This item has the following downloads:
1 NON OF THE AC A DEMIC DISCOURSE OF NATIVE SPEAKER AND KOREAN TEACHING ASSISTANTS By EUNHA HWANG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013
2 2013 Eunha Hwang
3 To my f amily for their love and support
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I t would have been difficult or im possible to complete this dissertation without support and help from many people. First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor Diana Boxer who put a great deal of effort into supervising my dis sertation research and chairing the supervisory committee. S he has provided me with insightful comments a s well as emotional support. I am also very grateful to the committee members, Paula Golombek, Helene Blondeau and Candace Harper for their invaluabl e feedback and suggestions My sincere appreciation goes to my thesis advisor Hikyoung Le e who has inspir ed me to pursue a docto ral degree and a teaching and research career I cannot ever thank her enough for her guidance and continued support I also e xtend my gratitude to all of my mentors in South Korea, especially Deok Jae Park Taegoo Chung Yo ng B um Kim, Sun W oong Kim, Junghee Chang and Kyung Ja Park who have always supported me in all my endeavors I wish to thank all of the Korean teaching ass i stants who participated in my dissertation research Kelly Woodfine for assist ing me with the data selection procedure the A cademic S poken E nglish at the University of Florida (UF) for helping me recruit the participants, and the Department of Linguistics at UF for everything that they have done for me throughout my doctoral studies My dearest friends and colleagues in Korea deserve thanks for being supportive as well In addition, I would like to thank Yu Ning Lai and Orapat Pookkawes here at UF who were there every time I needed them
5 Finally I thank my mom Yongjoo Bae my dad, Gy uwoong Hwang my two younger sisters Kyoungha Hwang and Youngha Hwang and my nephews Jihoon Shin and Jimin Shin for their love, support and patience
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1 0 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ..................... 13 ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 14 Purpose and Rationale of the Study ................................ ................................ ....... 18 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 20 L iterature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 21 Speech Act Theory ................................ ................................ ........................... 21 Speech Act Research ................................ ................................ ....................... 24 Non ................................ ............... 25 directive speech acts in English ................................ .................. 33 Directives ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 36 Directives defined ................................ ................................ ...................... 36 Directive construction types ................................ ................................ ....... 38 Research on non ................................ ............. 41 Research on directives and gender ................................ ........................... 45 ITA Discourse ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 48 Academic t alk as i nstitutional t alk ................................ .............................. 49 Identities and p ower issues ................................ ................................ ........ 51 2 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 59 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 60 NSTA Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 61 KTA Data ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 62 Interview Data with KTAs ................................ ................................ ................. 65 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 66 NSTA and KTA Data ................................ ................................ ........................ 66 Token selection ................................ ................................ .......................... 66 Token identi fication and coding ................................ ................................ .. 69 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 71 Interview Data ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 72 3 ANALYSIS OF DIRECTIVE TOKENS ................................ ................................ ..... 78
7 Types of Directive Construction Found ................................ ................................ ... 78 Types of Directive Found ................................ ................................ ........................ 81 Directive Usage by NS TAs ................................ ................................ ..................... 86 Distribution of Directive Tokens ................................ ................................ ........ 86 Commanding directives ................................ ................................ ............. 87 Requesting directives ................................ ................................ ................. 89 Suggesting directives ................................ ................................ ................. 90 Mitigation and Perspectiv e of Directives ................................ ........................... 92 Gender Comparison ................................ ................................ ......................... 93 Directive Usage by K TAs ................................ ................................ ........................ 94 Distribution of Directive Tokens ................................ ................................ ........ 94 Commanding directives ................................ ................................ ............. 96 Requesting directives ................................ ................................ ................. 98 Suggesting directives ................................ ................................ ................. 99 Mitigation and Perspective of Directives ................................ ......................... 100 Gender Comparison ................................ ................................ ....................... 101 4 RETROSPECTIVE INTERVIEWS ................................ ................................ ........ 122 ................................ ................................ ..................... 122 Directive Constru ctions ................................ ................................ ................... 122 Declarative directive constructions ................................ ........................... 123 Interrogative directive constructions ................................ ......................... 127 Imperative directive constructions ................................ ............................ 129 Mitigation ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 130 ................................ ................................ ............... 133 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 136 KTA NSTA Similarities ................................ ................................ .......................... 136 KTA NSTA Differences ................................ ................................ ......................... 138 Possible Sources of Differences ................................ ................................ ..... 144 Potential Problems ................................ ................................ ......................... 148 Gender and Lan guage ................................ ................................ .......................... 151 Effectiveness of Retrospective Interview ................................ .............................. 152 6 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 154 Pedagogical Implications ................................ ................................ ...................... 155 Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research ................................ 159 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM (FOR ACCESS TO TEACHING VIDEOS) .......... 165 B TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTION ................................ ................................ ........ 166 C INFORMED CONSENT FORM (FOR RETROSPECTIVE INTERVIEWS) ........... 167
8 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 168 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 176
9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Studies on speech act production ................................ ................................ ....... 56 1 2 Rules for directive speech acts ................................ ................................ ........... 57 1 3 Inventories of directive constructions ................................ ................................ .. 58 2 1 NSTA data ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 74 2 2 KTA data ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 75 2 3 Directive construction types ................................ ................................ ................ 77 3 1 Total number of directive token s used by NSTA s ................................ ............. 104 3 2 Number of CD tokens used by NSTA s ................................ ............................. 105 3 3 Total number of directive token s used by KTA s ................................ ............... 106 3 4 Number of CD tokens used by KTA s ................................ ................................ 108
10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Distribution of three types of directives in the NSTA data ................................ 110 3 2 for CD tokens ...................... 110 3 3 Modals used in D M construction in the NSTA data.. ................................ ....... 111 3 4 for RD tokens ...................... 111 3 5 for SD tokens ...................... 112 3 6 Gender comparison of directive construction choice for CD tokens (NSTAs) ... 112 3 7 Gender comparison of directive construction choice for RD tokens (NSTAs) ... 113 3 8 Gender comparison of directive construction choice for SD tokens (NSTAs) ... 113 3 9 D istribution of three types of directives in the K TA data ................................ ... 114 3 10 for CD tokens ......................... 115 3 11 Group comparison of directive constructi on choice for CD tokens ................... 115 3 12 Group comparison of directive construction choice for CD tokens ................... 116 3 13 Modals used in D M con struction for CD tokens ( KTA s ) ................................ .. 116 3 14 KTA NSTA comparison of directive construction choice for RD tokens ............ 117 3 1 5 KTA of directive construction category for RD tokens ......................... 117 3 16 KTA NSTA comparison of directive construction choice for SD tokens ............ 118 3 1 7 for SD tokens ......................... 118 3 18 Group comparison of mitigation device choice for CD tokens .......................... 119 3 19 Group comparison of perspective use for CD tokens ................................ ....... 119 3 20 Gender comparison of directive construction choice for CD tokens (KTAs) ..... 120 3 21 Gender comparison of directive construction choice for RD tokens (KTAs) ..... 120 3 22 Gender comparison of directive construction choice for SD tokens (KTAs) ..... 121
11 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy NON : A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ACADEMIC DISCOURSE OF NATIVE SPEAKER AND KOREAN TEACHING ASSISTANTS By Eunha Hwang August 2013 Chair: Diana Boxer Major: Linguistics This dissertation investigates directive language behaviors of Korean teaching assistant s (KTAs) in relation to native speaker teaching assistants (NSTAs) in classrooms and lab sessions in a U.S. university setting. Directive tokens are selected from s pontaneous speech of 22 KTAs and 12 NSTAs and divided into three types: (1) commanding direc tives, (2) requesting directives, and (3) suggesting directives. The selected tokens for e ach type of directive are then identified with directive construction types, perspective (i.e., hearer oriented, speaker oriented), and mitigation devices. Comparison s between the gender groups and the TA groups in their choice of directive construction types/perspective/mitigat ion strategies are conducted, followed by one on one retrospective interviews with nine KTAs designed to ascertain the intention behind their d irective language behaviors. Findings include differences as well as similarities between the KTA and NSTA groups. The similarities indicate that the KTAs possessed pragmatic competence of English directives (e.g., ability to strategically vary directive c onstruction types with regard to the types of directives, ability to employ mitigati o n devices ). The differences,
12 narrower range of linguistic repertoir e (e.g., their relian you + can construction, hearer perspective, and lexical mitigation) and that they tended to employ less direct directives in situations where the NSTAs used more direct strategies. Since these differences could make the teachers look less compe tent, the findings of this dissertation suggest a need for ITA (international teaching assistant) education which includes both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge. The other finding of this dissertation is gender difference on the directness of directive language. In both groups, male TAs tended to use the direct construction ( i.e., the imperative form ) more frequently than their female counterparts This dissertation helps our understanding of class directive usage in higher educati on and contributes to several fields of applied linguistics, such as English for Specific Purposes ( e.g., ITA education), interlanguage pragmatics, and language and gender.
13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW This dissertation is a descriptive s tudy of directives used by Korean 1 teaching assistants (KTAs) in a U.S. university. Directives are commonly found in our everyday interaction in the form of commands, requests or suggestion s for example In realiz ing these speech acts, s peakers employ a variety of structural forms according to socio contextual factors such as familiarity social status gender, and /or difficulty of the task (Ervin Tripp, 1976) In the educational domain, likewise, directives are often used strategically by teachers with s tructural variations such as imperatives and interrogatives (e.g., Holmes, 1983) The varied construction that directive language can have is the topic of the present study Due to the world wide exchange of human, material, and cultural resources cross cultural communication has become commonplace The educational domain especially at the level of higher education, is no exception Since U.S. universities for example have diversity in terms of as well a s with regard to the type of speech event (e.g., lectures office hours study groups seminars ) there are plenty of opportunities for the m embers (e.g., students instructors administrators ) to engage in inter cultural communication with each other in a variety of situations Among the varied types of cross cultural encounters available in a university setting, interaction between international teaching assistants ( ITAs ) and undergraduate students, the majority of whom are native speakers of English is a particular interes t of th e current study. This interest stems from the so called foreign TA 1 It refers to South Korean in the present study.
14 problem (Bailey 1984) which has been a n issue in U.S. universities over the last three decades. The ITA P roblem ITAs are graduate students from non English s peaking countries who as sist faculty members by teaching part of a course or offering tutoring or grading Additionally, they may teach their own classes as is often the case at large universities. These duties, in general, involve face to face interactio n with undergraduate students which is the target of complaints from the students Undergraduates have complained that they have communication problems with their instructor(s) in the class es led by ITAs It has been reported that they have difficulties u nderstanding ITAs that ITAs have abou speaking abilities received much attention in higher education in the U.S. in early eighties and any iss ues concerning s were referred to the foreign TA or ITA problem. Campus or local newspapers have addressed complaints about proficiency and the complaints that followed from the parents have had an e ffect on leg isl a tive change s (e.g., state laws which require ITA screening test s ) in many states (see Bailey, 1984 Byrd & Constantinides, 1988, and Chiang, 2009 ) On the one hand, the ITA problem results from perce ption of poor English of ITAs (e.g., Bailey, 1983 1984 ; Fitch & Morgan, 2003; Gallego, 1990 ; Herrington & Nakhleh, 2003 ); their English is often regarded as accented and broken 2 For example, undergraduates narratives in Fitch and Morgan s (2003) 2 This concern seems related to ITAs
15 study d emonstrate t speaking ability a negative construction of the ITA identity O n the other hand, the ITA problem is attributed to ITAs communicative skills ( e.g., Byrd & Constantinides, 1988 ; Fitch & Morgan, 2003 ) or competence at the discourse level (e.g., speech genre of the college classroom) 3 ( e.g., Ard, 1989). In other words, it has been argued that ITA s experience difficulties concerning how to l ecture and interact with their students To summarize, t hese concerns indicate that ITAs lity as instructor s has been questioned in U.S. universities If undergraduates have difficulties understand ing what ITAs are saying and if those difficulties negative ly affect their attitudes toward ITAs the communication between the ITA s and the studen t s can be regarded as unsuccessful. This is not surprising because it is common to observe misunderstandings or certain types of negative outcomes (e.g., unfavorable impressions of the speaker ) i n cross cultural communication With regard to this communica tion problem in cross cultural interaction, different subfields of applied linguistics have taken different points of view. In interlanguage pragmatics ( ILP ) on the one hand, infelicitous interaction is viewed one way (Boxer, 2002b) That is, interlocut ors are categorized as native speakers (NSs) and non native speakers (NNSs) of a particular language, and NNSs lack of communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980) is regarded as the source of claim t that non ubin (1992) matched guise study showed that ethnicity not real accent, had n egatively influenced students perception of the instructor. 3 This concern is related to (1980) as it is related to appropria teness of language used in a given situation.
16 miscommunication. In other words, there exist target norms it is NNSs job to learn them for successful and favorable interaction to occur. In cross cultural pragmatics (CCP), on the o ther hand, unsuccessful communication is treated as a two way problem (Boxer, 2002b). Since people with d ifferent cultural and language backgrounds have different ways of communicat ing (i.e., there are no target norms) it is not only one party who is responsible for a communication problem. The ITA problem is generally understood using an ILP framework beca use ITAs second language (i.e., English) competence which is different from their first language competence as well as competence, is blamed for unsuccessful communication that a ffects instruction In addition it is believed that it is responsibility to take all the potential actions which could improve the situation. This one way approach seems understandable if we consider undergraduate students as the customers of U.S. universities In fact, u ndergraduates and parents have d isplayed consumerist attitude s in their complaints about ITA s as pointed out by Bailey (1984) and Byrd and Constantinides ( 1988 ) What the students and their parents expect is a quality education that is worth their money Some researchers meanwhile vie w the ITA problem from a CCP framework. Fitch and Morgan (2003) for example, assert that undergraduate students should take responsibility for their learning in the ITA led classroom, since learning is a 307). Likewise Rubin a nd Smith (1990 ) argue that the ITA problem should be dealt with using a two way approach. Explaining that both ITAs (who possess less competent English skills compared to native speaker instructors) and undergraduate students (who show stereotypical attitu des toward Asian teaching
17 assistants) are the cause of the ITA problem, they stress that universities should put their efforts into training both parties. I t seems inappropriate to regard one framework as better than the other ILP and CCP are two differe nt fram eworks which have different foc i ILP research focuses on the non native speaker group of a language while CCP research focuses on two or more speaker groups with different language background s that are engaged in cross cultural communication C on tinuous effort s have been exerted over more than three decades to ameliorate the ITA problem For example, oral proficiency test s and language and teaching training programs have been designed for ITAs ( see Bailey, 1984 and Byrd & Constantinides, 1988). At the same time the goal of better understanding and educating ITAs has generated ongoing discussion on a range of topic s such as (e.g., Fitch & Morgan, 2003 ; Golish, 1999 ; Plakans, 1997; Rubin, 1992; Rubin & Smith, 1990) (e.g., Chiang, 2009; Davies & Tyler, 2005; Gallego, 1990; Hahn, 2004; Jenkins, 2000 ; Pickering, 2001; Tapper, 1994; Tyler, 1992 ; Yates, 2005 ) curricula of ITA training programs (e.g., Ard, 1989 ; Byrd & Constantinides, 1988 ; Davie s, Tyler, & Koran, 1989; Douglas & Myers, 1989; Gorsuch, 200 6 ; Hoekje & Williams, 1992; Jia & Bergerson, 2008; McChesney, 1994; Rounds, 1987; Smith, 1993) (e.g., LoCastro & Tapper, 2008 ; Luo, Grady, & Bellows, 2001 ) Notwithstanding the se efforts, complaints about ITAs seem relentless, as reported in a New York Times article by Finder (2005, June ) for example Therefore, we should continue our efforts to explore the problems in ITA student interaction The present study is one of them.
18 Purpose and Rationale of the Study The purpose of the present study is to examine structural characteristics of in class di rective language The ultimate aim in uncover ing these characteristics is to help the parties concerned (e.g., ITA educators, English teachers in Korea) to better understand directive language behaviors in English so that the findings can inform ITA training in U.S. universities and English language education in Korea In the pursuit of this purpose KTAs directives in the present research are compared to those of native speaker teaching assistants (NSTAs) to see whether and to what extent this particular non native teacher group deviates from the native control group In addition, KTAs directive usage pa tterns are interpreted on the basis of their retrospective accounts of their directive language, collected during one on one interviews. The speech act of directives in class was chosen as the target of analysis in the present research for the following re asons. First, directives are one of the recurrent acts produced by teachers in classrooms (e.g., Holmes, 1983; Sinclair & Coult hard 1975). In class rooms d irectives are not only frequent acts but they are also important acts, since they are related to stu Teachers not only give instructions and encourage participation from the students through directive language. To reiterate, as directive s communicate the actions which the teachers want their st udents to carry out for their successful academic performance teachers ability to produce directive s in a correct and appropriate manner is essential Therefore close examination of teachers directive language is practical for ITA or teacher education
19 Second, since directives have great potential to threaten the hearer s negative face 4 ( Brown & Levinson, 1987), teacher s directive language has an impact on the student teacher relationship. If teachers directives are always bald on record (i.e., direct ) without politeness strategies, for example, students are more likely to perceive the teacher as a n authoritative figure, which probably hinders rapport building. Moreover, w hen the teacher is a non native speaker who has less control of the target langua ge and different cultural norms, unintended consequences (e.g., face threats which might cause very likely to occur As B eebe and Takahashi (1989) argue face threatening acts are worthy of investigation be cause not a few miscommunications in cross cultural interaction are due to those ; thus it is important for ITAs to learn about appropriate use of directives The face threatening nature of directive language which often accompanies politeness strategies served as a motive for selecting gender as a variable in the present study According to Ho l mes (1995), politeness is an expression of concern for the feelings of others and a behavior which is somewhat formal and distancing, where the intention is not to intrude or impose (p. 4). Overall, women are seen as more polite than men because women frequently use certain strategies (e.g., use of politeness markers, indirect speech acts) which make their speech sound more polite (e.g., Brown, 1980; Ide, 1991) In fact women in higher education have been described differently from their male counterparts in the literature. For instance, m en tend to interrupt more frequently than women in academic talk ( Gunnarsson 1997 ; West 199 8b) and female teachers are more interested in enhancing classroom communication than male 4 Brown and Levinson (1987) define it as the want of every competent adult member that his actions be unimpeded by others (p. 62).
20 teachers ( Luo et al., 2001) Moreover, often concern male ITAs (e.g Bailey 1983; Fitch & Morgan, 2003) However gender academic t alk are under researched Hence it is worthwhile to explore how female and male TAs realize directives while teaching Lastly, although a rich body of literature on non realization exists (e.g., Blum Kulka, 1982; Ellis; 1992; K im, 1995; Koike, 1989; Rose, 2000; Takahashi & DuFon, 1989), little has been known about non native teachers directive language in class, especially in the setting of higher education Therefore, directives issued in classrooms is expe cted to contribute to t he relevant literature (e.g., ITA research, classroom research, ILP research ) in applied linguistics Research Questions There are three objectives that I desire to achieve in the present study. The first objective is to find genera l patterns of English directive language used by KTAs in a U S. university setting. By looking at the t ype and the frequency of directive constructions (e.g., imperatives, interrogatives) and the mitigation strategies used by KTAs, the present research stud ies The second objective is to see whether female and male K TAs are similar to or different from each other in their direc tive usage. The last objective is to discover the similarities and differences between KTAs an d NST As in their directive usage Summing up, here are the three research que stions of the present stu dy : 1. How do KTAs use dire ctive language while teaching? Which constructions are used? Are any construction type s favored over others? Do they use mitigati on dev ices ? Are any devices preferred ?
21 2. How, and to what extent, does gender affect the type and the frequency of directive constructions used? 3. How, and to what extent, are KTAs similar to and/or differ ent from NS TAs in their use of directives? L iterature Review As directives are one of the categories of speech acts categorized in Speech Act Theory, I begin this section with a brief introduction to the theory of speech acts, followed by a review of speech act research focusing on directive speech acts, in particul ar. Then, I narrow the scope of my discussion to the directives, especially the ones used in academic talk, by addressing definitions, construction types, and previous findings on non la st part of this section discusses characteristics of and issues in international teaching assistant (ITA) discourse. Speech Act Theory Speech act theory was developed by philosophers John Austin and John Searle. s (1962) argument that saying something is not only stating of a fact, but also performing an action. Searle (1969) uses this term to illocutionary act such as asserting and commandin g) and argue acts in saying something, both scholars seek to categorize those acts. Austin (1962) uses the term performatives fo r utterances that convey particular actions such as bets and requests, distinguishing those from constatives which are statements that can be verifiable as true or false. In order for an utterance to be regarded as performatives, Austin argues that utter ing itself is not sufficient, but felicity
22 conditions should be met (i.e., appropriate language, appropriate participants and circumstances, appropriate and complete execution of procedure, and sincere intention). Otherwise, the performed action will be ju dged as infelicitous (i.e., misfire or abuse). To reiterate, the constative performative distinction depends on the conditions which an utterance is to meet: truth conditions for constatives and felicity conditions for performatives. In the later part of h is book, however, this distinction becomes fuzzy because Austin admits both constatives and performatives observe truth and felicity conditions. Instead, Austin argues that utterances involves locutionary act (production of the utterance), illocutionary act (illocutionary force of the utterance), and perlocutionary act (actual effects of producing the utterance). He further proposes five categories of illocutionary acts by listing performative verbs for each category: verdictives (e.g., assessments), exercitives (e.g., commands), commissives (e.g., promises), behabitives (e.g., apologies), and expositives (e.g., denials). Following Austin (1962), Searle (1969 ) provides expanded discussions on illocutionary acts. He introduces conditions that are necess ary for felicitous illocutionary acts to occur. Those are propositional (reference or predication), preparatory essential (purpose or point of an act) condition. In the case of requests, for example, the following conditions should be met, according to Searle. t Furthermore, Searle (1976) provides different categories of speech act s from Austin (1962), criticizing his classification for not having principle By considering a number of
23 d imensions such as illocutionary point, direction of fit (world to word or word to world), and psychological state 5 Searle classifies speech acts into five classes r epresentatives (e.g., insists), directives (e.g., requests), commissives (e.g., promises), expressives (e.g., apologies), and declarations (e.g., bets). There is more to speech act theory than defining and categorizing illocutionary acts. Searle (1975) introduces the concept of indirect speech act, arguing that there he speaker communicates to the hearer more than he 50). For example, when the speaker says c an you pass the salt? his or her purpose is not asking a question, but requesting the hearer to pass the salt. Thus, what is expected is heare perform illocutionary acts indirectly like this? Searle claims that indirect speech acts are c an you pass the salt? the speaker is being polite because s/he gives the hearer an option of refusing, which is not the case in imperatives 6 As discussed above, speech act theory did not originate as a tool for analyzing discourse. Rather, its focus was on description and catego rization of non declarative uses of language (i.e., illocutionary acts) as well as on discussion of issues involved in using illocutionary acts. Accordingly, it does not provide methodological procedure s for analyzing discourse. However, speech act theory conveys a message that people say things to perform certain actions (directly or indirectly), and the very fact suggests that 5 These are further explained in the methodology chapter. 6 Requesting someone to do certain action threatens h c an a ace), while the imperative form is a b a ld on record (i.e., direct) strategy.
