever since.
5 Essays, interview excerpts, and other transcripts of interactions are not edited
for spelling, grammar, or punctuation.

6 Transcription conventions follow: words in parenthesis ( ) were not clearly

heard; underlined words were spoken with emphasis; capital letters indicate loud
speech; double parenthesis contain comments about the utterance or interaction;
colons indicate lengthening of sounds; periods indicate terminal falling intonation;
commas indicate rising, continuing intonation; question marks indicate high rising
intonation; unattached dashes represent short, untimed pause; ellipsis marks
(...) indicate deleted material; a one-sided attached dash- indicates a cut-off or
self-correction; a dash attached on both sides reflects spelling conventions or a
glottal stop; initials (e.g., C, D, M) are used for interlocutors identifiable by name.

References

Auerbach, E. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom. In J. Tollefson (Ed.),

Power and inequality in language education (pp. 9-33). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Beebe, L., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Do you have a bag? Social status and
patterned variation in second language acquisition. In S. Gass, C. Madden, & L.
Selinker (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Discourse and
pragmatics (pp. 103-125). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL
refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing
communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). Boston, MA:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or
different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R.
Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.),
Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus
Faerch (pp. 255-272). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Blum-Kulka, S., & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in
requesting behavior. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-
cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 123-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural
study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-
213.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and
pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 47-61.
Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur, M., Simonot, M., & Broeder, P. (1996).
Achieving understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters. London:
Longman.
Buijs, G. (1993). Migrant women: Crossing boundaries and changing identities.
Providence, RI: Berg.
Chang, H. (1999). The `well-defined' is `ambiguous' - Indeterminacy in Chinese
conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 535-555.
Chang, H., & Holt, R. (1994). A Chinese perspective on face as inter-relational
concern. In S. Ting-Toomey & D. Cushman (Eds.), The challenge of facework (pp.
95-132). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Clark, R., Fairclough, N., Ivanic, R., & Martin-Jones, M. (1990). Critical language
awareness, part. 1: A critical review of three current approaches to language
awareness. Language and Education, 4, 249-260.
Cohen, A. (1996). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. Gass & J.
Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a
second language (pp. 21-43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cohen, A., & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners.
TESOL Quarterly, 33-56.
Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. (1997) Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for
cross-cultural training programs. Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Duff, P. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in
Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 505-537.
Duff, P. (1996). Different languages, different practices: Socialization of discourse
competence in dual-language school classrooms in Hungary. In K. Bailey & D.
Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research in
second language education (pp. 407-433). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Duff, P., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers' sociocultural identities
and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 451-486.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Gowen, S. (1992). The politics of workplace literacy: A case study. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Language and social identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Gumperz, J. (1990). The conversational analysis of interethnic communication. In
R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative
competence in a second language (pp. 223-238). New York: Newbury House.
Gumperz, J., & Roberts, C. (1980). Developing awareness skills for interethnic
communication. Occasional Papers, 12. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language
Center.
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and
classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a
foreign language. In W. Lorscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in
performance: Festschrift for Werner Hullen (pp. 1250-1288). Tübingen, Germany:
Narr.
Hu, W., & Grove, C. (1991). Encountering the Chinese: A guide for Americans.
Yarmouth, MN: Intercultural Press.
Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
Jupp, T., Robert, C., & Gumperz, J. (1982). Language and disadvantage: The
hidden process. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 232-256).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G. (2000, March). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development.
Plenary address given at the annual conference of the American Association for
Applied Linguistics, Vancouver, BC.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215-247.
King, A., & Bond, M. (1985). The Confucian paradigm of man: A sociological view.
In W. Tseng & D. Wu (Eds.), Chinese culture and mental health (pp. 29-46).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Li, D. (1998). Expressing needs and wants in a second language: An ethnographic
study of Chinese immigrant women's requesting behavior. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization
perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(3), 287-306.
Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 9-31.
Rintell, E., & Mitchell, C. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into
method. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural
pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 248-272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The ethnography of communication (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1986a). Language socialization. In B. Siegel, (Ed.),
Annual review of anthropology (pp. 163-91). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1986b). Language socialization across cultures.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse
approach. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Simon, R. (1992). Sociology and immigrant women. In D. Gabaccia (Ed.),
Seeking common ground (pp. 23-40). Westport, CA: Greenwood Press.
Smith, P., & Bond, M. (1993). Social psychology across cultures. London:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Tannen, D. (1981). Indirectness in discourse: Ethnicity as conversational style.
Discourse Processes, 4, 221-238.
Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: How women's and men's conversational
styles affect who gets heard, who gets credit, and what gets done at work. New
York: William Morrow & Company, Inc.
Weizman, E. (1989). Requestive hints. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper
(Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 71-95). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Weizman, E. (1993). Interlanguage requestive hints. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-
Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 123-137). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Willett, J. (1987). Contrasting acculturation patterns of two non-English-speaking
preschoolers. In H. Trueba (Ed.), Success or failure? Learning and the language
minority students (pp. 69-84). New York, NY: Harper & Row/Newbury House.
Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: An ethnographic study of L2
socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 473-503.
Young, L. (1994). Cross-talk and culture in Sino-American communication.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, Y. (1995). Indirectness in Chinese requests. In G. Kasper (Ed.),
Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target Language (pp. 73-118). Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx© 2000 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue

canadienne des langues vivantes,
57, 1 (September/septembre)