24 speech acts are the vital part of human interaction. Thus, it offers the theoretical basis for choosing speech acts as a legitimat e unit of analysis for the present study. In addition, the rules and taxonomies discussed in speech act theory help to create a (1962) classification which Searle ( acts is used in the present study. Speech Act Research Since speech act theory was introduced, a range of speech acts have been widely investigated with varied perspectives utilizing several methodologica l tools, as listed in Table 1 1. Some studies were conducted under the banner of second language Banerjee & Carrell, 1988; Bardovi Harlig & Hartford, 1990, 1993; Beebe, Takah ashi, Uliss Weltz, 1990; Blum Kulka, 1982; Ellis, 1992; Kim, 1995; Koike, 1989; Rose, 2000; Schmidt, 1983; Takahashi & DuFon,1989), while others were carried out with sociolinguistic perspective by focusing on gender differences (e.g., Goodwin, 1980; Sachs 19 8 7), for example. As shown in Table 1 1, a great deal of speech act realization studies which have an SLA focus, with the exceptions of some pragmatic developmental studies (e.g., Schmidt, 1983; Ellis 1992), have relied on elicited data collected from discourse completion tasks/tests (DCTs), role plays, or other elicitation tools rather than looking into spontaneous speech 7 Albeit few in number, research on 7 Although DCT is known to be useful for eliciting what speakers believe they would say in given situations, it is not successful in showing how people really perform a particular speech act in natural interaction. However, i t does not necessarily mean that the data collected from naturally occurring speech is better than the elicited data via DCTs or role plays; that is, appropriate methodology should be employed with regard to th e research goals (see Beebe & Cummings, 1996 and Golato, 2003 for details).
25 speech acts perception has been conducted as well (e.g., Carrell & Konneker, 198 1 ; Hinkel, 1997; Olshtain & Blum Kulka, 1985). : directives (e.g., requests, suggestions), commissives (e.g., refusals), and expressives (e.g., apologies compliments). Comparative analysis of these speech acts realized by different language learner groups comprises a large body of speech act literature. Therefore, the next sub section ge, requests and suggestions in particular, due to its relevance to the current study. Non native s d irective s peech a cts Requests have been extensively researched compared to other directive speech acts such as suggestions and commands. When it co mes to requests, the Cross Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP), a seminal work on requests and apology, should be mentioned since it has had a great influence on speech act research up to now. This joint research started with a focus on reques ts and apologies in three varieties of English (American, Australian, and British) and in other five languages (Hebrew, German, Canadian French, Danish, and Russian 8 ), according to Blum Kulka and Olshtain (1984). Its goals were to investigate situational v ariability, cross cultural variability, and native vs. non of requests and apologies. In order to achieve these goals (i.e., comparison across situations, languages, and individuals), data was co llected via DCTs which enabled 8 Russian was excluded in the project later (Blum Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989).
26 researchers to manipulate social constraints of the given situations keep the variables constant among language groups, and collect data from a great number of participants. The coding scheme for requests developed in CCSAR P has been widely adapted in the research on requests (e.g., Ellis; 1992; Hahn, 2009; Kim, 1995; Martnez Flor 2005; Rose, 2000; Takahashi & DuFon, 1989). According to Blum Kulka et al. (1989), a request sequence can be segmented by three parts, a lerters (e.g., name attention getter), h ead acts (i.e., the request), and s upportive moves (or e xternal modification) preceded or followed by head acts. They further classify head acts in two dimensions, one in perspective (i.e., speaker oriented, hear er oriented and impersonal) and the other in strategy types with regard to directnes s. The most direct strategy is mood derivable ( i.e., imperatives), followed by performatives (e.g., ), hedged performatives (e.g., ), oblig ation statements (e.g., y ), want statements (e.g., ), suggestory formulae (e.g., h ), query preparatory (e.g., c ), strong hints, and mild hints. S peakers use modification devices mitigation or agg ravation, for the speech act of requests. When modification occurs within the head act via syntactic or lexical devices, for example, this is referred as i nternal modification On the other hand, when modification appears beyond the head act such as grou nder (i.e., giving reasons for the request) and promise of reward, it is called e xternal modification or s upportive moves The above coding scheme is highly relevant to the present study because requests belong to the category of directives; that is, language can be analyzed following the CCSARP scheme In order to limit the scope of analysis, however, the present study focuses only on the head acts (i.e., realization of the
27 directive acts, which is the core of the directive sequenc es), rather than examining the whole sequence s The nine request strategy types used in CCSARP are taken into account when developing a criterion for data analysis in the current study. When discussing the results of the analysis, the two dimensions perspe ctive and directness are considered. In addition, internal modification devices are of interest to the present study as it only investigates the head acts 9 As part of the CCSARP team, Blum Kulka (1982) investigated request realization of English speaking learners of Hebrew in comparison with native speakers (NS) of Hebrew. The participants were asked to fill out a DCT in which 17 situations 10 were given. The learner group deviated from the NS group with regard to their choice of request strategy types. Whi le the NS group had one predominantly preferred request type for each situation, the learner group did not do so. For example, in a restaurant situation where a customer is asking a waiter to bring the menu, the majority of the NS group (76%) used permissi on directives (e.g., i ), whereas the learner group used imperatives the most (42%), followed by permission directives (36%) and others. That is, the learners showed more variation in their choice of request strategies. With regard to di rectness of their requests, the learner group showed more indirectness than the NS group in three situations (e.g., policeman driver conversation). Blum strategies than NSs, although her study has three exceptional cases. Regarding these 9 dy are not likely to reflect the whole picture of their directive language behaviors This limitation is further discussed in Chapter 6 10 Only eight items targeted directive speech acts. Some were included to elicit speech act markers or to test particip act realization.
28 exceptions in which the learners employed less direct request strategies, she explains that a number of sources such as transfer of first language (L1) social norm and incomplete control over conventio nal request forms would contribute to. Another important point made by Blum Kulka is that NNSs are sensitive to situational factors (e.g., in which situation and with whom they are interacting) and vary their request strategies, although their speech act r ealization might somehow deviate from native ble to consider contextual and socia l factors involved in situation s before we compare speech act realization of any groups. Or, contextual and social factors can be controlled by focusing on a limited number of situations as in Koike (1989) and Garca (1989). First, Koike (1989) studied pragmatic competence of English speaking learners of Spanish by conducting three separate experiments which tested their (1) perception ability to identify speech acts in Spanish (2) request patterns in Spanish, and (3) request patterns in English. As a data collection tool in the experiment two and three, she utilized DCTs which included one situation in which they were supposed to ask their fr iend to lend some money. In the second experiment, Koike observed that the learners of Spanish used less polite strategy types such as want statement s and command forms more than the polite request types. They occasionally added por favor ( please ) with c ommand forms, which is the pattern observed in other studies (e.g., Ellis, 199 2). their L1 were realized in polite forms (e.g., interrogatives). From these findings, Koi ke argued that learners did possess pragmatic concepts of polite requests from their L1,
29 but their grammatical competence in L2 was not fully developed to sophisticate their requests in the target language Second, Garca ( 1989 ) study also showed langua employ direct request strategies in one particular situation in which they were asked to make an urgent request for a typing service knowing that they should have given a Garca compared requesting behaviors of Spanish speaking learners of English to those of the NS group. From the request tokens elicited through role play interaction, Garca found group differences in their request realization. The learner group preferred personal devices (e.g., use of agent ; present tense modal auxiliaries) such as can you? while the NS group predominantly used impersonal devices (e.g., impersonal construction and past modality) which were regarded less direct. The NS group produced personal requests as well, but they mit igated their speech using politeness marker please, consultative device (e.g., ), or play down marker (e.g., ). Although the learner group in this study was able to realize requests in less direct forms, instead of re lying on more direct forms such as imperatives as was the case in Koike (1989), their requests were still Similar to Blum Garca studies suggest that NNSs are prone t o produce more direct requests than NSs. Garca language learners in the former were more direct than the learners in the latter because the request tokens elicited in the former stu dy were in more direct forms (e.g., imperatives) than those in the latter study (e.g., interrogatives). This difference could be
30 compared to the learners in Garca 11 acc ording to the pattern found in the developmental studies; i.e., learners use a limited range of request types in the beginning, but become more competent by using a variety of request strategies and mitigation devices as they learn more. Schmidt (1983) is a good example of the developmental study which investigated conversations in which one Japanese adult learner of English took part in. Schmidt examined his English directi ve tokens collected via field notes over a 3 year period. In the beginning, his directives were realized in the progressive form (e.g., ) instead of imperatives. Although he occasionally employed suggestive formulas such as s hall we it was not productive. Moreover, Schmidt noted that some of his requests were very indirect, which was explained by transfer of Japanese norms 12 By the end of his observation, however, the learner increased the number of imperatives rather than using the progressive form. In addition, his directives were accompanied by elaboration and his use of request formulas such as and shall out more native like as they le arned more. 11 It is assume since they were recruited from the first target language (English) in Garc a (1989) was reported as an average of 8.5 years. 12 This finding is similar to Blum is another study which addresses transfer of L1 social norm. Takahashi and DuFon divided Japanese learners of English into three groups ( beginning, intermedi ate, and advanced ) in terms of their proficiency level and compared their requests that were collected via role plays They found that the advanced level learners were the most direct group, followed by the intermediate and the beginning level learner gro up They attributed this phenomenon to L1 pragmatic transfer. However, they assumed that other factors might play a role as well, since all learner groups were more direct than the NS control group.
31 behaviors in classroom interactions over two years, he found that learners made developmenta the beginning of his observation as they predominantly used verbless requests and imperatives, but they varied the types of request strategy by the end of his study. Although Ellis pointed out that their development was limited due to their preference of imperatives throughout his observation, his study supported the general developmental pattern that was found in Schmidt (1983). Though not longitudinal nor with naturally occurring supports the findings of Schmidt (1983) and Ellis (1992); the more advanced language learners are, the more sophisticated their requests become with an extended range of repertoire for request strategies. Rose conducted cross sec tional studies which compared three levels (primary 2, primary 4, and primary 6) of Cantonese speaking learners of English in Hong Kong by utilizing a cartoon oral production task. The results showed that the most frequently used request strategy for all t hree groups was preparatory (e.g., c ). However, they showed difference s in the frequency of direct requests and of external modifications. The low level students (primary 2) showed higher percentage of direct requests and lower percentage of extern al modifications. In contrast to this, high level students (primary 6) used lower percentage of direct request strategies, but employed external modifications more than the others. Compared to the amount of research on requests, suggestions have been less investigated (see Martnez Flor 2005). However, the pattern that NNSs used more
32 example, Chinese and Malay speaking learners of English filled out a DCT which contained 60 situations for suggestions. Although the learner group was similar to the NS group in the proportions of direct and indirect suggesti ons (both groups preferred the statement type the most, followed by interrogative and imperative construction), the learne r group produced more direct suggestions among the interrogative category. ex ample, the learners made suggestions focusing on the hearer (e.g., y our hair is messy ), while the native speakers shifted the focus from the hearer to other external causes (e.g., t he wind blew your hair ) which had a softening effect. Bardovi Harlig an graduate students are expected to provide suggestions for course scheduling to express their identity in the i nstitution. However, Bardovi Harlig and Hartford (1990) found that the number of suggestions that NSSs made was smaller than NSs. In addition, NNSs did not mitigate their speech as much as NSs did. They explained that the differences were due to internatio this particular gatekeeping encounter. However, their longitudinal study (1993) reported that NNSs showed pragmatic development to some extent in that the number of student initiated suggestions was increa sed while they did not show much improvement on mitigation.
33 To sum up language learners (or NNSs) of a certain language are different from NSs of that language in their realization of requests or suggestions. However, this does not necessarily mean that NNSs are totally different from NSs. NNSs are able to produce both direct and indirect speech acts as NSs do, although they tend to be more direct than NSs in their choice of strategy types or unskilled in minimizing imposition of directive language. The c urrent study also focuses on the types of directives and mitigation devices in order to compare the findings of the present study to those of the previous research. D ue to the differences in participants, data sources, data gathering method, and context h owever, it is difficult to predict how similar or different Korean teaching assistants (KTAs ) and native speaker teaching assistants (NSTAs) are in their directive usage. d irective s peech a cts in English As the main participants of the present st udy are Korean TAs who taught in English, it is relevant to discuss how Korean speaking learners of English are similar to and/or different from the language learners mentioned in the previous sub section with regard to their realization of directive speec h acts. It has been reported that preparatory is the most preferred request strategy chosen by Korean speaking learners of English (e.g., Chang, 2009 ; Han, 2005; Hahn 2009; Jung & Hur, 2005; Kim 1995). For instance, Kim (1995) collected request tokens from three different groups (NS of Korean, Korean ESL learners 13 and NS of English) through an oral DCT consisting of six situations. She found similarities as well as differences between the NSs of English and the Korean ESL learner group. In most of 13 ESL learners are those who study English in a country w here it is used as a main language, while EFL learners are those who study English in a country where it is not used as an official language.
34 the give n situations, the two groups were similar in that they tended to use less direct request strategy types the preparatory strategy in the CCASRP coding scheme. However, the learner group deviated from the NS group as they preferred more direct request strat e gy in some situations (e.g., B aby sitting) and less direct request strate gy in another situation (e.g., Getting off work early ). Kim explained that this could be attributable to negative transfer of Korean pragmatic rules. For example, adults do not usuall y use polite speech to children in Korea. For this reason, the Korean ESL learners were deemed to emplo y more direct request types in the b aby sitting situation, since the age gap between the adults and children did not motivate them to use an indirect str expression s While the Korean E SL learners predominantly used c an (could) you (I) do X? the NS group produced requests with other routines such as I was wondering or d o y in Jung and Hur (2005) did not differ greatly from the Korean ESL learners in Kim (1995). Jung and Hur collected request tokens via a DCT which contained 12 situations with varied social status of the requestee (hi gher, that belong to the preparatory strategy across the board, which was also the case for the NS group. However, the Korean EFL learners made direct requests via imper atives, The results of these two studies (Kim,1995 and Jung & Hur, 2005) summarized above are similar to th e findings of Blum Kulka (1982) in that they yielded conflicting f indings on directness of requests; NNSs were more or less direct than NSs in their
35 realization of directive speech acts. It is no surprise that they obtained such mixed findings in that they looked into a range of situations together (e.g., interactions in workplace, academic setting, between friends, between neighbors, and so forth). As Blum Kulka argues that NNSs are aware of social/contextual factors, it is necessary to control those factors in order to provide a speech act behaviors. Thus, the present stud y limits its scope to examining the discourse of higher education which takes place in class room s or lab session s development in relation to their length of residence (LOR). He divided Korean ESL learners in terms of their LOR (i.e., short mid and long term) and collected request requests were also collected for comparison. Han discovered that there were no significant differences among four groups regarding the types of request strategy and external modifications (e.g., apology grounder) that were used. However, qualitative analysis showed that the long term LOR Korean group approximated the NS group the most. The NS group and the long term LOR Korean group used more of biclausal formula s (e.g., i ) and external modifications than the short and mid term groups did. That is, in common with the NS group, the Korean ESL learners who had extended experience in the U.S. made requests with a higher degree of mitigation. demonstrated that they were simil ar to NSs in that they favored preparatory, the indirect request strategy, although they used more direct strategies in certain circumstances.
36 However, the difference between Korean learners of English and NSs lay in the details of requesting behavior such as mitigation. Th erefore, it becomes more apparent that the focus of the present study should rest on the types of directives and mitigation devices. Directives The aforementioned studies focus on a single directive speech act such as requests or suggestions produced by d ifferent people in a range of situations. In contrast the present study limits its scope to the directives spoken by teaching assistants in class or lab in a university setting. Directives are defined in the first sub section below after addressing how re searchers have defined them in their own studies. The second sub section deals with different classifications of directive construction types in the literature. Then previous studies on non reviewed in the third sub section. The last sub section discusses the gender factor examined in the previous research on directives. Directives d efined Directives belong to one of that have the following illocutionary point: The illocutionary poi nt of these consists in the fact that they are or they may be very fierce attempts as when I insist that you do it (p. 11) This definition of directives illocutionary acts performed by the speaker (S) to get the hearer (H) to do something has been widely accepted in the literature (e.g., Banerjee & Carrell, 1988; Dalton Puffer & Nikula, 2006; Hahn, 2009; Sch midt, 1983; Yates, 2005). According to Searle, directives encompass a number of speech acts such as questions, suggestions, requests and commands. Although these speech acts belong to the same
37 category, they differ from each other in a number of ways, as s ummarized in Table 1 2. In the case of questions, for example, what is attempted by S is to get H to answer. In istinguishes commands from requests is the additional preparatory condition that S has authority over H. Among the speech acts subsumed under the class of directives in Searle (1976), it seems that questions intended to elicit verbal response have been gen erally excluded in the research on directives 14 (e.g., Bellinger & Gleason, 1982; Ervin Tripp, 1976; Holmes, 1983; Schmidt; 1983; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). For example, Sinclair and were used to elicit linguistic information. They stated that directive elicitation and informative 15 function of which is to request a non (p. 28), Sinclair and Coulthard did not categorize information seeking questions as directives. Rather, they treated these questions as a separate act elicitation 8). Holmes (1983) is another study which excepted questions intended to elicit verbal response s from the analysis of directives in the classroom setting. While Holmes 14 Dalton Puffer and Nikula (2006) is one exception because they consider questions as directives in their analysis of classroom directives. 15 opinions, information and to which the appropriate response is simply an acknowledgement that one is
38 a non Britain. According to Holmes, Ervin English directives, seemed to adop ) definition as well. Although Ervin Tripp did not provide any definition for directives, numerous exam ples included in her study suggest that she focused on the directive acts that lead to non linguistic action. Tripp, 1976; Holmes, 1983; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975) discussion on directives is based on empirical data. Notably for the present study classroom discourse; the former explored English used by teachers and children in class di rectives in New Zealand and Britain. As these two studies suggest that questions are another big class of major speech acts which occur in classroom discourse, they offer a rationale to exclude questions from directives in the present study. What I mean by questions here is the utterances used to elicit information such as w hat does X mean? To reiterate, for the present study, directives are defined as utterances which have the illocutionary force of telling listeners to carry out some action exclusive of the ones that aim for elicit ing information regardless of whether the immediate action is followed or not Directive c onstruction t ypes on directives, their focus is not t o discuss the construction types in which directive language is realized What is addressed in Searle is the deep structure I Verb you +
39 you Fut Vol Verb (NP) (ADV) of directives such as I order you to leave. In case of little more information regarding the directive construction types is given. They state that imperatives are the frequently selected structure for directives. However, Sinclair and Coulthard also point out that directives are realized in declaratives (e.g. I can hear someone laughing ) and interrogatives (e.g., what are you laughing at? ) interrogative is to be inter preted as a command to stop if it refers to an action or activity which is proscribed There exist other studies which offer detailed description s of directive constructions; Ervin in a variety of situations, Ervin Tripp introduces six construction types o f directives. The first one is need statements in I need a match ). The second type is imperatives (e.g., g ive me a match ) that have several variants such as elliptical forms (e.g., c offee, black ) and you + imperative (e.g., y ou go straight ). The third type is imbedded imperatives used fo r the utterances in which who should do what is explicitly conveyed, not in imperative forms, but inserted in other types of sentence such as interrogatives. In an utterance like c ould you give me a match? for e xample, the imperative message you give a match is delivered in an interrogative structure, s he explains. The fo urth one is permission directives (e.g., m ay I have a match? action is requested by the hearer. The fift h type is question directives which are realized in interrogatives, but do n ot overtly express what is requested by the speaker (e.g.,
40 g otta match? ). The last type is hints, the statements which do not carry the requested action explicitly (e.g., t he matches are all gone ). Janet Holmes is another researcher who makes a close i nvestigation of the highly categorizes directive s tructures into three categories i mpera tives, i nterrogatives, and d eclaratives and subdivides each category as follows. First, the imperative category is divided into six types, which are base form of verb (e.g., s peak up ), you + imperative (e.g., y ou look here ), present participle for m of verb (e.g., l ooking at me ), verb ellipsis (e.g., h ands up ), imperative + modifier (e.g., l ooking this way please ), and let + first person pronoun (e.g., l ). Second, the interrogative cat egory is split into two types, modals (e .g., w ould you open the window ) and non modal interrogative directives (e.g., w ho can I see sitting quietly? ). Third, the declarative category also breaks into two ty pes, which are embedded agent a directive construction which contains the agent an d the required action in the embedded clause (e.g., I want you to draw a picture ) and hints which are implicit in expressing the agent and/or the requested action (e.g., ). hough the topic of his investigation does not match with that of the present study completely. His classification of directive constructions is based on the corpus analysis of non etting. Reinhardt classifies directives into three construction types, which are modal (e.g., can should ) or
41 periphrastic modal (e.g., have to need to ), directive vocabulary (e.g., suggest recommend ), and imperative As shown above, the num ber and the type of directive structures found in each study are different. Perhaps this is because they collected data from different setting ; for example, Ervin collected in everyday intera class directives. Or, it may be because each study looked into directive construction types with different focus. Reinhardt (2010) focused on lexical item s for instance, whereas Holmes categorized directive s in terms of sentence type. Even though the abovementioned studies differ in naming directive construction types, they are comparable to each other and even to the coding sc heme used in CCSARP (see Table 1 3). Since the sentence type used by Holmes is the broadest category, all the construction types discussed above can be re classified according to h er classification, as in Table 1 in classrooms which is the topic of the current study. Research on n on native t d irectives Reinhardt (2 010) is one of the few studies that explore non directives in a university setting. He compared a learner group (i.e., advanced ESL students and ITAs) with an expert group (i.e., native/native like TAs) in terms of directive language use, particularly the suggestions produced in an office hours setting. The learner group corpus consisted of the recorded role plays in ESL and ITA preparation courses, while the expert group corpus was composed of the office hour
42 speech events in MICASE, the M ichigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (Simpson, Briggs, Ovens, & Swales, 2002). The corpus analysis showed that the learner group frequently used you can you had better and you should constructions as well as the directive vocabulary constructi on (e.g., I suggest ) while the expert group favored you can and you want to structures. Reinhardt claimed that non native you should and directive vocabulary constructions could negatively affect studen situation s because their directives could imply authority rather than promoting a sense of inclusion In addition to analyzing data quantitatively, Reinhardt (2010) triangulated it by e mploying several tools (e.g., post course interview s surveys), which enabled him to findings were credible because the y were on the basis of thorough analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. This mixed approach is used in the present study as well, though it does not carry out corpus analysis. Instead, the present study takes advantage of descriptive statistics for quantitative analysis and interprets the results of quantitative analysis with qualitative data collected via a stimulated retrospective interview. On the other hand, there is at least one thing that I would like to ch alle nge in the methodology used in Re inhardt (2010). As mentioned earlier, elicited data in role plays consisted of the learner corpus, whereas the expert corpus was composed of natural data. To maximize comparability, it would have been better to utilize the same data
43 collecting tool for bot h groups. Although role plays elicit naturalistic data to a certain degree, unlike the case of DCTs, in that researchers can get spoken data (Kasper & Dahl, 1991), data collected by role plays does not exactly represent what the same speakers will actually say in real situations. As the present study uses MICASE as the NS baseline, which is the collection of recordings of naturally occurring academic talk, directive tokens produced by KTAs are collected from their spontaneous speech in the present study. Un like Reinhardt (2010), Tapper (1994) collected data from authentic classroom Australia, Tapper examined how this non native teacher issued directives in terms of the constr uction types. She grouped his directives into seven construction types: you + verb you + neg. + verb when/then + you + verb I think + you + verb you + modal + verb imperative, and neg. + imperative The results of her analysis showed tha t the Ch inese engineer frequently used you + verb construction (43%) you followed by the imperative type (20%). The majority of his direc tives in this you + verb form (63%), however, were judged as inappropriate by five native s peakers. They commented that they would have used the imperative form instead of the you +verb construction. Tapper presented a number of possible reasons for hi s overuse of you + verb distancing marker. earliest work, to my knowledge, which explored non native teacher directives in natural setting. Her study informs us of the construction types of directives used by a non native
44 instructor in university lab sessions. By having several native speakers evaluate them, she also addresses inappropriateness of the non native directives, which in turn suggests pedagogical implications for ITA training. However, she would have been able to provide more substantive e xplanation for his reliance on you + verb construction, if she asked him why he used that particular construction or obtained other relevant information (e.g., power issues in lab, his identity as an instructor ) as Reinhardt (2010) did. directives in Chemistry lab sessions. She transcribed video recorded lab sessions of these ITAs and found the following results. First, the Chinese TAs used imperative forms more frequently than other construction types. Second, Ervin inventory of directive types was not sufficient for categorizing directives used in a university lab setting. Third, some of the directives issued by the Chin ese TAs were problemat ic due to inappropriate use of just (as a minimizer) and/or time expressions. Fourth, the male Chinese TAs showed predominant use of the you + (modal) + verb form(s), while the female TAs used wider range of dir ective construction s including embedded directives (e.g., ). Among the findings in Regn (2004), her detailed discussion on non native just and time expressions is worthwhile. She present ed several examples of misused just in Chinese explained why those were problematic. Moreover, she argued that those inappropriate use of just could lead to unfavorable outcomes in teacher student communication. For example, when the teacher inappropriately us es just as minimizer for the task which is
45 quite difficult, it might give students an impression that the teacher is not sympathetic. These findings were all possible because Regn took a qualitative approach to data analysis. However, unlike in Reinhardt (2010) or Tapper (1994), Regn reported the results without quantitative evidence. Her findings related to gender difference or preference of directive construction types would have been better supported, if she performed quantitative analysis. In addition as she mentioned in her study, NS NNS comparison and data triangulation would enable us to better understand these non Taken altogether, the present study seeks to build on the strength s and complement the weakness es of the previous studies addressed above, which leads to the following methodological components: use of naturally occurring data, combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis, comparison between non native and native data, and triangulation of data. In addition, the present study expands the extant research in that it looks into other types of speech event s such as discussion sections or lectures. Research on d irectives and g ender It is a wonder that few speech act studies include gender as a factor in their investigation of directives, given that gender is a widely discussed variable in the field of (Eckert & McConnell Ginet, 2003, p. 32), meaning that while we are born with sex, we are not born with gender; gender is socially constructed In addition, we are doing gender (West & Zimmerman, 1987) by using what we learn (e.g., linguistic items) to show our identity as a woman or man. tive language, several researchers (e.g., Aronsson & Thorell, 1999; Goodwin, 1980; Sachs, 19 8 7) provide an insight into gender
46 socialization. Their findings indicate that boys are more likely to use direct directives than girls are. In Aronsson and Thorell Swedish children were requested to enact family life with dolls in given situations. The results of their study showed that the male role figures were more direct than the female figures in their use of directives. The male figures used imperatives (i.e., bald on record), often with aggravation strategies (e.g., insulting form of address, loud or angry voice), while the female figures employed mitigation strategies (e.g., solidarity oriented types of address) when i ssuing directives. Similarly, Sachs (1987) and Goodwin (1980) 16 found that boys were more direct imperative directives (e.g., b e a doctor ), whereas girls used interrogativ e directives (e.g., w ill you be the patient for a few minutes? ), which was interpreted that girls cared hild to do some action through imperatives, while girls provided proposals or suggestions for future action in lexical item such as maybe which was also observed in Summing up, afo rementioned studies in this sub section suggest that girls and is different 16 Sa and data collection method. In Sachs, children were 47.5 months old on average, Caucasian (with two exceptions), and from upper middle class. They were asked to be engaged in pret ended play. On the other hand, children in Goodwin were eight to thirteen years old, black, and from working class. Their directives were collected from interactions in a group project.
47 boys and girls. In their study, parents did not show different behavior when they directed their directives to girls or to boys. In general, fathers used imperatives more than mothers who favored conventionalized indirect forms (e.g., c an you..? ) the most. findings. For example, West (1998 a ) found different directive patterns in female and patients. While female doctors frequently mitigated their directives by phrasing them as proposals for joint action (e.g., ) or suggestions, male doctor s used more of imperative forms and need/want statements. The situation is not so different in academic setting. As male and female TAs showed different behavior in their directive usage in Regn (2004), Yates (2005) also found gender difference in her stu dy. Yates examined directives spoken by native teachers (Australian) and non native teachers (Chinese) in Australian universities. By analyzing naturalistic data, she found that the female teachers mitigated their directives more frequently than the male t eachers in both groups (75.7 vs. 64.8% and 58.2 vs. 54.8% in the NS and NNS group respectively). Likewise, it has been argued that Korean women pay more attention to indirectness of directives than Korean men in Korean. Lee and Kim (1992), for example, as sert that Korean men favor imperative forms whereas Korean women prefer suggestory expressions in their production of directives in Korean Furthermore, they point out that Ko rean men tend to rely on hearer oriented perspective while women are more likely to use inclusive perspective when issuing directives in Korean Similar to
48 speech indicates Korean women are regarded as more polite than Korean men because they use indirec t request strategies such as interrogatives. To sum up, gender is an important variable to be taken into account in speech act research of directives. As the aforementioned research suggest s across language groups male speakers tend to favor imperative d irectives while females are more likely to mitigate their directives. For this reason, any result of analysis might be misleading or insufficient when we analyze data lumping women and men together. For example, it is not accurate to conclude a certain gro up shows a preference for particular directive construction on the basis of high average figure when there is a big gap between two gender groups. Thus, the present study takes gender into consideration in analyzing and interpreting data. ITA Discourse Co nsidering the context (i.e., classrooms or labs in a university setting) and the participants (Korean teaching assistants) of the present study, now I would like to shift my focus to international teaching assistant ( ITA ) discourse. Korean graduate student s, along with Indian and Chinese graduate students, comprise a large part of ITA population in U.S. universities (LoCastro & Tapper, 2008). What these ITAs speak while performing their duties falls within the realm of academic talk. Thus, this sub section b egins with discussion of characteristics of academic talk as institutional talk. Then, the academic setting are addressed, which segues into power issues in ITA students interactions.
49 Academic t alk as i nstitutional t alk Aca demic talk belongs to so called institutional talk, which differs from ordinary social interaction. Institutional talk is face to face or telephone interaction 17 which occurs in an institutional setting such as for example, or courtroom (Drew & Heritage, 1992). However, physical setting is not a sole factor which determines whether a certain encounter belongs to institutional talk or not. As long as participants show their institutional identities while accomplishing a certain c ommunicative goal which is relevant to institutional task(s), that interaction is considered institutional According to Drew and Heritage, institutional speech has three characteristics, which are lack ing in everyday conversation. First, institutional t alk 23). In the case of the lecture type class, for example, it has pedagogical goals such as teaching certain concept(s). The 23), wh ich means that there exist restrictions regarding what should be done and how the talk should go. For instance, it is the teacher who mainly initiates interaction in class through questions, and students are expected to answer them (e.g., Initiation Respon se Feedback sequence, talk is interpreted in relation to their roles, goals of the institutional setti ng, and other relevant context ual factors. For instance, a ba ld on request might be considered as direct and face threatening in everyday conversation, but it may not be in the case of teacher talk. 17 Computer mediated interaction can be included in institutional talk as on line communication becomes very common.
50 Aside from the example of lecture type classes provided above, office hours, advising sessions, colloquia, defense meetings, discussion sections, and lab sessions are other types of speech events observed in a U.S. university setting. In these types of academic talk, faculty, graduate students, and undergraduat e students are the main participants. As for the topic, it may be institution. The three characteristics of institutional talk which Drew and Heritage (1992) address successfully apply to academic talk. I n case of the advising session, for example, one of the goals of the interaction between faculty and graduate students is course scheduling for the coming semester (Bardovi Harlig & Hartford, 1990, 1993). This kind of interaction generally goes through thr ee stages which Agar (1985) found by examining courtroom and clinic discourse: diagnosis period, directive period, and report writing period. What is important in the interaction is that their talk is affected by their roles (e.g., faculty as a gatekeeper 18 ). In sum, academic talk has rules for participants to understand and to follow. Otherwise, they will experience difficulties achieving institutional goals successfully. Moreover, they will probably be judged negatively and not be considered as a competen t member in a particular community (e.g., Bardovi Harlig & Hartford, 1990). Since ITAs should learn the rules involved in academic talk, it is both a means of showing their identities and a goal of establishing their identities in academic settings. While engaging in a variety of speech events, they use and learn the target rules of academic talk through a series of trials and errors as well as feedback from the experts 18 Gatekeeping refers to interaction with two people in which one has power to make decisions (i.e., one tion) life in the future, according to Erickson and Shultz (1982). Advising sessions and office hours are examples of gatekeeping encounters in educational settings.
51 (e.g., faculty). They become more competent members of the target community as they lear n how, when, and what to speak in a given institutional setting. This process can be children learn their first language (L1), what is appropriate is told and modeled by adu lts around them (e.g., parents, teachers). Such modeled language is not only about teaching language per se, but also about teaching social values in a society. Thus, children learn what is appropriate and valued in a particular context and establish their identities while developing their L1. As a result, children are socialized by learning language and use language to show they are appropriately socialized. The role of r & Rose, 2002, p. 42). Similarly, the role of academic talk for ITAs is both the means and a goal of socialization in an academic setting. Identities and p ower issues Among the participants in academic talk, graduate students are expected and desire to show that they are knowledgeable about the field of their interest. At the same time, they are supposed to and want to behave appropriately in keeping with their status l taped colloquia in one U.S. university, Tracy and Carjuzaa showed that both faculty and graduate students employed conversational moves to express their intellectual ide ntity, rank in the institution was, the stronger intellectual competence they expressed. For example, faculty started their talk by mentioning their published work, whi ch implied they were highly intellectual in the field. In contrast, graduate students began their
52 presentations by referring to their previous work, which showed they were not true beginners in the field. However, they set their intellectual responsibility low by distancing Faculty and graduate students also showed institutional identity through various conversational moves (e.g., silence, type of questions, response to noncomprehension). than did faculty, for instance. Since ITAs are students as well as instructors, they have two roles to play in the institution: the graduate student rol e in the program with which they are affiliated and the instructor or gatekeeper role associated with their teaching duties. As a graduate student, on the one hand, they participate in several types of speech event s such as lectures, advising sessions, off ice hours, and colloquia. As an instructor, on the other hand, they engage in other types of academic talk while le cturing, leading discussion, or offering office hours. Thus, they are busy with different roles they are supposed to play and may be frustrat ed by unfavorable encounters they might face due to lack of knowledge regarding the rules of academic talk or language resources These identities of graduate students are related to power dynamics in interactions between teaching assistants (TAs) and stud ents. According to Galvin (1992), TAs, in general, struggle with power issues in the classroom because they neither n themselves somewhere between the two. In addition, most of TAs are only a few years older than their students, as Golish (1999) points out. Therefore, TAs are not free from feelings of insecurity and problem s of establishing credibility in classrooms.
53 ) study demonstrated that students actually regarded TAs differently from faculty in terms or power. Golish administered questionnaires on perceived power and credibility of instructors (both professors and TAs) to undergraduate students in order to examin e their attitudes towards to teachers. The results showed that the undergraduates reported that they had more power with TAs than with professors for all of the five types of power on power base measure ( PBM ) scales: coercive, referent, legitimate, expert, and reward 19 Moreover, they differentiated professors and TAs in terms of coercive, legitimate, and expert power on PBM scales. As for the credibility, TAs were rated less credible than professors on 7 point credibility scales. However, it did not mean th credibility was perceived low. Both TAs and professors were perceived high in credibility since the mean scores were high in both group (5.8 and 5.93 out of 7.00, respectively). Among four categories on credibility scales (sociability, composure, c haracter, competence), TAs were rated higher in sociability and character than faculty. Golish interpreted this as undergraduates had positive attitudes toward TAs; that is students felt more comfortable with TAs and considered TAs more approachable. ITAs are no exception to this power issue discussed above. They are aware of their intellectual and institutional status which is lower than faculty. Thus, playing a role of instructor is challenging when they are still students. However, this is not the only challenge ITAs have regarding the issue of power in class; they struggle with power issues caused by being non native speakers of English. Fitch and Morgan (2003), for 19 compliance another person expert power is associated with
54 narratives intelligence, their poor speaking ability 20 was the salient characteristic of ITAs which often have limited command of En glish, it is not I TAs, but their students who have pragmatic power (Boxer, 2002 a ) in their interactions. Although ITAs are more knowledgeable in the subject they teach and have power to grade their students, their ability to manage class is often hindered by their perceived English proficiency. Therefore, it is more likely for undergraduate students take advantage of ITAs. To sum up, a tion such as requests exists. Especially, little is known about Korean usage in the academic setting. Accordingly, the present study which looks into naturally occurring teacher talk can contribute to better understanding of I Furthermore, the present study is promising in the sense that it lends some insight to carry out some actions. As it addresses ic talk via NS NNS data comparison and retrospective interview s its findings thus provide pedagogical implications for both ITA training in general and English language education in Korea in particular. 20 pronunciation (Galle g o, 1990), primary stress (Hahn, 2004) tone choice (Pickering, 2001), and discourse management strategies (Tyler, 1992).
55 This chapter has addressed the purpose of and the r ationale for the present study and provided a review of literature on the relevant topics. The rest of this dissertation is composed of the following five chapters. Chapter 2 explains the methodology (i.e., discourse analysis with retrospective interview) used in the present research It provides a detailed description of how the data was collected, analyzed, and triangulated. Chapter 3 demonstrates the results of data analysis on KTAs and NSTAs directive language, focusing on their use of directive cons tructions and mitigation strategies. It also addresses the findings on gender and group comparisons. Chapter 4 presents the interview data : i.e., KTAs explanation s about their own language use and their views on teaching related issues Chapter 5 discusse s the findings presented in Chapters 3 and 4 by revisiting the research questions stated in this chapter. In addition, implications of the key findings are discussed. Lastly, Chapter 6 provides a concluding summary of the dissertation and discusses pedagog ical implications it has f or both ITA training and English education in Korea. Moreover, it addresses future research directions after pointing out limitations of the present study.
56 Table 1 1. Studies on speech act production Study Topic Data Focus Blu m Kulka (1982) Requests Elicited (DCT) NS NNS comparison Banerjee & Carrell (1988) Suggestions Elicited (DCT) NS NNS comparison Takahashi & DuFon (1989) Requests Elicited (Role play) L1 transfer Koike (1989) Requests Elicited (DCT) L1 transfer Beebe, T akahashi, & Uliss Weltz (1990) Refusals Elicited (DCT) L1 transfer Kim (1995) Requests Elicited (Oral DCT) L1 transfer Rose (2000) Requests; apologies; compliment responses Elicited (Cartoon oral production task) L2 pragmatic development Jung & Lee (200 7) Compliment responses Elicited (DCT) NS NNS comparison Hahn (2009) Requests Elicited (Questionnaire) L1 transfer Reinhardt (2010) Advice Elicited (Role play) NS NNS comparison Goodwin (1980) Directives; responses to directives Spontaneous (Natural pla y activities) Gender differences Schmidt (1983) Requests Spontaneous L2 pragmatic development Sachs (1987) Directives Spontaneous (Pretend play) Gender differences Bardovi Harlig & Hartford (1990) Suggestions; requests for advice Spontaneous (Recording ) NS NNS comparison Ellis (1992) Requests Spontaneous (Participant observation) L2 pragmatic development Bardovi Harlig & Hartford (1993) Suggestions; rejections Spontaneous (Recording) L2 pragmatic development
57 Table 1 2. Rules for directive speech a cts Question Advise (Suggestion) Request Command Propositional content Any proposition Future act A of H Future act A of H Future act A of H Preparatory condition 1. S does not know the answer. 2. It is not obvious to S and H that H will provide the in formation at the time without being asked. 1. H has some reason to believe A will benefit H. 2. It is not obvious to S and H that H will do A. 1. (S believes) H is able to do A. 2. It is not obvious to S and H that H will do A. 1. (S believes) H is able to do A 2. It is not obvious to S and H that H will do 3. S must be in a position of authority over H. Sincerity condition S wants this information. S believes A will benefit H. S wants H to do A. S wants H to do A. Essential condition An attempt to el icit information from H An undertaking to the effect that A is in An attempt to get H to do A An attempt to get H to do A in virtue of the authority of S over H Adapted from Searle (1969, pp. 66 67).
58 Table 1 3. Inventories of d irectiv e constructions CCSARP* Ervin Tripp (1976) Holmes (1983) Reinhardt (2010) Imperatives Mood derivable Imperatives Base form of V Imperatives You + imperative Present participle form of V Verb ellipsis Imperative + modifier Let + fi rst person pronoun Interrogatives Query preparatory Imbedded imperatives Modals Suggestory formulae Question directives Non modal interrogatives Permission directives Declaratives (Hedged) performatives Directive vocabulary Want statements Need statements Embedded agent Obligation statements (Periphrastic) modal Strong hints Hints Hints Mild hints Request strategy types developed for CCSARP (Blum Kulka et al. 1989).
59 CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY For studying spoken discourse, such speech in the present study, many methodological possibilities exist. For example, Schiffrin (1994) introduces four methodological approaches to discourse analysis, which are conversation analysis (CA), ethnography of c ommunication (EC), interactional sociolinguistics (IS), and variation analysis. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages, given the particular domain of interaction and the research questions posed (see also Boxer 2002 a, 200 4 for summary of each ) Some researchers adhere to one approach conducting one study (e.g., Schegloff & Sacks, 1973 [ CA ] ; Boxer, 2002 a [ EC ] ; Davi e s, 2003 [ IS ] ), while others combine elements from different approaches (e.g., Garca 1989 ; Takahashi & DuFon, 1989; Waring & Hruska, 2012 ) T he present study takes a mixed methodological approach as explained below T he idea of detailed transcription in CA and IS is useful in the present study although it is neither a CA no r IS study in the strict sense In CA and sometimes IS researc h s utterances are transcribed thoroughly along with paralinguistic and contextual information which is often not the case in the speech act research Rich context such as description of the situation or interlocutor gestures given in the trans cripts contributes to more accurate token selection because a certain utterance can be a directive in one situation, but not in others In addition, a qualitative approach to data (e.g., detailed description of the data; focus on particularities of certain language behavior ) used in CA and IS is beneficial to prov ision of detailed descriptions of participant speech behaviors Thus, the present study focuses on the details relevant to directive language in transcribing and analyzing data.
60 However, CA or IS which approaches data qualitatively is not fully satisfactory in achieving my research goal s to examine general patterns of teaching assistants (TAs) directive usage and to find similarities and/or differences between the groups ( i.e., female vs. male TA s and native vs. Korean TAs ). Accordingly, the present study employs quantitative data analysis in addition to qualitative analysis In order to provide a general picture of directive language usage by each TA group the present study use s descriptive stat istics, such as frequency and average percentage As for group comparisons, the present study employs the chi square test 1 An e thnographic approach in IS and EC is relevant to the p resent study as well Unlike CA, social/contextual factors and cultural k nowledge are regarded important to language behaviors in IS and EC I also believe that it is necessary to relate speakers believe) to their speech to investigate their language usage A s a n interview is one of the effective tool s to collect speaker of certain speech event s given situation s or behavior s (Kasper & Rose, 2002) the present study utilizes stimulated retrospective interviews to tap into speakers thoughts related to their language choices Data Collection There are three sets of data investigated in the present study : directives used by native speak er teaching assistants (NSTAs) 2 directives used by Korean teaching 1 It was impossible to run this statistical test for all comparisons because the tokens in certain data sets were too small for the test. 2 NSTAs are those who were identif ied as graduate student instructors whose native language is American English in the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (Simpson et al., 2002).
61 assistants (KTAs) 3 an d KTAs retrospective account s collected from the interviews D ata sources and data gathering procedures of each data set are presented in following sub section s NSTA Data The source of the NSTA data, which was used as baseline data in the present study, was the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) (Simpson et al. 2002). Development of this corpus was started in 1997 and completed in 2002 at the University of Michigan and yielded 152 transcripts of wide ranging academic speech events. The s peech events in this corpus are divided into two types, classroom events (e.g., lectures labs student presentation s) in varied academic divisions Humanities and Arts, Social Sciences, Biological and Health Sciences, and Physical Sciences and non classroo m events such as tutorials, office hours, and study groups. In MICASE, one can access academic spoken English of people in different academic roles such as faculty, graduate students, researchers, undergraduates, staff, and post doctoral fellows. In additi language status, and age group 4 is available. The length of recording of speech events in MICASE varies, from 30 to 100 minutes approximately. In order to maximize comparability with the KTA data a limite d number of transcripts were selected from MICASE for NSTA data Among 152 transcripts available in total the most comparable ones to KTA s teaching session s were chosen ; that is, only teaching sessions directed to native speaker undergraduate students wh ich were 3 KTAs are native speakers of Korean who were graduate students in the University of Florida at the time of recording. 4 Age groups, in this corpus, were divided into four: 17 23, 24 30, 31 50, 51 and older.
62 instructed by graduate students whose native language was identified as American English formed the NSTA data. As a result, eleven transcripts of the teac hing sessions taught by 12 NSTAs 5 (6 female and 6 male) were obtained from MICASE As shown i n Table 2 1, four types of speech event s student presentation, lecture, lab, and discussion section were found in the NSTA data. KTA Data The source of the KTA data was videotaped teaching sessions stored in a database of the Academic Spoken English (ASE) program, which was developed to train international teaching assistants (ITAs), at the University of Florida (UF). In this institution, international graduate students must demonstrate whether their English oral proficiency is at the design ate d level deem ed appropriate to teach in the U.S. classroom. Those who score 55 or higher out of 60 on the SPEAK test (which is equivalent to 28 or higher on the TOEFL IBT speaking portion) are allowed to teach without restriction. However, international students whose test score ranges from 45 to 50 on the SPEAK (23 27 on the TOEFL IBT) can be appointed to a teaching position with restriction: they are required to take the EAP 5836 course in ASE. According to the information provided in the ASE official webpage 6 EAP 58 36 is a 3 credit course designed to help ITAs to be successful in their teaching duties by providing lessons on pedagogical issues (e.g., how to organize information how to lead a discussion) as well as on linguistic issues (e.g., pronunciation) and cultu ral elements (e.g., American values cross cultural awareness). In addition, ASE offers each ITA one on one conference (s) on their 5 One session was run by two graduate students (NSTA 1 and 2 in Table 2 1). 6 http://ase.ufl.edu/syllabi 2.html
63 teaching performance: ASE instructors observe at least one class of each ITA, video tape their teaching and provide them wit h feedback on their language issues as well as on their teaching skills if any On average, three teaching videos per person 7 are recorded in this 15 week course. The length of each video varies, from 15 m inutes to an hour approximately. All t he ITA tea ching videos were saved in mp4 format and stored in the ASE database. collected from Spring 2011 to Fall 2012. With help from the ASE, I was able to access contact information of KTAs who were enrolled in the EAP5836 course betwe en Spring 2009 and Fall 2012. In addition, I contacted representatives of the Korean Student Association at UF in order to obtain contact information of other KTAs who had taken the same course prior to Spring 2009. I contacted a total of 38 KTA s by e mail and 22 KTAs ( 8 female and 14 male ) consented to my access to their teaching videos in ASE. Basic demographic information such as age and length of residence (LOR) in English speaking countries which was presented in Table 2 2 was collected when I met t hem to get their signature on the consent form (see Appendix A) All of them were born in Korea, had their first English education in 2. The ir age at the time of recordi ng ranged from 26 to 3 9 years old ( mean age 30.81) Eight KTAs had teaching experience in Korea prior to teaching at this institution. As for the speech event, three types were found in the KTA data: lab, lecture, and discussion section. 7 According to the ASE coordinator, the number of recordings varies from one to six depending upon the number of students enrolled in a semester.
64 Since more than on e recording was made for each KTA, a total of 56 teaching videos (1907 minute s) were transcribed. I watched each video repeatedly and transcribed the spoken data as it was in Word document using regular spelling. For each KTA, one transcript was created re gardless of the number of videos located in the data. T o ensure c omparability between the two data sets (i.e., KTA transcripts and NSTA transcripts), MICASE transcription convention was employed ; for the sake of convenience however, a simplified version ( see Appendix B) was used because not every item of the MICASE convention was necessary for studying KTAs directives. I n each transcript the KTA w as identified as T Following the speaker identification symbol T I transcribed all the utterances of K TAs. Although the unit of analysis was directive language, all of K TAs utterances were transcribed to provide context which might be useful for token selection and data analysis later on In addition, non linguistic information such as KTA gestures mo vements and activities that were related to their directive language was transcribed for the same reason However, other information such as suprasegmental features gaze, overlaps, and so forth w as not transcribed because of it not being the focus of th e present study. When transcribing utterances, students were all indicated as S since speaker identification was not necessary for the purpose of the analysis utterances were roughly transcribed because the target of the analysis wa s teachers directives wearing microphone for example also precluded detailed transcription of their utterances. For these reasons a great deal of their speech was written as (x x ) in the transcripts However, when it was language
65 speech and ac tions which were associated to K TAs directive language were transcribed in detail to describe relevant context. Interview Data with KTAs In order t o triangulate the KTA data, I planned one on one interview s with the KTAs. These i nterviews were conducted in their first language (i.e., Korean ) i n order to minimize any difficulties in verbalizing their thoughts ( Kasper & Rose 2002). I c ontacted all of 21 KTA for this retrospective interview but only nine KTAs agreed to participate in the interview 8 On average, the interview took 58 minutes. Each interview consisted of two parts On the one hand, a number of questions regarding the foll owing topics were asked to everyone. Familiarity with s peech event (prior teaching experience) Feelings/concerns before teaching Familia rity with the ITA problem Teaching philosophy Power issues in class es or lab sessions Evaluation from their students TA t raining session ( s ) On the other hand, some of the questions were personalized with regard to the directives they used. I selected several directive tokens from the transcript and asked the KTAs to explain why they used a particular expression in a certa in situation while showing them the segments and transcript of their teaching videos The directive tokens selected for the interview were relevant to the findings of data analysis or unique to the interviewee Each interview was audio recorded and roughly transcribed for analysis 8 Although this interview was planned from the beginning of the project, I did not inform the KTAs of this interview when I first contacted them for their consent on my access to their teaching videos. Instead, I sent a separate informed consent form (see Appendix C) later to ask whether they were willing to participate in the interview. This was because I felt that fewer KTAs would allow me to access their teaching videos if they were asked to participate in the interview on their teaching videos.
66 Data Analysis T his section describes the procedures of data analysis, detailing how the directive token s produced by the NSTAs and KTAs were selected, identified, coded and analyzed It also discusses how the interview data was h andled for analy sis NSTA and KTA Data For analysis of directive usage patterns t he NSTA and KTA data w as processed in the same manner ; directive tokens were selected first and each token was identified with the construction type and coded accordingly. Then the directive tokens were tallied and quantified in percentage with regard to the construction type in order to find general patterns and compare them between groups E ach step is described in detail below Token s election Directive token selection wa s conducted following the definition esta blished in the previous chapter utterances produced to prompt students action, excluding the ones issued to elicit information from the student s In addition, served as a basis for token se lection As it was discussed in the previous chapter t hree conditions should be met for an utterance to be labeled as directives which are illocutionary point, direction of fit between words and the world, and expressed psychological state. First, illocu tionary point (i.e., purpose of an utterance) of directives particular action For example, when A says g et out of here disappear from A s view. Second, directive language has world to word direction of fit since its purpose is to get the world (i.e., action) to match the words In the case of the g example, world has to be changed, that is
67 vie w is expected, to comply what has been uttered 9 Last ly the sp state is want The exemplified utterance g can be identified as a directive only if the speaker wants the hearer to exit the place in which they are. How ever, the same utterance should not be selected as a directive if it conveys ironic In this case, the speaker does not attempt to the hearer to get out. Moreover, speake want If any of these three conditions were violated, utterances were not regarded as directives in the present study In spite of the criteria mentioned above, it was not always straightforward to select directive s from the data as Dalton Puffer and Nikula (2006) point ed out In the following E xcerpt (1) for example, KTA 10 was explai ning a stage of reporting to the class of advertising research Excerpt ( 1 ). From KTA 10 s lecture T: < T MOVES ON TO THE NE XT SLIDE > the last stage of repor ting so here again see the big picture see the forest, not tree u se theme s and meta theme s to demonstrate your findings and just focus on meaningful findings If his intention was only to provide explanation to his students, his utterances such as see the big picture and use themes and meta themes in Excerpt (1) above should not be considered as directives. However, it seemed that he wanted his students to see the big picture, use meta themes, and focus on meaningful findings while carrying out thei r own research 10 This kind of directive was comparatively frequent in KTAs speech 9 On the other hand, assertives such as statements have word to world direction of fit because speakers shoul d match his or her words to represent the world according to Searle (1976). 10 Actually, in the retrospective interview, he reported that the main purpose of the above utterances was to explain the stage, although he admitted that he had intention of dire ctive to some extent.
68 in which they demonstrated how to use a certain program or solved questions on the board. Since the illocutionary point of those utterances was more explaining than directin g th ese kind s of utterances w ere excluded from token selection. In addition, w hen u tterances were in interrogative or declarative forms it was more difficult to determine whether they were directives or not. For example, it was not clear whether teachers questions starting with (d o you) remember w ere just asking if their students could remember something they had talked about or they actually want ed their students t o recall it 11 Since it was impossible to check every ambiguous token with each TA ambig uous utterances were not counted as directive language Another challenging case was found in the declaratives which were not accompanied with directive vocabulary or modal (i.e., hints). Accordingly, s tudents reaction and other contextual information wer e crucial in token selection. When selecting directive tokens from the NSTA data, I read the preexisting transcripts and highlight ed the utterances which matched the definition and the conditions addressed above On the other hand, directive tokens produce d by KTAs were selected in the same way while transcribing their teaching videos Since audio visual information was useful to determine whether an utterance was directive language or not, I did not separate token selection from transcription. In order to ensure reliability of token selection, I ha d another person engage in token selection who I address as the second coder in the rest of this dissertation The second coder was a 21 year old female American when she joined in the project She was an underg raduate student in Linguistics at the time of working on token selection. 11 KTAs had different purposes issuing this particular interrogative; for example, KTA 15 said she intended to get her students recall what they had talked about, but KTA 14 said it was just a question.
69 She was provided with 11 NSTA transcripts and 2 2 KTA transcripts and told to examine all the transcripts closely and highlight directive language. Before she began token selection, I explained the transcription convention and the token selection criteria (i.e., the operational definition of directives for the present study and Searle s conditions mentioned above ) to her When she finished token selection, w e met to compare each other s work. We went over what we selected one by one and confirmed them as directives for the tokens that both of us highlighted. When we encounter ed discrepancies however, we discussed why she or I did (not) select particular tokens Most of the discrepancie s were due to her not having access to KTAs teaching videos. Although I tried to transcribe them as detailed as possible, it sometimes turned out to be limited for her to obtain sufficient contextual information. A few discrepancies were mainly due to car elessness ; she or I simply missed tokens For the majority of the discrepancies, w e easily reached mutual agreement and redid token selection together However, we had a few tokens on w hich we were in disagreement Those were mostly in unclear situations s o that it was not easy to determine whether they were real directives or not Hence, those tokens upon which we failed to reach agreement after meetings were excluded from the analysis. Token i dentification and c oding Token identification was carried out a long with token selection ; two coders individually worked on token selection and identif ied the selected tokens with the construction type at the same time. We used an inventory of directive construction types (see Table 2 3) adapt ed from the classificatio ns used in a number of studies (e.g.,
70 Holmes 1983 ; Reinhardt 2010) after a preliminary token identification procedure 12 As shown in Table 2 3, it is very similar to Holme c ategorization introduced in the previous chapter in that there are three big cat egories (i.e., imperatives, interrogatives, and declaratives ) and that t he same construction types are taken from Holmes for the imperative s and interrogative categorie s However, I altered the declarative category since what Holmes proposed in th is particular category was unsatisfactory as follows First the construction type embedded agent (e.g., I want you to draw a picture usually the required activity are expressed explicitly in an embe dded or subordinate clause 105) fail ed to embrace what Ervin Tripp (1976) categorized as need/want statement s which are in a single clause such as I need a match or I want your lab report Thus, I replaced embedded agent with want/need statements which can embrace the tw o Second, Holmes s inventory lacks what Reinhardt (2010) call s directive vocabulary (e.g., I suggest ) and modal or periphrastic modal (e.g., you can/should ), which were found in the pilot analysis Therefore, the se two types were included in the declarative category. To reiterate, the declarative construction category was subdivided into four types in the present study : want/need statements, hints, (periphrastic) modal s and d irective vocabulary. In anticipation of the direct ive tokens which could not be identified with cons truction types in Table 2 3 we agreed to label them as O thers Reliability of construction type identification was 0.96 We discussed each case of disc repancy to establish mutual agreement. 12 I carried out a pi lot analysis with one MICASE and four KTA transcripts.
71 After token s election and identification, I generated a se parate Excel file for individual TAs to code the selected directives Each token was inserted in ea ch row with a construction type and other details, if an y, such as modal verb, mitigati on devices, or directive vocabulary. For the purpose of analysis in the present study, directive language in a complete idea was counted as one token. I f any directive token failed to convey a complete idea it was excluded. As for repet it ion when the same directive tokens were produced sequentially it was just considered as one token. For token identification and coding simplified labels were used for each construction type combining abbreviation of the construction category and the number indicated in Table 2 3. For example, the first construction type base form of verb in the imperative category and the second construction type non modal question in the interrogative category were marked as Im1 and Q 2 respectively 13 A nalysis Data analysis began with examining the types of directive construction located in the NSTA and KTA data. I checked whether the construction types in the inventory established for the purpo se of the present study (Table 2 3) would cover all the tokens in the data. Then, I looked into purposes of direc tives yielding a categorization of situations in which directive tokens were issued. This was not originally planned, but I realized the necessity of classifying the directive tokens into different purposes because illocutionary force of certain tokens wa s stronger than the others. For example, teachers directives related to the course requirements (e.g., y ou have to submit the lab report today ) were stronger than the ones which were unrelated to the required tasks (e.g., 13 More informative labels were used for reporting and discussing the results in the following chapters.
72 p lease turn the light off ). F or this reason it seemed inappropriate to examine their directive construction choices without considering the purpose of each directive token Therefore, I went over all the selected directive tokens in the NSTA and KTA data and divide them into several situations 14 which allowed me to co me up with three types of directives : commanding, reques ting, and suggesting directives. The second coder and I then identified the type of directives for each directive token. Reliability of directive type identification was 0.91. We discussed each token which we didn t agree upon in order to reach an agreement. In order to provide descriptive statistics of TAs directive usage I counted the number of selected d irective tokens produced by each TA. Then I calculated a p ercentage of each construction type used by each TA for each situation. For each TA group, a general picture of directive usage patterns was examined by calculating the average percentage of each construction type followed by an analysis of directive usag e patterns on an individual level After that, I took a closer look at directive token s used by each TA to look at the type of mitigation devices modal verb s, directive vocabulary, and any other peculiar cases As a last step of data analysis, I performed group compar isons between female and male TAs in each group and between the NSTA and KTA group in terms of their preferences for directive construction type s, modal verbs choices, and mitigation strategies Interview Data Transcribed interviews were organ ized by questions (e.g., w hy did you use X here? or w hat do you think the role of a teacher is? ) I first gathered 14 Details are discussed in the next chapter with examples.
73 in separate file s for each question. Then I picked out similarities and /or differences in their answers to each question This chapter has discussed why the present st udy ta k e s a mixed methodological approach (i.e., quantitative and qualitative data analysis with ethnographic/retrospective interviews to triangulate the data). It has also described the detailed procedures of data collection and data analysis. The results of data analysis are presented in the following two chapters: analysis of NSTAs and KTAs directive language in Chapter 3 and analysis of retro spective interviews in Chapter 4
74 Table 2 1. NSTA data No. Sp eech event & Course Recording duration Age group Gender 1 Student presentation : Chemistry 51 min 31 50 F 2 Student presentation : Chemistry 51 min 17 23 M 3 Student presentation : Multicultural issues in Education 72 min 17 23 M 4 Lecture : Archeology of modern American life 73 min 31 50 F 5 Lab : Statistics 47 min 17 23 M 6 Lab : Cognitive Psychology 82 min 24 30 M 7 Lab : Biopsychology 52 min 24 30 M 8 Discussion : Intro Astronomy 33 min 17 23 F 9 Discussion : Intro to American politics 55 min 17 23 F 10 Discussion : Heat and mass transfer 48 min 17 23 M 11 Discussion : Intro to Anthropology 51 min 24 30 F 12 Discussion : Philosophy 51 min 24 30 F NSTA 1 and 2 were co teaching in one session
75 Table 2 2. KTA data No Speech event & Course No. of video Recording duration Age Gender LOR Teaching Exp. 1 Lab : Physics 4 107 min 26 M 1 < 1 yr 2 Lab : Physics 3 100 min 26 M 3< None 3 Lab : Physics 3 69 min 33 F 1 < 2 yr 4 Lab : Chemistry 3 103 min 26 F 1 > 1 yr 5 Lab : Chemistry 3 62 min 26 F 1 > 2 yr 6 Lab : Chemistry 3 58 min 27 F 1< None 7 Lab : Chemistry 3 75 min 35 M 1< None 8 Lab : Anatomy 1 20 min 29 M 2< None 9 Lab : Anatomy 2 57 min 31 M 3< None 1 0 Lecture : Advertising Research 3 116 min 29 M 3< None 11 Lecture : Principles of Sociology 3 106 min 39 M 4< None 12 Lecture : Problem Solving Using Computer Software 2 63 min 30 M 4< None 1 3 Lecture : Housing & Urban Development 2 66 min 34 M 3< None 1 4 Lecture : Argument & Persuasion (Writing Program) 3 126 min 27 F 1> None
76 Table 2 2. Continued No Speech event & Course No. of video Recording D uration Age Gender LOR Teaching Exp. 1 5 Lecture : Foundation of Language & Culture 3 126 min 36 F 3< 10 yr 1 16 Discussion : Architectur al Theory 3 159 min 34 M 1< None 1 7 Discussion : Environmental Techn ology 2 77 min 30 M 1 > 6 mon 1 8 Discussion : Programming for CIS 1 37 min 32 M 4< None 19 Discussion : Application of Discrete Structures 2 89 min 38 M 4< 1 yr 20 Discussion : Application of Discrete S tructures 2 66 min 31 M 3< 2 yr 21 Discussion : Contemp orary Moral Issue 3 142 min 30 F 1> None 22 Discussion : Precalculus 2 83 min 29 F N/A None 1 > (less than one year of residence in English speaking countries ); 1 < (1 2 years); 2< (2 3 years); 3< (3 4 years); 4< (more than 4 years ) ; N/A (information not available) 1 Unlike other KTAs who had teaching e xperience in a university setting in Korea, KTA 11 s teaching experience was acquired in an elementary school context
77 Table 2 3 Directive construction types Imperatives (Im) Interrogatives ( Q ) Declaratives (D) 1. Base form of verb ( peak louder ) 2. You + imperative ( Y ou go on with your work ) 3. Present participle form of verb ( L ooking at me ) 4. Ve rb ellipsis ( H ands up ) 5. Imperative + modifier ** ( T urn around please ) 6 ( L ) 1. Modal Q s ( C an you read what it says for me? ) 2. Non modal Q s ( W ho can I see sitting quietly? ) 1. Want /need statement s ( I want (you to do)/nee d X ) 2. Hints ( Sally yo re not saying much ) 3 ( P eriphrastic) m odals ( Y ou can/ should ) 4. Directive vocabulary ( I suggest/recommend/ask ; You re required to do X ) Note. Examples in the parentheses were from Holmes (1983) and Reinha rdt (2010). Rev ised to subject + imperative (see Chapter 3) ** Excluded from the imperative category, but examined separately (see Chapter 3)
78 CHAPTER 3 ANALYSIS OF DIRECTIVE TOKENS The results of data analys i s o n directive usage by the Korean TAs (KTAs) and the native speaker TAs ( NSTA s) are presented in the following order First, it enumerates the types of directive construction s located in the KTA and NSTA data. Second, it addresses the types of directive s categorized in the present study by di scussing the situations in which the directive tokens were issued (i.e., the purpose of directive language) Third, it describes the patterns of directive usage found in the baseline data ( i.e., the NS TA data) by looking at their choices for directive cons tructions and mitigation strategies and by conducting gender comparison s on them Lastly it reports on KTAs directive usage in the same manner in c omparison to the patterns found in the NSTA data Types of Directive Construction Found All of the imperat ive constructions listed in the inventory (Table 2 3) established in the previous chapter were found in the data. F irst, the base form of verb imperative form (hereafter I m B) as in the example of p ut them in the appropriate envelope was commonly found in the data Negative forms such as d were also located 1 Second, the you + imperative type (e.g., y ou just pull it out ) was found in the data as well but needed to be changed to subject + imperative (hereafter Im Sub) since the NST As and KTAs not only used the second person pronoun subject you but also other subject s such as everybody somebody and you guys Third and fourth imperative construction types, present participle form of verb (hereafter Im Ing) as in 1 Negative forms were not counted separately in the present study, but were treated equally with affirmative forms.
79 w orking with your partner and verb ellipsis (hereafter Im Ell) as in u nit please ( meaning the teacher wanted the student to write a unit in his lab report) were found in the data, but seldom Fifth, the imperative + modifier type w as found in the data as we ll (e.g., j ust find these muscles in your model please ) but it was excluded from the inv entory for the following reason One of the modifiers Holmes (1983) discussed in her categorization was please ; h owever, this particular modifier was not only used with imperative directives but also with interrogative s (e.g., w ill you please pass in your lab? ) and declarative s (e.g., I wish you guys read this book carefully please ) Thus, I took this imperative + modifier type out from the inventory and analyz ed NSTAs and KTAs use of modifiers separately instead. The last imperative type let ( hereafter as Im Let ) was also located in the data ( e.g., l et s take a look at this table ) Unlike the imperative category, no change was necessary for the interr ogative and declarative categor ies Regarding the former, both construction types in th e inventory modal interrogative (hereafter Q M) and non modal interrogative (hereafter Q NM) were found in the NSTA and KTA data. The NSTAs and KTAs used modal verbs such as wil l would can could and may for the Q M construction (e.g., c an you get it to me by the end of the day today? ) and expressions like w hy don t you and h ow about for the Q NM type (e.g., w hy don't we take a five minute brea k? ) in order to ask their students to do something A ll of the four declarative construction types listed in the inventory were located in the data as well The typical pattern o f w ant/need statement s (hereafter D W) was first person subject ( mostly the speaker ) + V erb (e.g., want need like hope wish and expect ) + clause/noun as in I d like you guys to get into groups of three or
80 four and I need your draft design by tomorrow The second declarative type hint s (hereafter D H) was a lso found in the data Some examples were t hese go in the discard parts right here (meaning that the teacher wante d the students to put some objects in the designated place) and (meaning that the teacher wanted the student to speak lou der). As shown in the examples, requested action was not explicitly expresse d, but needed to be inferred by the student s. Third, the declarative construction using ( periphrastic) modals (hereafter D M) was found in the following pattern: subject (mostly th e listener) + modals or periphrastic modals + V erb A wide range of (p eriphrastic) modals were employed for D M : can could will be going to (gonna) want to (wanna) need to have to should must gotta be supposed to might ( had ) better and be better off The last type directive vocabulary (hereafter D V) was realized in the subject (mostly the speaker) + Verb (e.g., suggest recommend ask encourage ) + clause/noun structure as in D W or with directive adject ives such a s necessary (e.g., i t is necessary to record like this ). However, recall that there existed some tokens which the second coder and I had to identify as Others Some were incomplete or ambiguous due to ellipsis. For example the utterances with rising intonation such as speak up please ? were ambiguous whether they were interrogatives or imperatives Even though we regard them as the former it is still not clear whether they belong to Q M or Q NM because of the omitted element(s) On the other hand, others were complex, using if construction, embedded declarative, and to infinitive The pattern of the first type was if + you + Verb as in if you guys can get into groups and if you guys can hand in your rough drafts As for the second ty pe, D M or D W was embedded to modify noun phrase s (e.g., the
81 thing ) as in that's one caveat you really need to keep in mind and one of the things I definitely want you to see is that the cortex itself T he to infinitive type was used to explain the n o un phrase as a modifier or a subject complement as in the key first thing to do is understand the style of a transcendental argument and your job is to find some confounds A few other tokens were realized in comparative /superlative construction (e.g., it's faster to just point to a door ) or with phrases such as welcome to or free to (e.g., you guys are welcome to come to this to talk about the other part ) Types of Directive Found Although directives, in general, are issued when a teacher (T) wa nts his or her students (Ss) to do something in class they can be sub divided by intention, i.e., the purpose of directive language In the NSTA and KTA data, directives were issued in the following eight situations. The examples in the pare nthes e s were selected from the data. 1. T orders Ss (not) to do particular actions related to the lecture or experiment at the time of speaking (e.g., turn to page one hundred and twelve ; you have to choose the narrow beam ). 2. T commands Ss to remember, und erstand, assume, or think about something associated to the lecture or experiment (e.g., confound ; you need to memorize all these simple equivalencies ) 3. T directs Ss (not) to do something regarding upcoming course re quirements or class procedures/policies (e.g., submit the digital version by midnight of the same day ; have a valid excuse ). 4. T requests Ss to do particular action which is not directly related to the lecture or the experiment (e.g., keep passing aroun d the candy please ; can you turn it off? ). 5. T asks Ss to participate in class (e.g., put it together for me Amy ; could anybody come to the front and solve the problem on the board? ).
82 6. T suggests Ss to do something for their own benefit (e.g., you can come talk to ; if you have time, just go to any website to check out APA style ). 7. T desires Ss to draw their attention to a certain topic or task (e.g., let s go over this exam ; ). 8. T tells Ss not to worry about something (e.g., ; you don't have to be that precise ). Directives performed in S ituation 1 were used as command s ; that is, the TAs wanted their stud ents to follow the orders given. As what the TAs asked their s tudents to do was related to the task at hand (e.g., what to do, with whom, and how), compliance was generally expected Otherwise, disadvantages such as low grade due were generally required right after the directives were uttered (or within the class or lab hour), so the instructors could tell whether the students followed the directives or not. Thus, force of TAs attempt to get the students do something in S ituation 1 could be regarded as strong D irective s produced in S ituation 2 served as command s as well. The TAs ordered the students to keep in mind, think or memorize something, which would help them understand the topic complete the task given or prepare for their course requirements Thus, the context of S ituation 2 was usually the case where the TA s provided their students with explanation regarding the target concepts of the class or experiment The difference between S ituation 1 and 2 lie s in the fact that it was not obvious whether the students complied with teachers directives in S ituation 2 because what the teacher asked such as thinking or remembering was not observable In other words, what w ere requested in S ituation 1 were concrete actions while wh at w ere requested in S ituation 2 were mental or cognitive action s However the force of TAs
83 attempt to direct the students to do these action s in S ituation 2 was as strong as the one in S ituation 1 because they were directly related to what they were lea rning and doing in class In the same vein, directives issued in S ituation 3 were used as commands. T he TAs instructed what the students should do for the exams, quizzes, projects, or homework. Or the y gave the students directions on the course policies or schedules such as when and how to submit their assignments What makes S ituation 3 different from S ituation 1 is that no immediate action was required because the instructors were usually talking about the actions which should be done in the near future However, s imilar to S ituation 1 and 2 force of directive attempt in S ituation 3 was strong because they were relevant to and disadvantages would follow in case of noncompliance In contrast, force of the attempt to get the students to do something in S ituation 4 was not as strong as the one found in the previous three situations Since t he directives issued i n S ituation 4 obligations in class these were more like requests than commands. In this situati on, the TAs requested their students to do something for them (e.g., passing candy around ), which was not directly related to For instance, NSTA 4 told her students to remind her to pass around a sign up sheet for their upco ming project after break. In this particular order not to forg e t to pass it around. This directive token was not issued as an order duty to remind her of it. Rather, it was u sed to ask for cooperation. Thus, force of her attempt could be regarded not as strong as the case in S ituation s 1 3 I n case of
84 noncompliance students might not have an immediate disadvantage such as a low grade, but they are likely to be judge d negatively by their teacher, which in turn might negatively affect their relationship. As was the case with S ituation 4, d irective s uttered in S ituation 5 were used as requests requests for participation in particular. The TAs wanted their students to p articipate in class by expressing their own opinions Although it is understood that instructors automatically have in every class. Instead, they have to do somethin g t o encourage their participation directive language is one strategy teachers employ Students know that they would have relatively minor disadvantages for not speaking up as long as they show a teacher that they are paying attention to the lecture and ca rry other orders out. For these reasons, directives uttered in S ituation 5 were not as strong as those found in S ituation s 1 3 in terms of force of the attempt Directives issued in S ituation 6 can be classified as suggestions. In most of the cases, the TA s supposed hypothetical situations implying that what was being asked wa s not required for everybody to do ; i.e., what was directed to do was not a must. In other words, it was up to the students whether to follow it and they would not receive negative e valuation from the teacher in case of noncompliance However, it seemed that teachers used this type of directive because compliance would be believed to help force of the attempt can be regarded quite weak Directive language spoken in S ituation 7 was frequently used in the beginning of the class or in the shift from one topic to another. It seemed that w hat the TAs wanted
85 their students to do was draw their attention to the topic introduced. However, what their students were supposed to do was not specified in the directive tokens. For example, when NSTA 5 said do a homework problem it was not clear whether he wanted his students to stop what they were doing, loo k at certain parts of the textbook, or take out what they had prepared for the question. It could be regarded as a directive if the students were supposed to bring the hard copy of their homework problem to the class and the teacher wanted them to check w hether their answer was correct whenever they did the homework problem together in class. However, this kind of information was not available to us For this reason, we did not count the directive tokens issued in S ituation 7 as true directives. While in the imperative form on the surface, directive language uttered in S ituation 8 was used as an anxiety lowering device rather than a command. What the TAs told their students w as not to worry about some task primary intention was assumed t o be lightening the workload of the task given, which would help their students feel less stressed about their study Therefore, we excluded the tokens produced in S ituation 8 from the analysis Taken altogether I divided t he directive tokens issued by t he NSTAs and KTAs in S ituations 1 6 into three categories of directive types with regard to force of the attempt : Commanding Directive ( C D) Requesting Directive (RD), and Suggesting Directive ( S D). The directives issued in S ituations 1 3 fall into C D of which force is the strongest among the three categories In this case, w hat the teachers want ed their students to do wa s procedural, obligatory, related to the course requirements, and required for/relevant to the task at hand As for RD which inclu des the directives issued
86 in S ituations 4 5 the requested action seemed necessary (although it wa s not Ss obligation) for the teachers to successfully manage class and assistance). As RD is far from student duty related t o their academic performance or procedural activities, it is more face threatening than CD. The directives used in S ituation 6 belong to SD the force of which is the least strong. What the teachers wanted their students to do was not required, but recomme nded ; that is, the students were given options. Accordingly, SD is less face threatening than CD or RD. Based on the construction types and the directive types discussed so far, I describe the patterns of NSTAs and KTAs directive usage in the following s ections. Directive Usage by NS TAs Distribution of Directive Tokens A total of 2 66 directive tokens were located in the NS TA data. As indicated in Table 3 1, the number of the directive utterances issued in each NSTA ranged from four to 56 Due to the differences in recording duration of the class they were teaching, however, it is inappropriate to determine who used directive language the most or the least by comparing the raw frequency Thus, for each NSTA, the total number of the directive token s that each NS TA produced w as divided by the recording time, which in turn yielded an average number that each would issue directives in 10 minutes as shown in Table 3 1. NSTA 7 used directive language the most (1 0 tokens per 10 minutes) followed by NSTA 5 (9 tokens per 10 minutes) and NSTA 1 and 8 (8 tokens per 10 minutes each ) They were teaching different types of class : the laboratory session s ( NSTA 5 and 7 ), student presentation section ( NSTA 1 ) and discussion section ( NSTA 8 ) On the other hand, th e least amount of directive tokens was found in NSTA 9 and 3 (1 token per 10
87 minutes each). NSTA 9 was teaching a discussion section, and NSTA 3 was in charge of a student presentation session Table 3 1 also shows t he number and the percentage of directi ve construction type s that each NSTA utilized Overall, the construction category which NSTAs preferred to use for directive language was i mperatives followed by d eclaratives and i nterrogatives ; the average percentage s of each construction used by the NS T A group were 54%, 31% and 5%, respectively Im B (base form of verb imperative ), D M (modal declarative ), and Q M (modal interrogative ) were the most frequently used form in each construction category. The NST A group used deviated forms (i.e., Others) 10 % of the time on average. Among 266 directive tokens, commanding directive (CD) tokens took up the majority (80% of the total directive tokens ) f ollowed by suggesting directive (SD) (13%) and requesting directive (RD) (7%) The ir predominant production of CD was found on an individual lev el as well, as shown in Figure 3 1; all NSTAs except for NSTA 9 2 predominantly produced CD tokens while performing their teaching duties. In order to offer a more accurate picture of NSTAs di rective usage, their directive language behavior of CD, RD, and SD are explained separately in the following sub sections 3 Commanding directives As summarized in Table 3 2, a ll NSTAs, except for NSTA 9, issued CD (i.e., directives to command their studen ts to do something ) On average, t he NSTAs 2 NSTA 9 was teaching a discussion section (Introduction to American Politics) and used directive language mainly to encourage her students to participate in class discussion. 3 As CD tokens comprised a great majority of the NSTA data, data analys i s mainly focus ed on this set of data. As a result, data analysis of RD and SD tokens may be limited.
88 employed the imperative construction category 5 6 % of the time which was used by all 11 NSTAs The next frequently used construction category was d eclarative s (eight NSTAs utilized the declarative construction s 2 2 % of the time on average ), followed by O thers (12%) and interrogatives (2%) The similar pattern was found even on an individu al level ; as we can see from Figure 3 2 ; e xcept for NSTA 3 6 and 8 4 who used the other categories more than or as much as the imp erative category the NSTA group favored the imperative category over the others when issuing CD tokens reliance o n Im B was overwhelming since the average percentage of their Im B use was 75 %. Even on an indiv idual level, Im B was predominantly utilized by all NSTAs with one exception ; NSTA 3 used Im Su b (subject + imperative) only in the imperative category. Im Sub which h e ld the second rank ( 12% ) in the imperative category was only employed by four NSTAs. T hey used Im infrequently ( 5% ) and rarely utilized Im Ing (present participle form of verb) ( less than 1% of the time) As for the declarative constructions the NSTA s showed a preference for D M The average percentage of D M usage held the first ran k ( 47 %) within the declarative category followed by D H ( hint s ) (11%) D W (want/need statement s ) ( 8 %), and D V (directive vocabulary) ( 1 %). On an individual level, out of eight who employed the declarative category, NSTA 3 was the only exception to this general trend here as well who favored D H over D M. When using D M the NSTAs favored the second person subject s such as you (53 % of the time on average) over the first subject such as we (1%), and the third person subjects such as everyone ( 1 2 % ) With regard to their use 4 NSTA 3 was a male TA of a student presentation section, NSTA 6 was a male lab TA, and NSTA 8 a female TA in charge of discussion section.
89 of modal verbs in D M need to should be gonna and can were frequently found in the NSTA data as shown in Figure 3 3 A For the D W construction, the NSTAs used three verbs want need would like and expect Only one D V token with be required w as located in the data The interrogative category was not utilized as much as other construction categories when producing CD Only three NSTAs used it, favoring Q M (modal interrogative) (21% of the time on average ) over Q NM (n on modal interrogative) (4%). T wo modal verbs will and can were used for Q M, and the phrase was used for Q NM in the NSTA data. Other than the construction types listed in the inventory, the NSTAs utilized other forms s uch as if construction ( 22 % of the time on average ) followed by embedded declarative ( 21 %) and to infinitive ( 16 %) Requesting directives The NSTA s produc ed a small number of RD tokens ; o nly 18 tokens were issued by nine NSTAs which accounted for 7% of th e total directive tokens These RD tokens were either in imperative s interrog atives, or declarative s ; that is, no RD tokens were identified as Others. Unlike the case in CD, the NSTAs did not show a ny general preference for a particular construction categ ory. The average percentage of each category used by the NSTA group was similar: 26% for imperatives, 24% for interrogatives, and 25% for declaratives. As shown in Figure 3 4, some NSTAs preferred imperatives while others favored interrogatives or declarat ives which suggests that the re existed greater speaker variability in their choice of directive constructions for RD
90 Looking at the imperative category only, the construction type the NSTAs chose the most was Im B (2 5 % of the time on average ), followed b y Im Sub and Im Ell (4% each). This preference for Im B in the imperative category was observed in CD as well. Neither Im Ing nor Im Let s was utilized for RD tokens. Another similarity between RD and CD was found in the interrogative category ; t he NSTA s e xhibited a strong preference for Q M ; for RD, the NSTAs used Q M only The modals they used for Q M were can could and would However, e of declarative f orms for RD was in contrast to the case of CD tokens D W was selected the most by the NSTAS (25% of the time on average ) which was used 7% of the time for CD tokens The verbs used in this particular construction were need and hope The next frequently used declarative construction was D H (8%) followed by D M (4%) and D V (4%) Sugg esting directives Similar to RD, the number of SD tokens produced by the NSTA group was small. Only 36 tokens (13% of the total directive tokens ) were issued by nine NS TAs Overall, f or this particular type of directive, they used the declarative c ategory the most frequently (31 % of the time on average ) fol lowed by imperatives (25%) and Others (19 %). However, no S D tokens were realized in interrogatives. As was the case in RD, there was speaker v ariability between individuals in their choice of directive c onstructions ; some NSTAs favored the imperative category, but others used the declarative category most of the time (see Figure 3 5 ). B among the five imperative constructions was evident in their production of SD since they did n ot use other imperative forms. The av erage percentage of Im B usage wa s 50% as only a half of the group employed this particular
91 construction type for SD One interesting point to note was that a ll SD tokens in Im B form were followed or preceded by a n ad verbial clause of condition or time (e.g., if you have a question that you don't really need to set up an office hour, just email to me ) Although the NSTAs used Im B with an adverbial clause for CD and RD as well it was rather more sporadic than consis tent Within the declarative category only the average M construction use was the greatest (36 %). Out of seven NSTAs who employed this construction for SD, five NSTAs predominantly used D M. Although this preference for D M in the d eclarative category was also observed in CD tokens the types and the percentage of the modals used were differe nt. When issuing SD tokens, as shown in Figure 3 3B, t he NSTAs used can and want to (wanna) the most frequently In the set of CD tokens th e ir use of want to (wanna) was less frequent In addition, t he modal verbs which were preferred for CD were not used much or at all for S D tokens ; t wo modals be gonna and gotta were not employed at all, and should was used less frequently for SD. declarative forms (D V, D H, and D W) was quite limited for SD tokens The verbs used for D V in this set of directives were suggest and recommend. As for D W the verb want was used. As for Others the NSTAs utilized if construc tion (e.g., if you wanna come up at the end of class ) and embedded declarative (e.g., there's some handouts you wanna get ) which were also found in the set of CD tokens In addition to these, the NSTAs used superlative / comparative construction (e.g., best /easier to do X ) and you are welcome to do X phrase when issuing suggesting directives
92 M itigation and Perspective of Directives O n average the NSTAs mitigated their directive language about 30% of the time. The NSTAs showed difference in their av erage percentage of mitigation with regard to the type of directives ; they mitigated SD the most (43% of the time on average), followed by RD (3 1 % ) and CD tokens (25 % ) As a means of mitigating their directive language, the NSTAs utilized lexical and synta ctic downgraders ( 45 % and 38 % respectively ) or a combination of the two ( 8 %) N arrowing the scope to the CD tokens, they were more likely to use lexical downtoners than syntactic ones (51% vs. 39%). As a lexical mitigator, the N STAs added a politeness mar ker please hedges (e.g., just kind of ), or downtoners (e.g., probably ) to their directive utterances The most frequently employed lexical items were jus t 5 ( 6 5 % ) followed by pleas e ( 17 %). The majority of just was used with Im B (65%) whil e pleas e was used with Im B (55%) and Q M (37 %). For syntactic downgrader s on the other hand, they u tilized past tense such as I was hoping instead of I hope or could/might/would instead of can/may/will The constructions which belong to Others such as if construction, embedded declarative, to infinit i ve and superlativ e/comparative construction were other examples of syntactic downgraders which comprised the majority of syntactic downgraders (83%) they pr edominantly used hearer oriented perspective ( 73 % of the time on average) T he agent of action you was articulated (e.g., can you do X? or you should do X ) or understood (e.g., do X ) The 5 Lee (1987) argues that just can be used to deliver depreciatory restrictive, specificatory and emphatic meaning. The first type is relevant to mitigation as it is used to minimise the significance of some process (p. 378). According to his classification, there are two sub types in the depreciatory just : contrastive (e.g., I don t feel unwell, I just feel seedy ) and non contrastive (e.g., just sit down in the chair ). Only the latter was counted as a lexical mitigation device in the present study.
93 next frequently used perspective was impersonal which were accompanied by neutral agents such as they or it ( 1 7 %), followed by speaker oriented directives with I (6%), and inclusive directives with we or u s in Im ( 4 %). Even looking at CD tokens only the NSTAs showed a similar behavior; they used h earer and impersonal perspective most of the time (66% and 18%, respectively) Gender Comparison Gender differences were s tatistical ly tested only for CD tokens since the size of the RD and SD tokens was small for the statistical test F or their productio n of CD tokens, it appeared that there was no significant relation between gender and the choice of construction category 2 ( df 3 N = 2 13 ) = 1. 41 p = 7 Actually, both fe male and male NS TA groups preferred the imperative category (62% and 50%, re s pectively) mostly Im B, over the other construction categorie s as illustrated in Figure 3 6 of C D tokens, the female and male groups were similar in the ir average percentage of mitigat ion devices used (27% vs. 24%). In addition, gender did not play a significant role in their use of perspective ; both fe male and male NSTAs used hearer perspective the most 2 ( df 3 N = 2 13 ) = 7.32 p = 06 In their production of RD tokens, t he female NSTAs used declarative constructions the most (44% of the time on average), followed by interrogative (31%) and imperative forms (8%) as shown in Figure 3 7. In contrast, the male NSTAs favored imperative constructions (44%) over the interrogative (17%) and declarative forms (6%). Although what Figure 3 7 illustrates seemed to suggest gender difference regard to their use of construction, caution is needed in interpreting this figure due to the small size of the tokens.
94 Third, as for SD tokens the NSTAs exhibited different patterns from RD as shown in Figure 3 8 The female NS TAs used the imperative category the most (36% of the time on average), followed by declarative cate gory (34%) and Others (13%) In contrast, the male NSTAs utilized declarative constructio ns the most (30%), followed by Others (24%) and the imperative category (13%). As for mitigation, the female NSTAs mitigated SD tokens sligh tly more than the male grou p (46% vs. 40%) Regarding the perspective of directive language, no gender difference was found as all the SD tokens were hearer oriented. To sum up, the NSTAs showed different language behaviors depending upon the types of directives. First, w hen their a ttempt to get their students to do something was strong (i.e., CD), they both female and male NSTAs, favored the imperative constructio n form s However, different patterns were observed in their production of RD and SD; NSTAs preference for the imperativ e category decreased with more individual variability in their construction choices Second, the amount of mitigated tokens was influenced by the types of directives; they mitigated more of SD tokens than CD tokens. Third, t heir use of modals for D M also differed between the sets of CD and SD tokens; n eed to and should were used the most for the former while can and want to were preferred for the latter Fourth, no striking gender difference was observed in their production of CD tokens with regard to thei r preference for the construction type. Directive Usage by K TAs Distribution of Directive Tokens A total of 1 0 46 directive tokens were found in the KTA data. Table 3 3 presents the total number and the percentage of the directive tokens realized in each co nstruction type as well as the converted token number that each KTA would issue per
95 ten minutes in class. KTA 1 8 was omitted from Table 3 3 and also from the later analysis because the second coder and I did not locate any directive tokens from his speech. Overall the KTAs who were teaching laboratory sessions tended to produce directive language more than the other K TAs who were teaching lecture based classes or discussion section s As shown in Table 3 3 KTA 2, a physics lab TA issued directive tokens the most ( 1 8 tokens per 10 minutes ) followed by KTA 5 and 7 (12 and 1 1 per 10 minutes, respectively) who were teaching chemistry labs On the other hand, the KTAs in the lecture based or discussion based classes in general, produced fewer directive token s than the lab TAs. For example, KTA 1 0, 11 and 1 3 who were lecturing used the least amount of directive language (1 per 10 minutes each). However, there were exceptions to this trend ; two TAs ( KTA 8 and 9) out of nine lab K TAs, did not issue directives as much as did the other lab TAs ( 4 and 3 per 10 minutes, respectively) In addition, two KTAs KTA 14 in charge of the lecture based class and KTA 17 t eaching the discussion section produced directive language as much as the lab TAs did (8 and 7 per 10 minutes, respectively) Most of the lab TAs (two out of three in the NSTA group and seven out of nine in the KTA group) issued directive tokens more than the average number of each group (5 and 6 per ten minutes, respectively) which suggests that directi ve language is more frequent in the lab setting than other types of speech event. However, exceptions found in the NSTA and KTA group imply that the speech event alone (e.g., whether they were teaching a lab or discussion section) can not predict the amount of the directive language a teacher use s in class. Rather, it seems that the amount of directive
96 language is related to other factors such as focus of the class and the type of activities For example, KTA s 8 and 9 spent most of their lab sessions explai ning the topic of the day rather than providing guidelines for the experiments. Thus, they did not need to produce directive language as much as did other lab TAs. In the case s of KTA s 14 and 17 they had a couple of in class activities which required them to give directions to their students which in turn had them use directive language more than other non lab TAs who were mainly lecturing. Regarding the overall distribution of the directive type s the KTA group was similar to the NSTA group. T he overwhel ming majority of the directive tokens (85%) were CD, followed by SD (9%) and RD (6%). A ll of 21 KTAs produced CD tokens more than the othe r two types as shown in Figure 3 9 As for KTAs overall preference for directive construction s they utilized the imp erat ive category the most ( 52 % of the time on average ) followed by d eclaratives ( 37 %) and i nterrogatives ( 7 %). In addition, Im B (base form of verb) in the imperative category D M (modal or periphrastic modal construction) in the declarative category an d Q M (modal questions) in the interrogative category were the most pref erred construction types These preferences were similar to the NSTA group. However, the KTA group was different from the NSTA group in that they deviated less from the construction in ventory ; fewer tokens (5% of the total directive tokens ), compared to the NSTA data (1 4 %), we re identified as Others in the KTA data. Commanding directives A total of 893 CD tokens were produced by all 21 KTAs as indicated in Table 3 4. The KTAs preferred the i mperative category when issuing CD tokens (56 % of the time on average), fol lowed by the declarative (37%), Others (4%) and interrogative (3%)
97 which is the pattern also observed in the NSTA data The majority (16 out of 21 KTAs) showed this preferen ce for the imperative category on an individual level (see Figure 3 1 0 ). The five KTAs (KTA 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10) who did not follow this pattern had no common factors which can account for this exception. Although the KTAs showed the same order of constr uction preference (i.e., imperatives > declaratives > Others > interrogatives) as the NSTAs did the y were different from the NSTA group with regard to the distribution of directive construction categories (see Figure 3 11) The KTAs actual use of the dec larative category was larger than expected on the basis of chance, whereas the NSTAs actual use of Other category was larger than expected on the basis of chance 2 ( df 3 N = 1106 ) = 51.01 p < 001. This difference seemed attributable to KTAs overuse of D M, as shown as Figure 3 12 Within the imperative category only the KTAs utilized Im B as frequently as the NSTA group (76% of the time on average) The o nly exception to this preference on an individual level was KTA 1 who favored Im Sub 6 over the other imperative forms. The next frequently employed construction was Im (14% ), followed by Im Sub (8%). As was the case in the NSTA group, t he KTAs rarely use d Im Ing (less than 1%) and Im Ell (2 %). Looking at the declarative category, I found that the KTA group resembled the N STA group with regard to their preference for the construction type T he KTAs selected D M most frequently ( 77 % of the time on average ) and e ven on an individua l level this reliance o n D M for CD tokens was observed. As for their use of subject in this 6 The number of second person subje ct you was overwhelming (58 out of 59 CD tokens realized in Im Sub construction) in the KTA data, which was not the case in the NSTA data.
98 D M form, the KTAs were also similar to the NSTAs in that they predominantly used the second person subject such as yo u and you guys ( 57 % of the time on average). However, KTAs use of modal verbs was different from NSTAs As illustra ted in Figure 3 1 3 t he KTAs mainly used have to and can whereas the NSTAs used need to be go nna should and can the most frequently For th e D W construction which held the second rank in the declarative category (11%) the KTAs mainly used the verb want Ot her verbs utilized in D W were need wish and hope For the D V construction which the KTAs did not use much (4%) directive v ocabulary such as suggest recommend required and necessary was used in the KTA data. The KTAs showed similarities to the NSTA group in their use of constructions types in the interrogative and Others categories as well As for the former, they prefer r e d Q M over Q NM (39% vs. 9%). Eight out of ten KTAs who issued interrogative directives favored modal questions. The modal verbs for the Q M construction located in the KTA data were can could and will For Q NM we found two phrases use d i n the KTA data and how about The KTAs favored the same constructions for the latter as well in that they utilized if construction (e.g., if you think this unshared electron pair as another atom, it will be easier to figure out ) the mos t frequently over the others (30% of the time, on average ). Requesting directives As was the case in the NSTA group, a relatively small number of RD tokens was produced by 16 KTAs (60 tokens which took up 6% of the total directives). The KTAs exhibited a d ifferent preference for directive construction types from the set of CD tokens. While the imperative category was favored for the CD tokens, interrogatives were predominantly used for RD tokens (55% of the time on average) in the KTA data
99 This pattern was not found from the NSTAs who showed a balanced use of the imperative, interrogative, and declarative categories (see Figure 3 1 4 ) KTAs reliance on the interrogative constructions for RD tokens w as generally observed on an individual level (12 out of 16 KTAs) as we can see from Figure 3 1 5 Among the t wo interrogative types, the KTA s used Q M predominantly (64% on average). The modal verb s utilized for Q M in the KTA data were not so different from the NSTA data. The KTAs used can the most frequently (67% of the RD tokens realized in Q M) followed by could would and may Within the imperative category only Im B and Im tokens in the KTA data B surpassed that of Im the former 31 % of the time on average, compared to 2% for the latter This preference for Im B in t he imperative category was observed on an individual level with only one exception and found in the NSTA data as well. As for the declarative forms, they rarely used them (2% of the time on average ) which is less than the average percentage of NSTAs declarative usage (25%) The directive tokens identified as Others in this set differed from the ones mentioned above. They were neither in if construction nor embedded decl arative form. They were identified as Others since the elliptical elements made identification difficult. Out of six tokens, five were uttered with rising intonation such as volunteers? and please say it louder? The other token se was uttered by KTA 14 which prompted h er student to turn the light off before she completed her words Suggesting directives KTAs construction choice for SD tokens was different from the case of CD and RD. They employed the declarative category the most frequently (39% of the time on
100 average ), followed by imperatives (28%) Others (9%) and interrogatives ( l ess than 1%) This pattern was not found from the NSTAs who showed a balanced use of the imperative, interrogative, and declarative categories (see Figure 3 16). In addition, t he ir preference for the declarative category w as not very evident on an individual level A s we can see from Figure 3 1 7 8 out of 16 KTAs employed the declarative category more than the imperative one, whereas 6 KTAs showe d the opposite pattern Within the declarative category which t he KTAs utilized the most, they used the D M construction the most (58% of the time on average). Among the se S D tokens realized in D M, they showed a heavy reliance o n can (33 out of 37 toke ns) in terms of their modal selection which was not the case with CD tokens The rest of the declarative constructions were not used frequently: 6% for D V, 2% for D W, and 1% for D H. They used encourage and suggest for D V and hope and wish for D W. As for the imperative constructions, the KTAs used Im B only when issuing SD tokens. Regarding the directive tokens identified as Others, they used if construction and embedded D M. In addition, they used comparative construction s such as just using Sun Tools is the easier way or other expressions like you are welcome t o and you are free t o Mitigation and Perspective of Directives On average, t he KTAs employed mitigation devices 29% of the time which is on a par with the NSTA data The KTA group was also similar to the NSTA group in that they mitigated SD tokens more than the CD or RD tokens (33% of the time on average compared to 28% and 25, respectively). Unlike the NSTA group, however, the KTAs predominantly used lexical devices more than synta ctic downtoners (80% vs. 17%). The same was true within the set of CD tokens; the KTAs used lexical devices more than
101 expected on the basis of chance whereas the NSTAs employed syntactic devices more than expected on the basis of chance (see Figure 3 1 8 ) That is, there was a significant relation between the TA group and the choice of mitigation strategies 2 ( df 1 N = 3 01 ) = 43.17 p < 001 7 Some examples of the lexical mitigators for CD tokens locate d in the KTA data were just please and probably Similar to the NSTA group, j ust was used the most frequently (5 6 %), followed by please ( 26 %). Th ese two were mainly used with the Im B construction Other than these two, the KTAs used I think or I guess ( 10 %) as a lexical mitigator to soften the ir directive language realized in the D M construction which were not found in the NSTA data at all As for their use of syntactic mitigators the KTAs used past tense, if construction, or comp lex sentence structure such as embedded declarative as the NSTAs did Regarding the use of perspective, the KTA s favored hearer perspective over the others (8 0%) and the same was true with the CD tokens. This preference for hearer oriented perspective was also observed in the NSTA data. However, Figure 3 1 9 demonstrates that the KTAs used hearer perspective more than the NSTAs (80% vs. 66%) and utilized impersonal perspective less than the NSTAs (5% vs. 18%) The chi square test revealed that there was a significant relation between the TA group and the perspective choice 2 ( df 3 N = 1106 ) = 33.40 p < 001. Gender Comparison With regard to their preference for the construction category in the set of CD tokens, the KTA group exhibited gender difference s While the male KTA s favored the imperative category (62% of the time on average) as the NSTA group did, the female 7 The tokens mitigated by a combination of syntactic and lexical devices were excluded in this statistical test due to the small number of the tokens.
102 KTAs showed a balanced use of imperative and declarative categories (46% vs. 45%) as illustrated in Figure 3 20 The chi square revealed that there wa s a significant relation between gender and the constructi on choice; the male KTAs employed the imperative category more than expected on the basis of chance whereas the female KTAs used the declarative category more than expected on the basis of chance 2 ( df 3 N = 893 ) = 11.73 p < 01. As was the case in the NSTA data, the female and male KTAs were similar in the average percentage of mitigat ion devices used (26% and 29%, respectively). In addition, there was no significant relation between gender and KTAs use of perspective 2 ( df 3 N = 893 ) = 1. 1 3 p = 77 When producing RD tokens, the KTA group did not show gender difference in their choice of construction categories or use of mitigation devices The KTAs female and male alike, favored the inte rrogative category over the others (see Figure 3 21 ) and mitigated a similar amount of the tokens (19%). Likewise, in their production of SD tokens, the female and male KTAs showed a preference for the same construction category (the declarative category i n this case as shown in Figure 3 22 ) and mitigated a similar amount of their directive language (36% vs. 31%). To summarize KTAs types of directive s They preferred different construction categori es for different types of directive s : imperatives for CD, interrogatives for RD, and declaratives for SD. In addition, they showed difference in mitigating their directive language; they mitigated SD tokens more than CD or RD. These overall pattern s that t he KTAs displayed (i.e., different
103 behaviors with regard to the types of directives ) w ere similar to the ones found in the NSTA group. However, the KTAs were different from the NSTAs in the following manner: (1) they utilized the declarative category, mai nly D M more than the NS TAs ; (2) they mostly used can and have to for the D M construction; (3) they heavily relied on lexical mitigation; (4) they predominantly used hearer perspective and did not use impersonal perspective as much as the NSTAs did. These differences are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, after looking at discussed in the next chapter which promise to provide further insights into their language choices.
104 Table 3 1 Total n umber of directive token s used by NSTA s Im B Im Sub Im Ing Im Ell Im Q M Q NM D W D H D M D V Others Total (Per 10 min.) NSTA1 11 3 3 3 20 8 (55%) (15%) (15%) (15%) NSTA2 4 1 2 7 3 (57%) (14%) (29%) NSTA3 1 1 1 1 5 1 10 1 (10%) (10%) (10%) (10%) (50%) (10%) NSTA4 13 1 1 1 5 1 5 2 4 33 5 (39%) (3%) (3%) (3%) ( 15 %) (3%) (15%) ( 6 %) (12%) NSTA5 23 3 1 1 8 4 40 9 (58%) (8%) (3%) (3%) (20%) (10%) NSTA6 7 1 1 1 12 10 32 4 (22%) (3% ) (3%) (3%) (38%) (31%) NSTA7 41 1 1 3 1 9 56 10 (73%) (2%) (2%) (5%) (2%) (16%) NSTA8 9 1 3 5 1 6 25 8 (36%) (4%) (12%) (20%) (4%) (24%) NSTA9 1 1 1 1 4 1 (25%) (25%) (25%) (25%) NSTA10 6 3 1 10 2 (60%) (3 0%) (10%) NSTA11 5 1 1 2 2 11 2 (45%) (9%) (9%) (18%) (18%) NSTA12 11 3 1 1 2 18 4 (61%) (17%) (6%) (5%) (11%) Total 132 7 1 1 7 9 1 1 1 11 4 4 5 3 7 266 Note: (1) Percentage of each con struction type used by each NSTA is in parenthesis. (2) NSTA 1 3 in charge of s tudent presentation se ssion ; NSTA 4 in charge of lecture based class; NSTA 5 7 i n charge of lab ; NSTA 8 12 in charge of discussion section
105 Table 3 2 Number of CD tokens use d by NSTA s Im B Im Sub Im Ing Im Ell Im Let's Q M Q NM D W D H D M D V Others Total NSTA1 10 2 2 3 17 (59%) (12%) (12%) (18%) NSTA2 4 1 5 (80%) (20%) NSTA3 1 5 1 7 (14%) (71%) (14%) NSTA4 12 1 1 4 5 1 3 2 7 ( 44 %) (4%) (4%) (1 5 %) (1 9 %) ( 4 %) (1 1 %) NSTA5 22 3 1 1 8 2 37 (59%) (8%) (3%) (3%) (22%) (5%) NSTA6 6 1 1 1 8 9 26 (23%) (4%) (4%) (4%) (31%) (35%) NSTA7 39 1 1 3 8 52 (75%) (2%) (2%) (6%) (15%) NSTA8 5 1 3 5 14 (36%) (7%) (21%) (36%) NSKTA9 NSTA10 5 1 6 (83%) (17%) NSTA11 3 1 2 6 (50%) (17%) (33%) NSTA12 11 3 1 1 16 (69%) (19%) (6%) (6%) Total 117 6 1 7 4 1 7 7 3 2 2 30 21 3 Note: (1) Percentage of each construction type used by each NSTA is in parenthesis (2) NSTA 1 3 in charge of student presentation session; NSTA 4 in charge of lecture based class; NSTA 5 7 i n charge of lab; NSTA 8 12 in charge of discussion section.
106 Table 3 3 Total number of directive token s used by KTA s Im B Im Sub Im Ing Im Ell Im Q M Q NM D W D H D M D V Others Total (Per 10 min.) KTA1 2 3 33 8 3 31 1 1 100 9 ( 23% ) ( 33% ) ( 8% ) (3 % ) ( 31% ) ( 1% ) ( 1% ) KTA2 52 8 2 3 2 9 5 2 14 17 8 1 8 ( 29% ) ( 4% ) ( 1% ) ( 2% ) ( 1% ) ( 5 3 % ) ( 1% ) (8 % ) KTA3 6 5 1 2 5 1 21 4 45 7 ( 13% ) ( 11% ) ( 2% ) ( 4% ) ( 1% ) ( 2% ) ( 4 7 % ) (9 % ) KTA4 49 4 1 2 13 1 70 7 ( 70% ) ( 6% ) ( 1% ) ( 3% ) ( 19% ) ( 1% ) KTA5 1 3 1 1 1 2 54 1 73 12 ( 18% ) ( 1% ) ( 1% ) ( 1% ) ( 3% ) ( 7 4 % ) (1 % ) KTA6 1 8 7 2 1 2 20 1 51 9 ( 35% ) ( 14% ) ( 4% ) (2%) ( 4% ) (39 % ) ( 2% ) KTA7 10 2 1 1 58 2 5 81 1 1 ( 12% ) ( 2% ) 2 ( 1% ) ( 1% ) ( 7 2 % ) (1 % ) (6 % ) KTA8 7 1 (2%) 8 4 ( 88% ) ( 13% ) KTA9 12 2 1 2 17 3 ( 71% ) ( 12% ) (6%) ( 1 2 % ) KTA10 2 1 1 7 5 16 1 ( 13% ) ( 6% ) (6 % ) ( 4 4 % ) (31 % ) KTA11 3 2 3 2 1 11 1 ( 27% ) ( 18% ) ( 27% ) (18 % ) (9%) KT A12 9 1 2 4 3 19 3 ( 47 % ) (5%) ( 11% ) (2 1 % ) (1 6 % ) KTA13 3 1 2 1 7 1 ( 43% ) ( 14% ) ( 29% ) ( 14% ) KTA14 60 1 1 7 1 2 1 10 1 11 95 8 ( 63% ) ( 1% ) ( 1% ) (7%) (1%) ( 2% ) (1%) (11 % ) (1%) ( 1 2 % ) KTA15 1 7 3 5 2 3 12 2 44 3 ( 39% ) ( 7% ) ( 11% ) (5%) (7 % ) ( 2 7 % ) (5 % )
107 Table 3 3 Continued Im B Im Sub Im Ing Im Ell Im Q M Q NM D W D H D M D V Others Total (Per 10 min.) KTA16 47 4 5 3 6 2 67 4 ( 70% ) ( 6% ) ( 7% ) (4 % ) (9 % ) (3%) KTA17 23 3 2 2 3 1 15 3 52 7 ( 44% ) ( 6% ) (4%) (4%) (6 % ) ( 2% ) (29 % ) (6 % ) KTA19 8 4 2 8 1 23 3 ( 35% ) ( 17% ) ( 9% ) ( 3 5 % ) (4 % ) KTA20 5 2 1 10 3 21 3 ( 24% ) ( 10% ) (5%) ( 4 8 % ) (14 % ) KTA21 22 7 6 1 3 1 10 50 4 ( 44% ) ( 14% ) ( 12% ) ( 2%) (6 % ) (2 % ) ( 2 0 % ) KTA22 9 1 1 1 4 2 18 2 ( 50% ) ( 6% ) (6%) (6 % ) ( 2 2 % ) (11 % ) Total 39 8 59 1 4 37 50 13 22 14 38 2 13 5 3 104 6 Note: (1) Percentage of each construction type used by each KTA is in parenthesis (2) KTA 1 9 in charge of lab; KTA 10 15 in charge of lecture based class; KTA 16 22 in charge of discussion section.
108 Table 3 4 Number of CD tokens used by KTA s Im B Im Sub Im Ing Im Ell Im Let's Q M Q NM D W D H D M D V Others Total KTA1 21 33 4 2 28 1 1 9 0 (23%) (37%) (4%) (2%) (31%) (1%) (1%) KTA2 52 8 2 1 2 9 3 2 12 17 2 (30%) (5%) (1%) (1%) (1%) (54%) (1%) (7%) KTA3 6 5 1 1 5 1 20 3 42 (14%) (12%) (2%) (2%) (12%) (2%) (48%) (7%) KTA4 49 4 1 2 13 1 70 (70%) (6%) (1% ) (3%) (19%) (1%) KTA5 11 1 1 1 2 42 1 59 (19%) (2%) (2%) (2%) (3%) (71%) (2%) KTA6 17 7 1 2 19 1 47 (36%) (15%) (2%) (4%) (40%) (2%) KTA7 9 2 1 1 57 2 4 76 (12%) (3%) (1%) (1%) (75%) (3%) (5%) KTA8 6 1 7 (86%) (14%) KTA9 12 2 2 16 (75%) (13%) (13%) KTA10 2 1 1 7 4 15 (13%) (7%) (7%) (47%) (27%) KTA11 3 2 1 2 8 (38%) (25%) (13%) (25%) KTA12 9 1 2 2 2 16 ( 56 %) (6%) (13%) ( 13 %) ( 13 %) KTA13 3 1 2 1 7 (43%) (14%) (29%) (14%) KTA14 49 1 1 1 5 6 63 (78%) (2%) (2%) (2%) (8%) (10%)
109 Table 3 4 Continued Im B Im Sub Im Ing Im Ell Im Let's Q M Q NM D W D H D M D V Others Total KTA15 16 3 2 3 10 2 36 (44%) (8%) (6%) (5%) (28%) (6%) KTA16 29 3 4 2 4 42 (69%) (7%) (10%) (5%) (10%) KTA17 17 3 3 1 15 2 41 (41%) (7%) (7%) (2%) (37%) (5%) KTA19 7 4 1 8 1 21 (33%) ( 19%) (5%) (38%) (5%) KTA20 4 2 5 1 12 (33%) (17%) (42%) (8%) KTA21 18 7 1 3 1 9 39 (46%) (18%) (3%) (8%) (3%) (23%) KTA22 7 1 1 3 2 14 (50%) (7%) (7%) (21%) (14%) Total 34 7 59 1 4 36 16 6 20 11 34 4 11 37 89 3 Note: (1) Percentage of each construction type used by each KTA is in parenthesis. (2) KTA 1 9 in charge of lab; KTA 10 15 in charge of lecture based class; KTA 16 22 in charge of discussion section.
110 Figure 3 1 Distribut ion of three typ es of directives in the NSTA data Figure 3 2 for CD tokens 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% NSTA1 NSTA2 NSTA3 NSTA4 NSTA5 NSTA6 NSTA7 NSTA8 NSTA9 NSTA10 NSTA11 NSTA12 85% 71% 70% 79% 93% 81% 93% 56% 60% 55% 89% 10% 29% 30% 3% 3% 3% 12% 100% 9% 5% 18% 5% 16% 7% 32% 40% 36% 11% Commanding Directives Requesting Directives Suggesting Directives 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% NSTA1 NSTA2 NSTA3 NSTA4 NSTA5 NSTA6 NSTA7 NSTA8 NSTA9 NSTA10 NSTA11 NSTA12 59% 100% 14% 52% 73% 23% 77% 36% 83% 67% 88% 12% 8% 6% 29% 86% 37% 22% 35% 8% 29% 17% 11% 5% 35% 15% 36% 33% 6% Imperatives Interrogatives Declaratives Others
111 A B Figure 3 3 Modals used in D M construction in the NSTA data. A) Modals used fo r commanding directives B) Modals used f or suggestin g directives Figure 3 4 for RD tokens might 3% be suppose d to 3% can 13% gonna 25% gotta 9% have to 6% need to 13% should 25% wanna 3% would have to 9% be better off 9% can 37% wanna (want to) 36% should 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% NSTA1 NSTA2 NSTA3 NSTA4 NSTA5 NSTA6 NSTA7 NSTA8 NSTA9 NSTA10 NSTA11 NSTA12 67% 100% 100% 50% 50% 100% 100% 33% 50% 33% 67% 50% 100% Imperatives Interrogatives Declaratives Others
112 Figure 3 5 for SD tokens Figure 3 6 Gender comparison of directive construction choice for CD tokens ( NSTAs) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% NSTA1 NSTA2 NSTA3 NSTA4 NSTA5 NSTA6 NSTA7 NSTA8 NSTA9 NSTA10 NSTA11 NSTA12 100% 20% 50% 50% 25% 50% 60% 80% 25% 38% 75% 50% 50% 20% 100% 20% 25% 13% 50% Imperatives Interrogatives Declaratives Others 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Imperatives Interrogatives Declaratives Others 62% 1% 28% 9% 50% 3% 16% 14% Male Female
113 Figure 3 7 Gender comparison of directive construction choice for RD tokens (NSTAs) Figure 3 8 Gender comparison of directive construction choice for SD tokens (NSTAs) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Imperatives Interrogatives Declaratives Others 44% 17% 6% 8% 31% 44% Male Female 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Imperatives Interrogatives Declaratives Others 13% 30% 24% 36% 34% 13% Male Female
114 Figure 3 9 D istribution of three types of directives in the KTA data 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% KTA1 KTA2 KTA3 KTA4 KTA5 KTA6 KTA7 KTA8 KTA9 KTA10 KTA11 KTA12 KTA13 KTA14 KTA15 KTA16 KTA17 KTA19 KTA20 KTA21 KTA22 90% 97% 93% 100% 81% 92% 94% 88% 94% 94% 73% 84% 100% 66% 82% 63% 79% 91% 57% 78% 78% 5% 1% 2% 3% 4% 2% 6% 27% 14% 11% 6% 10% 9% 14% 18% 6% 5% 2% 4% 16% 4% 4% 13% 6% 16% 20% 7% 31% 12% 29% 4% 17% Commanding Directives Requesting Directives Suggesting Directives
115 Figure 3 10 for CD tokens Figure 3 1 1 Group comparison of directive construction choice for CD tokens 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% KTA1 KTA2 KTA3 KTA4 KTA5 KTA6 KTA7 KTA8 KTA9 KTA10 KTA11 KTA12 KTA13 KTA14 KTA15 KTA16 KTA17 KTA19 KTA20 KTA21 KTA22 60% 36% 29% 77% 22% 51% 14% 100% 88% 20% 63% 75% 57% 81% 53% 76% 49% 52% 50% 64% 57% 4% 1% 14% 2% 2% 13% 6% 10% 5% 3% 34% 57% 50% 21% 75% 47% 80% 13% 80% 25% 19% 43% 10% 36% 14% 46% 38% 42% 33% 29% 1% 7% 7% 1% 2% 5% 6% 10% 6% 5% 5% 8% 14% Imperatives Interrogatives Declaratives Others 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Imperatives Interrogatives Declaratives Others 56% 2% 22% 12% 56% 3% 37% 4% NSTAs KTAs
116 Figure 3 12 Group comparison of directive construction choice for CD tokens Figu re 3 1 3 Modals used in D M construction for CD tokens ( KTA s ) (Note: Modals which took up less than 1% was not labeled in the pie chart ) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% NSTAs KTAs will 4% be going to/gonna 3% must 1% (had) better 1% should(n 't) 7% (don't) have to 33% be suppose d to 2% (don't) need to 18% can(not) 31%
117 Figure 3 14 KTA NSTA comparison of directive construction choice for RD tokens Figure 3 1 5 KTA of directive construction category for RD tokens 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% NSTAs KTAs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% KTA1 KTA2 KTA3 KTA4 KTA5 KTA6 KTA7 KTA8 KTA9 KTA10 KTA11 KTA12 KTA13 KTA14 KTA15 KTA16 KTA17 KTA19 KTA20 KTA21 KTA22 20% 100% 8% 50% 20% 50% 33% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 67% 54% 100% 25% 80% 50% 33% 67% 100% 33% 15% 23% 25% 67% Imperatives Interrogatives Declaratives Others
118 Figure 3 16 KTA NSTA comparison of directive construction choice for SD tokens Figure 3 1 7 for SD tokens 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% NSTAs KTAs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% KTA1 KTA2 KTA3 KTA4 KTA5 KTA6 KTA7 KTA8 KTA9 KTA10 KTA11 KTA12 KTA13 KTA14 KTA15 KTA16 KTA17 KTA19 KTA20 KTA21 KTA22 20% 50% 33% 100% 53% 33% 81% 83% 17% 50% 67% 5% 80% 50% 50% 100% 50% 33% 100% 67% 32% 67% 14% 83% 50% 33% 50% 50% 33% 33% 11% 5% 17% Imperatives Interrogatives Declaratives Others
119 Figure 3 1 8 Group comparison of mitigat ion device choice for CD tokens Figure 3 1 9 Group comparison of perspective use for CD tokens 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Syntactic Mitigation Lexical Mitigation 39% 51% 16% 83% NSTAs KTAs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Hearer-oriented Speaker-oriented Impersonal Inclusive 66% 2% 18% 6% 80% 5% 5% 9% NSTAs KTAs
120 Figure 3 20 Gender comparison of directive construction choice for CD tokens (KTAs) Figure 3 2 1 Gender comparison of directive construction choic e for RD tokens (KTAs) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Imperatives Interrogatives Declaratives Others 62% 2% 32% 3% 46% 4% 45% 5% Male Female 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Imperatives Interrogatives Declaratives Others 17% 67% 4% 11% 21% 65% 5% 9% Male Female
121 Figure 3 2 2 Gender comparison of directive construction choice for SD tokens (KTAs) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Imperatives Interrogatives Declaratives Others 38% 0% 48% 13% 36% 1% 53% 12% Male Female
122 CHAPTER 4 RETROSPECTIVE INTERVIEWS This chapter presents the findings of the retrospective interview s conducted with the following nine Korean teaching assistants ( KTAs ) ; KTA 2 : Physics, Lab, Male KTA 5 : Chemistry, Lab, Female KTA 8 : Anatomy (Applied Human Physics), Lab, Male KTA 10 : Advertising Research, Lecture, Male KTA 11 : Principles of Sociology Lecture, Male KTA 13 : Housing & Urban Devel opment, Lecture, Male KTA 14 : Argument & Persuasion (Writing Program), Lecture, Female KTA 15 : Foundation of Language & Culture, Lecture, Female KTA 16 : Theory of Architecture, Discussion section, Male First, it presents s regarding their language choices such as their choice of directive construction types and /or mitigati o n devices. Second, it summarizes other relevant information which might have affect ed their directive usage such as their attitudes toward s the teach er and student relationship All the interview excerpts included in this chapter were translated from Korean into English Language Choices Directive C onstructions Since imperatives Im B (base form of verb) in particular, are commonly used for directiv e language in classrooms (e.g., Holmes, 1983; Liu & Hong, 2009; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975 ) and actually were predominant ly employed by the KTA data my interview questions did not focus on the imperative form s. Howeve r, I brought Im B up w hen asking about their use of other construction types at every chance. For example, I asked why they used a certain construction instead of the imperative form or requested them to put construction types in order of directness which allowed me to collect their views on the construction they used as well as on Im B.
123 Thus, I begin this section by add to my questions regarding their use of declarative and interrogative constructions I then move on to their opinions on imperative directi ves. Declarative directive constructions As reported in the previous chapter the (periphrastic) modal declarative (D M) was the favored construction with in the declarative category. It appeared that KTAs, in general, perceive d D M as less direct than t he typical imperative directive ( i.e., Im B), b ut more direct than the interrogative directives in terms of illocutionary force This is consistent with the order of directness specified in the literature ( e.g., Blum Kulka et al., 1989; Liu & Hong, 2009; Mar tnez Flor 2005) Among the modal verbs used for D M my questions focused on can and have to since these were the most frequently used one s by the KTAs. First, regarding their use of you can + Verb answer s to my question s which ask ed their in te ntion and reason(s) to use this structure suggest s that they regard ed it less forceful than the imperative directive s In Excerpt (2 ), for instance, KTA 14 said that she used this particular form because the action of downloading the course materials was n ot required. Exc erpt ( 2 ) From the interview with KTA 14 you can easily download it Interviewer: here you said you uploaded something. were you telling them to do (download) it? KTA14: since I uploaded all the materials, they could download it if necessary but it was not a must Interviewer : you used you can here you know can denotes ability or possibility you can easily download it did you want them to download it or KTA 14:
124 Interviewer: you can here KTA: 14: it KTA 14 did not articulate any word of directness for her use of this structure such as less direct/strong/forceful However, her answer implies that she regarded you can as a non forceful structure because she used it for a non obligatory action with which her students did not need to comply KTA s 2 and 5 also responded that they chose this particular construction since what they told thei r students to do was encouraged but not obligatory. In short, they used this indirect construction you can when suggesting something to their students which makes good sense. However, the KTAs also employed this you can + Verb form for the actions which were required and thus expected to do (i.e., commanding di rectives ). It seemed that they used this form because they wanted to direct their student s to do something in a non forceful way. In the interview with KTA 15 in Excerpt (3) below who showed heavy reliance on th is modal can (7 0 %) for example, I asked why she employed this construction instead of other construction s like imperatives or conventional requests Excerpt ( 3 ) From the interview with KTA 15, you can see example on page one twenty six Interviewer: here (this utterance) KTA1 5 : I was telling them to look at it (the table) Interviewer: I see, so you were directing (them to look at it ), but why as we discussed before we can use interrogatives or imperatives like look at the table. are there any specific reason s for you to use this constructio n? KTA 1 5 : habitually Interviewer: you were not suggesting, are you? KTA: 1 5 : no. I think I tend to speak indirectly out of habit
125 It seemed that KTA 15 felt comforta ble in using this modal can because she perceived it as not direct In the interview with KTA 14 she actually said the Korean ad verb wangokhage meaning ind irectly in English, to answer my question that why she said you can for her procedural directive you can start In short, the KTAs also used the you can + Verb for the required actions, but with intent to soften illocutionary force of the directive l anguage. Second, as for their use of have to in the D M construction I found that the KTA s considered have to as a more direct modal than can in terms of directive force For example, KTA 5 in Excerpt ( 4 ) regarded you have to + Verb as a more effe ctive directive construction than you can + V erb because the former is more direct than the latter Excerpt ( 4 ). From the interview with KTA 5 think with correct unit for this answer Interviewer: as you can see (from the recording and th e transcript), you used you have to a lot. KTA 5 : back then, and I thought you can might confuse the students. in addition, provide a lengthy explanati on to each student but had to give them a direct clue which could help them get the right answer In addition, KTAs answers such to my question that how they perceive of you have to + Verb indicate that they regard ed this construction more direct than you can + Verb The modal have to was regarded similar to should in KTAs perceived directness. Although the KTAs did not use should much compared to have to it seemed that t he y did not dif ferentiate the two saying that these two modal verbs are similar with regard to directive force. As was the case with Excerpt (4 ), KTA 10 in
126 Excerpt (5 ) below said that he chose the you + should + Verb construction in order to issue directives more clea rly Excerpt ( 5 ). From the interview with KTA 10 distinguish between primary source and secondary source and data source Interviewer: you us ed you should when talking about the test KTA 10 : It seems I say like that for the topics which t he students want me to point out clearly. You know the exams are the sensitive (important or serious) matter to them so I use that kind of expression to provide them with clear directions I use it when taking about things related the exam s or giving them some guidelines I think I attempt to emphasize (the importance of the action addressed ) by saying you should do something Although t he KTAs considered you have to + Verb as a strong construction they did not think it as strong as Im B. They mention ed that the imperative form is the most forceful way to tell somebody to do something except for KTA 8 and 16 1 The KTAs gave similar responses regarding their choice of other declarative constructions. For example, KTA s 2, 10, 11, and 14 expressed that the directives using directive vocabulary I suggest/recommend (i.e., D V) were less strong than the imperative construction. This is not incorrect according to the order of directness determined in the literature (e.g., Blum Kulka et al., 1989; Liu & Hon g, 2009; Martnez Flor 2005) However, the KTAs answers like not so strong indicated that they did not consider D V as strong as the CCSARP researchers did who regarded this kind of structure as nearly strong as the imperative directives. T heir retros pective account s on their use of D W (want/need statements) also indicated that they regard ed this construction less direct than Im B with regard to directive force KTA 11 said he intended to soften his utterance when using I want you 1 They regarded the Im B less strong than D M with have to. Actually, the majority of their directive language was realized in Im B, meaning that they might have tried to avoid employing the most forceful construction form by their standards.
127 to do X c onstructi on, for example. Even among the verbs that they used KTA 1 4 differentiated hope from want as shown in Excerpt (6 ), which suggests that she thought I want as more direct than I hope. Excerpt ( 6 ): From the interview with KTA 14 I hope you guys, f rom next time, try to be more specific on your comments Interviewer: okay, next, I hope KTA14: the verb hope? why not using want? Interviewer: want is possible, or you could have omitted I hope (meaning that she could have used imperative forms) KTA 14: thi s is a kind of rhetorical issue, although I couldn t force them to do it, I was suggesting Interviewer: was that a suggestion? Didn t you want them to do so? KTA: 14: yes, I did. but using I want seemed um how can I say? [Interviewer: too direct?] yes, (so using I hope was to) tone down a little KTA14 expre ssed that she used I hope with intent not to be forceful in telling her students what to do. At the end, she used an English word tone down to explain why she chose I hope expression. In summary, KTAs use of declarative constructions was related to weak force of attempt to get the students to do a certain action ( e.g., they tended to use D M for suggesting directives ) or motivated by their intention to soften their directive language. In general, their perceived directness of each construction corres ponded to the one discussed in the literature (e.g., Blum Kulka et al., 1989) Interrogative directive constructions As the KTA s who participated in the interview rarely selected Q NM (question directives without modal), my questions focused on their use o f Q M (question directives with modal). As discussed in C hapter 3 interrogative constructions were used more
128 frequently for requesting directive (RD) tokens than for commanding directive (CD) tokens. For example, KTA 14 used could you ? to request her s tudent to turn the light off. To my question asking her intention, she commented that I said so because she had to stand up and move to turn it off and we are not in the military unit meaning that KTA 14 was asking for her student s help, not issuing her a command. However, the KTAs used Q M for CD tokens as well It appeared that t heir choice of Q M for CD was related to their intention to issue directives not in a forceful way For example, KTA 1 5 used Q M can you ? when she was asking her students to take something out To my question asking her intention, s he said because I felt that imperatives were too strong KTA 2 in Excerpt (7 ) below explained his choice of Q M by relating it to the politeness aspect which suggests that he regard ed Q M as a more polite form than the imperative constructions. Excerpt ( 7 ) From interview with KTA 2 could you move (it) to the like a little bit off from the center, to the outside, or anywhere on the graph Interviewer: KTA: 2 : right, I was telling them to do it. since I was asking them to do something, I said Interviewer: in order to say it politely (you used could you ) ? KTA 2 : i in that situation nowadays Interviewer: then what would you say ? KTA: 2 : it Similarly, KTA 16 regarded Q M as a polite form to request his students to do particular actions. Since I had already brought up the politeness issue in the interview with him as shown in Excerpt (6) above, I asked him whether his use of Q M was also due to his
129 intention to be polite. He agreed and added: same is true with when I m speaking in Korean, I rarely force people to do something, so I say things indirectly In short, a s was the case with KTAs use of declarative constructions, the main reason to use Q M was to be indirect or polite. Imperative directive construct ions The interview data showed that KTAs perceived directness of imperative directives was very strong. For instance, when I asked KTA15 to put Im B can you ? and you ca n in order of directness, she said in my opinion, the imperative form is the st rong est one, you can is kind of neutral, and can you ? is the least direct Likewise, KTA 11 said there s nothing stronger than imperative directives to my request for him to compare you have to + Verb with imperatives. Although it is within the imperative category, however, Im s was not perceived as a strong construction For instance, KTA 8 said that he wanted to be i ndirect and KTA 10 expressed that he wanted to be polite to my question why they used let s Although KTA 13 failed to articulate the reason why he used this particular structure he answered that let s is less strong than the imperative directive form to my request to compare Im Let s with Im B. Summing up KTAs choice of directive constructions was relevant to the nat ure of the action they asked the students to do; they tended to choose direct forms to prompt students compliance for obligatory actions and less direct forms for non obligatory actions. KTAs retrospective accounts showed that they perceived declarative and interrogative construction forms as less forceful than the imperative constructions. Among the modals they used for D M, they regarded have to (or should ) as a strong modal which denotes obligation. Accordingly they used this modal verb for the ac tions
130 related to the course requirements (i.e., course grade) or class procedures. On the ot her hand, they d id not consider can as a strong modal which was mainly used for suggesting directives. However, they also used can for commanding directives with i ntent to mitigate the m That is, the KTAs regarded can as an all purpose modal by utilizing it for all types of directive tokens, CD, RD, and SD, while have to was used only for CD tokens. Altho ugh they did not frequently use D W D M and Q M they al so used these constructions based upon the idea that these are less direct than the imperative form s. Mitigation Since it turned out that the KTAs relied more on the lexical devices than the syntactic ones more questions regarding their use of lexical do wntoners were asked in the interviews. First, regarding their use of please the KTAs had no di fficulty answering why they added it before or after their directive language ; they expressed that they used it to soften their directive language KTA 16 refe rred please as a magic word which Americans use to mitigate their utterances. Other answers were to mitigate to direct politely and to avoid being too forceful Second, as for their use of j ust most of the KTAs failed to provide informative answers although it was the most frequently utilized lexical downtoner in the KTA data. Most of them said that they used it with no specific reason, but that it was their habit (e.g., KTA 11, 13, and 14) Or some gave me Korean translation which means si mply in English instead of explaining why they used this mitigator (e.g., KTA 5, 8, and 13). However, others like KTA 2 and 15 said that their use of just was to convey that what was being asked was not something big, but simple or easy which is releva nt to the
131 minimizing function that just has (Lee, 1987). In other words, it seemed that the KTAs indiscriminately used just without full understanding of its function. Third, although I think and I guess did not occur frequently, I asked why they u sed them since none of the NSTAs employed them as mitigators This was contrast to KTA 2 s observation because he answered that he heard Americans saying it frequently suggesting that he has picked it up from the native speakers of English On the other hand, KTA 5 in Excerpt ( 8 ) said she was kind of suggesting what they were supposed to do by using I think. Excerpt (8 ): From the interview with KTA 5, I think you have to start with ( xx) of Interviewer: you said think h ere KTA 5 : it s because they seemed not to know what to do first among t he tasks they had to do. so I was suggesting this should be done first. I was suggesting, but it was a strong command Her answer was suggesting, but it was a strong d irective is conflicting because suggestions and command s differ with regard to the strength of directive attempt. What she meant seemed that she might have want ed to mitigate her command One of the syntactic devices to soften imposition of directives is to use past tense. Those who used this strategy were aware of mitigating effect of past tense. Excerpt (9 ) is one example. Excerpt ( 9 ): From the interview with KTA 11 could anybody um
132 KTA11: basically I di typical Asian teacher in th is regard Interviewer: would you have said something different if it was a white male student, then? KTA11: If it was white male and he called me by my first name, not b y my KTA 11 selected the indirect form Q M and chose could instead of can to ask a female African American student to turn off the light, which shows that he wanted to minimize the imposition by using the past form of the modal verb Another example of syntactic mitigators used was if construction. However, the KTAs could not account for why they chose this particular construction. Their answers were like well I don t know or there s no specific reason There existed a few instances of c ombination of syntactic and lexical mitigators. In Excerpt (1 0 ), for example, KTA 14 employed past modal verb for Q M with a politeness marker please Excerpt ( 1 0 ). From the interview with KTA14 say ( it) louder Interviewer: here you said would you but you added please KTA1 4 : too much? Interviewer: no no that s not my point, I m asking you why you did that KT A1 4 : in my opinion, there is strong hierarchy between the teacher and the students in Korean classrooms, but, as far as I know they are more equal in status in U.S. classrooms, so I meant to respect them KTA 14 s question too much ? can be interpreted as did I mitigate it too much? since she explained that she used would you please ? to show her respect to the students. To sum up, it appeared that the K TA s have a rather limited understanding of the mitigati o n devices They were confident when explain ing why they used the politeness marker please and past modal verbs but not about the minimizer just hedge s I
133 think and I guess and if constructio n. This is linked to the findings of the previous studies that non native speakers experience difficulties acquiring mitigation strategies (e.g., Bardovi Harlig & Hartford 1990) which was addressed in Chapter 1 KTAs Perspectives on T Aing No KTAs have e xpressed that they had difficulties due to unfamiliarity with the setting in which they had to teach. Although most of them did not have teaching experience, they said that they were familiar with the physical setting itself. What they were not sure of was the cultural aspect of undergraduate classrooms in the U.S. The most salient accounts collected from the interview s were KTAs concern s about their English across the board as was reported in LoCastro and Tapper (2006) It did not matter whether they we re aware of the issues related to international teaching assistant s (ITA s ) or how long they were exposed to the English speaking environment. Although they passed the minimum score of the Speak Test, the y were neither confident about their English nor free from worries about the challenges that they might face due to their English. It seemed that their worries have never been eased mainly due to students attitudes toward their English. They said that the majority of students negative comments on the cours e evaluation were about their accented English. S ome of them were very harsh like I don t get what you say, go to Korea To my question asking whether they had experienced power challenges in class, six out of nine KTAs answered yes. Some were on ling uistic level (e.g., students corrected teachers English in front of the class ) while others were beyond the linguistic level (e.g., student s tried to persuade the teacher to change their grades ). Th is seems attributable to th eir non native status which is inferior to stud ents who ha ve pragmatic power over them.
134 As a response to my questions about their philosophy of teaching (or what they valued the most while teaching) the KTA s provided a diversity of opinions such as teaching is learning communic ating delivery and assisting KTA s 2 and 8 mentioned that teaching in a lab seemed different from teaching in a lecture based class ; the former is more about disseminating knowledge KTA s 11 and 13 confessed that there was a gap between wha t t he y thought the class should look like and what they actually did in class. Although t he y said teaching is communication between the teacher and the students, their class es w ere typical teacher fronted class es with low degree of student involvement. It was surprising to see the most of the KTAs (seven out of nine KTAs) expressed that they did not regard the teacher student relationship as hierarchical in the U.S. This is generally the case in their home culture albeit it is changing They said that they did not like the strong hierarchical relationship between the teacher and the students that they went through in Korea In addition to EAP 5836 (the academic spoken English course designed for the international teaching assistants) they had to take thre e out of nine KTAs received training from their department which they found helpful. As for EAP 5836, a ll of the KTAs said that the individual conference(s) on their video taped teaching session(s) were the most helpful because they were able to see how th ey did in real class and receive personalized feedback on linguistic and pedagogical issues. O ther than that their attitudes toward what they learned from the course were tepid. This chapter has presented KTAs explanations regarding their choice for p art icular directive constructions or downtoners In addition, it has discussed the issues
135 which the KTAs had (e.g., language barrier, power issues in class) and their attitudes toward teaching A more detailed discussion on these findings follows in the next chapter.
136 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Three research questions have been answered in the present study so far. First, it has described the types of directive constructions that the Korea n teaching assistants (KTAs) utilized while teaching and the distribution of each construction type and found that the KTAs relied on lexical devices when mitigating their directive language. Second, th e choice when issuing commanding directive (CD) tokens. Lastly, it has shown that the KTAs were different from the native speak er teaching assistants (NSTAs) with regard to their overuse of the modal declarative construction (D M), their reliance on lexical mitigation, their underuse of impersonal pers pective, and their use of a limited number of (periphrastic) modal verbs These findings are discussed in the following sections, retrospective accounts and some of the relevant research into account. KTA NSTA Similarities Both KTA and NSTA g roup s used directives for several purposes; they commanded, suggested, or requested their students to do something. In other words, the directives located in the KTA and NSTA data were not homogeneous in terms of the strength of their attempt to get the st udents to carry out a particular action The data analysis demonstrated that t hey produced strong directives that were related to course requirements and tasks at hand most of the time (85%), which I addressed as commanding directive in the present researc h. In other words, their directives were mainly instructional (He, 2000) or procedural (Liu & Hong, 2009), which are used in the context of implementing classroom procedures or teaching agenda (He, 2000, p.
137 123). This is no surprise, considering the institutional context in which the teacher lead s their students to achieve course objectives. Regarding the construction types utilized for directive realization, t he inventory established for data analysis in the present research (see Table 2 3) was only satisfactory to a certain degree ; it covered 95% of the directive tokens produced by the KTAs and 86% of the directive tokens issued by the NSTAs While the inventory was made by combining several inventories from the previous research, the context of the present research was different from that of the previous studies. This is no doubt the main reason that the inventory was not completely satisfactory. Both groups, the KTAs and the NSTAs alike, employed a range of structures a s was the case of previous re search on teachers directives (e.g., Holmes, 1983; Liu & Hong, 2009; Reinhardt, 2010; Tapper, 1994). In addition, both groups had the same preferred form in each construction category: Im B (base form of verb) in the imperative category, D M in the declar ative, and Q M (questions with modal) in the interrogative category. This suggests that th is particular non native teacher group was familiar with a range of directive constructions as well as with the few most favored NSTA construction s In their producti on of CD tokens, in particular, the KTA and the NSTA group displayed the same construction preference; they favored Im B over the other forms. Both groups were also similar in that they showed different preferences for requesting directive (RD) and suggest ing directive (SD) tokens This indicates that the KTAs were aware of the contextual differences of the three types of directives (i.e., differences in the force of attempt to get the students to do something) and able to vary their construction choices.
138 O ther than these similarities with regard to their choice of directive constructions, the KTA group approximated the NSTA group in their use of mitigation devices and perspective to a certain degree First, both groups mitigated a similar portion of the dir ectives, which was about 30%. Second, the KTA group utilized the same mitigation devices that their NSTA counterpart s used. For syntactic downtoners, both groups used past tense, if construction, and other variation s of complex declaratives (e.g., embedded D M). For lexical mitigation, just was p redominantly used, followed by please Since the majority of the literature has discussed about please when it comes to lexical mitigators (e.g., Ellis 1992; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Holmes, 1983; Koike, 1989), it was unexpected to find that they used the minimizer just more than the politeness marker please Third, both KTA and NSTA groups mitigated SD more than hearer perspective These similarities, along with the afore mentioned ones, seem to suggest that the KTAs have a good understanding of directive language. KTA NSTA Differences Although the data analysis demonstrated that the directives in the KTA and NSTA data were realize d in a variety of constructions, they did not use each form in similar proportions. Group differences in KTAs and NSTAs preferences for directive constructio ns w ere found in all three types of directives. In their production of CD tokens, the most freque ntly employed construction was Im B in both groups, as previously discussed. This reliance on Im B (43% for the KTAs and 48% for the NSTA s ) is in accordance with the findings of the previous research (e.g., Liu & Hong, 2009; Holmes, 1983) and expected due to the asymmetrical relation ship between the teacher and the students in the classroom setting (Holmes, 1983; Nikula, 2002). However, KTAs
139 frequent use of D M (31%) is not a common pattern reported in the literature 1 The KTAs utilized this D M constructi on more than the NSTAs who used it only 12% of the time on average. KTAs directive realization using D M mainly consisted of obligation statements (e.g., you have to do X ), permissive statements (e.g., you can do X ), and necessity statements (e.g., y ou need to do X ), which are considered less strong than the imperatives (Liu & Hong, 2009). Im B is a direct form, according to Blum Kulka (1987), since the speaker s intention is straightforwardly stated in an utterance. D M is not as direct as Im B beca use directive content is expressed through modality (i.e., degree of necessity, obligation, and possibility). However, D M is direct enough for the listeners to understand the speaker s intention, compared to the indirect strategies from which the listener s should infer the intended meaning (e.g., hints ) Thus, it seemed that the KTAs utilized D M in order to ask their students to do certain actions clearly, but not in a forceful way, which is the characteristic of D M pointed out by Mills (1999). The inter view data actually showe d that KTAs perceived directness of D M was in line with the general consensus found in the literature (e.g., Blum Kulka et al., 1989; Liu & Hong, 2009) E ight out of the nine KTAs who participated in the retrospective interview an swered that D M is less direct or strong than Im B. Moreover, they commented that they did not want to force their students to do something. Thus, their retrospective accounts indicated that KTAs frequent use of D M was due to their intention to be not fo rceful when issuing directives in class. 1 At least one study reported the similar pattern; Mills (1999) found that the D M structure was frequently used in one American kindergarten classroom.
140 A closer look at their use of D M showed another difference between the KTA and the NSTA group. The KTAs relied on can and have to for this particular construction type, while the NSTAs used a wide range of moda l verbs, such as should need to gotta be going to and can have to runs counter to their intention to be non forceful in their production of directive language, since have to conveys stronger illocutionary force than nee d to and be going to for example. Even though the KTAs expressed that they considered need to less direct than have to they used the latter more than the former for CD. This is inconsistent with their desire to be non forceful, which was frequentl y expressed in the retrospective interviews. In addition, should which was regarded as strong as have to was not as frequent as have to in the KTA data (11% vs. 25%). In short, KTAs modal selection seems not related to directness of modality, but relevant to their familiarity with modal verbs. The NSTAs employed Others more than the KTAs (12% vs. 4%) when issuing CD tokens That is, the NSTAs utilized the construction type s identified as Others (e.g., if construction, embedded D M, embedded D W) as much as D M (12%). These constructions were regarded as syntactic mitigators in the present research based on Holmes s (1983) interpretation of formal additions (p. 103) any forms preceding or following directive content as one kind of mitigation strate gy. In short, for CD tokens, KTA group s use of D M was greater than NSTAs NSTAs use of Others was greater than KTAs These constructions are less strong than the Im B which was used the most frequently for CD. This suggests that the two group s selected less direct construction types from time to time, but differed in their choice of construction. The
141 possible sources of the differences mentioned so far and their implications are discussed later in this section. For RD tokens, KTAs first choi ce was Q M (modal interrogative) instead of Im B (48% vs. 12% of the time on average). This preference for Q M confirmed the existing pattern found in non native speakers requesting behavior, though the context was different (e.g., Blum Kulka, 1982; Hahn, 2009; Kim, 1995; Rintell, 1981; Rose, 2000). It appeared that the KTAs wanted to soften illocutionary force of their directives by using interrogatives As mentioned earlier in Chapter 3 RD is more face threatening than CD because what was being requeste d was not mandatory for students to do, but their compliance is still expected Students had to do something extra, usually for the The retrospective interviews demonstrated that the KTAs were aware of this difference between RD and CD. Thus, they saw the necessity to use politeness strategies. What they chose was Q M because questioning willingness or feasibility of an action is a conventionalized indirect request form which minimizes the imposition (Brown & Levinson, 1987). However, th e NSTAs did not favor Q M when producing RD tokens. Rather, they utilized Im B as much as Q M (22% vs. 24%) and used D W ( want/need statement s ) 15% of the time. This shows that the NSTA group tended to feel free to employ construction types which have stro nger illocutionary force than Q M for face threatening requests. For example, in the situations where the teachers need volunteers for something, the KTAs asked whether anyone would volunteer, while the NSTAs directly stated their oice for Im B and D W when issuing RD tokens seems to suggest that it is appropriate for the teacher to directly request his or her students to do
142 certain actions in the institutional context, which the KTAs might be not aware of or comfortable with. For SD tokens, it appeared that the KTAs did not display a strong preference for a specific construction. Their number one construction choice for SD was D M, possibility / probability statements in particular but they used Im B as much as D M (mostly with lexi cal mitigation) It has been reported in the literature that D M is preferred for SD tokens in the literature. For example, Rintell ( 1981) found that Spanish speaking learners of English predominantly used you can for suggestions regardless of the level of deference. As discussed earlier D M carries a weaker illocutionary force than the imperatives. Moreover possibility statements are weaker than obligation statements. Since the strength of their directive attempt was the least strong in the case of SD compliance is not necessary) it seemed that the KTAs chose the construction which has lower level of illocutionary force. Actually, in the retrospective interviews, they confirmed that they employed D M to convey the options the student s had, rather than forcing them to perform particular actions. The NSTAs whose number one construction choice for SD was Im B also used D M, but the two groups were different in their use of (periphrastic) modal verbs The KTAs displayed a heavy reliance on can while the NSTAs used (might) want to and can in similar proportion. As the KTAs showed a similar pattern (i.e., a heavy reliance on a particular modal verb) in the set of CD tokens, this indicates that their competence regarding the modal ex pressions may be somewhat limited. Mitigation is another area in which differences between the native speaker (NS) and the non native speaker (NNS) group have been found For example, Banerjee and
143 Carrell ( 1988 ) showed that that the NNS group was regarded as impolite or less polite due to the fact that their positive and /or negative politeness strategies deviated from the NS group, although both groups were similar in their preference s for the construction type s A similar pattern was observed in KTAs miti gation behavior in that their directive language was softened mainly through lexical downtoners, such as just and please which were predominantly used with Im B whereas the NSTAs employed syntactic devices more than the KTAs. Another difference foun d between the two TA groups was their use of i mpersonal perspective, which has been regarded an indirect and less face threatening strategy (e.g., Martnez Flor, 2005 ; Nikula, 2002 ). The KTAs produced impersonal directives (CD tokens) less than the NSTAs ( 5% vs. 18%), and this difference turned out to be statistically significant, as presented in Chapter 3. This pattern was also found in Tapper (1994) suggests, of second person you KTAs. On the basis of their construction cho ices discussed so far KTAs directive behaviors would not be regarded as more direct than NSTAs This is different from the general trend (i.e., non native speakers being direct) found in speech act realization research (e.g., Blum Kulka, 1982; Garca 1989 ; Koike, 1989; Martnez Flor, 2005 ). It is assumed that differences in context affected KTAs language use. However, it should be noted that KTAs advanced
144 aspects: (1) a limited range of modal v erbs used ; (2) less use of impersonal perspective ; and (3) a reliance on lexical mitigators such as just and please Possible Sources of Differences Devia nt patterns with regard to KTAs s were motivated by their intention to be no n forceful in their production of directive language And this intention can be explained through their identities in the classrooms or laboratories. As international teaching assistants (ITAs) have difficulties in defining relationships with their student s due to their status as teachers and students ( Galvin, 1992; Tapper, 1994), it seemed that the KTAs did not put particular ly strong effort in to assert ing their authority in their classes. In the retrospective interviews, as addressed earlier, most of them resisted the hierarchical relationship between the teacher and the students which they had witnessed in their home culture. Actually, their perception of the instructional roles, such as facilitators or assistors, was different from that of other ITAs re ported in the literature; for example, I TAs who viewed themselves as participant evaluators ( Luo et al. 20 01) Thus, the KTAs were likely to be more careful when performing face threatening acts while teaching. as non native spea kers (NNSs) of English seemed to ha ve a great influence on their language behavior. Since they had the fear that their English, not to mention their limited knowledge of American undergraduate classrooms might cause m iscommunications, they were weak in te rms of pragmatic power, regardless of their institutional status as instructors. This tendency may indeed lead the students to challenge the teacher s power, similar to s (1995) view that the ITA student relationship as vulnerable to attempts by stu dents to negotiate or assert higher
145 status for themselves (p. 131). In short, the KTAs, who were teaching assistants and non native speakers felt insecure about their position as a powerful figure in class This feeling of insecurity was reflected in the ir directive language in many ways. As discussed earlier, for example, they favored less direct constructions (i.e., Q M) more than the NSTAs in their production of RD tokens Another example can be found in the amount of SD tokens issued by each group. Th e statistical test revealed that there was a trend that the NSTAs issued SD tokens more than the KTAs 2 ( df 2, N = 1312) = 5.04, p = .08. It has been argued that NNSs are not likely to provide suggestions as much as NSs due to their lack of confidence about the language (e.g., Banerjee & Carrell 1988 ; Bardovi Harlig & Hartford 1990 ). In addition, KTAs use of permission directives (e.g., may I borrow some pen? ), which is one of the directive forms categorized by Ervin Tripp (1976), is also relevant to their unstable status in class. According to Ervin Tripp, permission directives were realized in the modal + beneficiary + have/verb +? format. She found a tendency for this type of directive to be used when the interlocutor was upward in status. However, the KTAs in the present research were higher i n rank in classrooms. Despite this higher institutiona l status in class, KTAs production of permission directives suggests that they may have issues regarding their status. Another source of KTAs deviation seems to be attributable to their limited knowledge about the form and function of a particular expres sion. For example, wish was used for the D W construction only in the KTA data. Actually it was produced by one KTA, who was not sure why he selected this particular verb, as we can see from Excerpt (11).
146 Excerpt (11): From the interview with KTA 16, I wish you guys read this book carefully please Interviewer: why did you use I wish? KTA1 6 : it looks like I used it with no definite reason Interviewer: this is not the only instance of I wish expression. you re going to see more later on. when do you think you usually use this expression? I mean I was wondering why you used this expression in this situation. wasn t reading that book kind of requirement? KTA 1 6 : but I think education is regarded as service in the U.S, more than it is regarded s o in Korea. well education is service, so in that respect teachers are considered as someone who provides a good quality service, especially in the U.S. couldn t that be the underlying motivation? I don t know why I used that expression, plus I m not s ure whether it is appropriate in that context Interviewer: so were you kind of encouraging? [KTA 16: yes] since students usually do not read before they come to class, so you were encouraging them to read rather than commanding like read it [KTA 16: yeah] and maybe being polite? KTA 1 6 : yeah I think so KTA 16 could not account for his use of the verb wish but said that teachers are expected to provide a good quality service. It seemed to me that what he meant by a good service was being nice and friendly to the students. This was the reason why I brought up a politeness issue and checked with him. Other examples which reflect KTAs limited English abilit ies are their misperception of directness of D V (e.g., I suggest/ recommend ), which was explained in Chapter 4, and KTA 2 s use of Im Sub (i.e., subject + imperative). KTA 2 commented that he wanted to mitigate his directive language by adding the subject you in front of the imperative structure. His perception was not correct. According to Holmes (1983), you is added to the impe ratives for two reasons: (1) to emphasize the directive; and (2) to clearly designate the agent of the requested action. In addition, KTAs accounts for
147 their use of mitigation devices I think/guess (see Excerpt [ 8 ] in Chapter 4) and just indicated tha t KTAs knowledge on mitigators was limited Similarly, KTAs overuse of have to and can seems relevant to NNSs more limited language repertoire than NSs KTAs over reliance on a few construction types and modal verbs has been addressed in previous research. For example, Reinhardt (2010) showed that the expert group (i.e., NS instructors) displayed variability in their use of directive constructions, while the learner group relied on only a few structures. Another possible explanation of KTAs overu se of have to and can may be related to transfer of training effect. Since can and have to are taught early and repeatedly in English language education in Korea, it seemed that the KTAs were more familiar with these two particular modals than the others. KTAs reliance on lexical mitigators and underuse of impersonalization is also related to NNSs incomplete development of the second language. As Koike (1989 ) argues that NNS are likely to employ lexical mitigators to close the gap between the gra mmatical competence and pragmatic concepts the KTAs employed rather simple devices which were acquired in their early stage of English learning. In other words, NNSs usually have fewer or no difficulties understanding pragmatic concepts due to universal a spects of pragmatics, but they are more likely to have difficulties learning the specifics (e.g., mitigati o n devices for NNSs in Koike s study). Lastly, KTAs attempt to be less forceful when producing directives may suggest that they were less than fully competent members of the academic discourse community (i.e., the context of higher education in the U.S). In other words, they fell short in fully knowing the rules of academic talk (Bardovi Harlig & Hartford, 1993).
148 Considering NSTAs frequent use of Im B in other observations (e.g., Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975), teacher s use of imperative construction is not uncommon. However, the KTAs might have perceived it as too strong because they had learned that imperative directives in everyday interaction are for ceful. In this respect, the KTAs did not use Im B as much as the NSTAs for RD tokens. Even in CD tokens, the KTAs tended to mitigate Im B more than the NSTAs (41% vs. 31% of the CD tokens realized in Im B). As explained in Chapter 1, institutional talk is different from everyday conversation. There exist rules to follow. That is, what, when, and how to talk are determined by the roles assigned to the participants. Since KTAs directives were selected from the first semester of their teaching in the U.S., th eir directive behaviors were mostly affected by the rules they had acquired prior to their teaching. Those rules would work for conversation in the social domain, not for interaction in the education domain. Although they were exposed to NS faculty members directives in the courses they took as students, what they had learned explicitly from the English language classes (e.g., a limited number of polite expressions) seemed to have stronger impact on their classroom language. In other words, the KTAs did no t have an appropriate understanding of the context and the rules, which led to the different directive behaviors from the NSTAs. Potential Problems Following Blum Kulka (1982) NNSs that differ from the NS baseline violate social norms, expressions that deviate from the norms are more likely
149 KTAs were similar to the NSTAs in many ways, a few deviant forms might give a false impression to the students. First, KTAs heavy reliance on can may confuse their students. Since the KTAs used you can for SD as well as for CD tokens, while the NSTAs rarely used it for CD, it might have been possible for some students to interpret certain tokens as possibility statements rather than commands. For example, KTA 5 said you can share the results for each experiment when she wanted her students to work together. She was not giving an option, but directing a specific action. However, she had to tell some of the gro ups again that you re supposed to discuss (the results) noticing that some were doing experiment individually. Similarly, KTA 14 s use of might in you might prepare might have conveyed a different message (i.e., an optio n) from what she intended (i.e., a must). KTA 14 commented that she used might to mitigate her directive, but misunderstandings seemed likely. s (1995) study discussed a similar case. Although one Korean TA use d may to communicate with his studen t in a polite manner, it confused his student who lack of knowledge. Second, KTAs use of some mitigatiors may give the students a negative impression of them. As addressed earlier, the KTAs did not have thorough knowledge of t he minimizer just When the speakers do not know about the function of a certain expression, it is more likely for them to use it inappropriately. Regn (2004), for example, discussed some of ITAs inappropriate use of just such as you just first chec k this, this, and all this Since just in this example was used with the task which required hard work, Regn argues that it could bring undesirable consequences to the teacher
150 students relationship; the students would perceive the teacher as unsympathe tic. In the present research, similar instances exist: (KTA14) and (KTA 1). These directives can give the students an impression th at the teacher does not show concern for them because they sound like what is being requested is a simple thing. This may negatively affect their relationship. Another problematic mitigator is I think/guess which the KTAs did not seem to know well. Thi s phrase (which is called parentheticals ) is regarded as an indirect strategy which softens directive language (e.g., Dalton Puffer, 2006; Garca 1989; Nikula, 2002). However, it appeared that the KTAs did not use it appropriately. For example, KTA 6 s directive I think you get a powder, not liquid (x x) sounds weird This mitigator usually comes along with D M, such as I think you should do X. The exact same problem was found s (1994) study. A ll the di rective tokens realized in the I thin k + you + verb format were judged non target like by NSs. Third, KTAs intent to be indirect and polite might undermine the teacher s status in class and provide opportunities for the students to challenge the teacher. As reported in Chapter 4, six out of the nine KTAs who participated in the retrospective interviews commented that they had experienced power challenges from the students. They were not happy about the experience. However, it seemed that they did not know how to deal with them. ITAs should k now it is okay to be direct when necessary. In addition, they should be aware of what can be negotiated between the teacher and the students and what should not be. A good command of English alone would not suffice, but an
151 appropriate understanding of the classroom/lab context is required in order for ITAs to successfully perform their teaching duties. pragmatic failure is relevant to the potential problems discussed above. By defining it as the inability to understand what is meant by what is said (p. 91), Thomas divides pragmatic failure into two types: (1) pragmalinguistic failure and (2) sociopragmatic failure The former refers to incorrect mapping between the form and certain pragmatic force (i.e., inability to form linguistic expressions ), whereas the latter is relevant to inappropriateness of a certain expression in the given context (i.e., different perceptions of what is appropriate in a particular situation ). The first two types of problems mentioned above fall into pragmalinguistic failure, since any misunderstandings or unwanted outcomes stem from their lack of pragmalinguistic knowledge. On the other hand, the third problem can be considered as sociopragmatic failure because it originates from having different understandings or not knowing norms of the context. Gender and Language T he female and male KTAs were similar in their preference for the Q M construction in the set of RD tokens and with regard to the amount of the tokens mitigated in all three types of directives. However, the male KTAs seemed more direct than the female KTAs in that they favored Im B whereas the female group preferred D M for CD tokens In addition although not tested statistically, the male KTAs used D V (directive vocabulary constru ction) such as I recommend/suggest more than the female KTAs when issuing SD tokens This has been regarded as much stronger than the imperative form in the literature (e.g., Blum Kulka et al., 1989; Liu & Hong, 2009; Martnez Flor 2005). Male KTAs pre ference for direct constructions found in the
15 2 present study confirmed the findings of the extant literature (e.g., Aronsson & Thorell, 1999; Goodwin, 1980; Lee & Kim 1992 ; Sachs, 1987) While findings may differ from one researcher to the other, it has b een generally agreed that women and men differ in their ways to talk, from pronunciation to conversational practice. However, this general impression is never sufficient to understand women s and men s speech. As mentioned in Chapter 1, moreover, gender ha s been considered as an important variable in sociolinguistics, but not so much in interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) and ITA education. Thus, the present study contributes to the fields of ILP and ITA education, showing that the male instructors in the settin g of higher education tend to employ the imperative form more than the female counterparts. Although the statistical test did not support a significant difference between the female and the male NSTA group, they showed the same pattern with the KTA group, of which difference was statistically tested. Due to the small size of the tokens, we are limited in drawing any conclusion regarding gender differences in RD and SD tokens. Effectiveness of Retrospective Interview As Gass and Mackey (2006) have asserted, may create plausible stories for other descriptions of mental activity ( it is not always possible to tap into speakers minds in the stimulated interviews. Especially, when there is a time lag, it seems to be mor e difficult for them to recall what they were thinking when their action was videotaped. However, retrospective interviews, employed as a triangulating means in the present study, yielded invaluable information regarding KTAs reasoning behind their use of directives. In addition, it helped me interpret the findings of the data analysis.
153 Without KTAs retrospective accounts collected from the one on one stimulated recall, the data would have been interpreted differently. For example, it would have not bee n possible to ascertain that the KTAs had limited knowledge of certain construction types (e.g., D V, Im Sub) and mitigators (e.g., just I think ). In addition, it would have not been successful to link their identity to their directive language behavi ors (i.e., why they tried to be indirect when issuing directive tokens). Moreover, it would have not been possible to see that KTAs perception towards the teacher student relationship seemed to affect their choice for directive constructions. For example, KTA 5 and 10, who did not see it as an asymmetrical one, favored the indirect construction (D M) over the direct one (Im B). This chapter has discussed not only how the KTA group deviated from the NSTA group in their use of directive language, but also w hy they showed such differences. In addition, it has discussed the key findings on gender and directive construction choices. Lastly, it has discussed how useful the retrospective interview was as a triangulation tool. The next chapter closes the present r esearch by providing a summary of the findings, followed by discussion of pedagogical implications, limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research.
154 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION This dissertation has examined the patterns of teaching assistants (TA s ) directive s used in a N orthern American university. By analyzing spoken directives of two TA groups, native speaker teaching assistants (NSTAs) and Korean teaching assistants (KTAs), the present study discovered several common characteristics of the dir ective language used in this particular setting. First, the TAs produced different types of directives, which were categorized as either a commanding directive (CD), a requesting directive (RD), or a suggesting directive (SD). Second, the TAs employed a do zen constructions for their directive language, but displayed preferences for particular construction type s depending on the particular kind of directive (e.g., bare imperatives for CD). Third, the TAs mitigated their directive language ( approximately 30% of the time) via lexical (e.g., please just ) and syntactic devices (e.g., past tense, if construction) within the head acts Fourth, the majority of TAs directives had hearer perspective. Fifth, the male TAs showed a tendency to employ the bare imper ative form (Im B) more than the female TAs. However, a closer look at each type of directive revealed a number of differences between the KTA and the NSTA group. First, in the set of CD tokens, the KTAs used (periphrastic) modal declarative s (D M) more tha n the NSTAs, though both groups number one choice was Im B. Second, in the production of RD, the KTA group favored modal interrogative s (Q M) over the other constructions, whereas the NSTA counterpart showed a relatively balanced use of Im B, Q M, and D W (want/need statements). Third, in the set of SD, the KTAs displayed a preference for D M while the NSTAs used D M and Others in a similar proportion. These differences indicate that KTAs tended to
155 employ less direct construction types more than the NSTAs. The retrospective interviews revealed that this tendency was due to their desire to be non forceful in their attempt to get their students to do something, which also suggest s that they had a good understanding of which constructions are more or less dire ct than others. Another difference, KTAs heavy reliance on lexical downtoners and hearer perspective compared to NSTAs could not be explained by their intention to be less direct in their production of direct ive language. Rather, it implie s that their directive language was not as sophisticated as NSTAs It i s assumed that they did not possess a wide range of linguistic repertoire for directives or did not have a good command of it. Similarly, KTAs accounts on some of the mitigati o n devices revealed t hat they had limited knowledge regarding when and how to use certain mitigators. KTAs directive behaviors that are different from the native baseline and their lack of knowledge about the functions of mitigators mentioned above could be the source of misc ommunications or undesirable outcomes. Therefore, instructions which take these findings into consideration would benefit KTAs and other international teaching assistants (ITAs). Pedagogical Implications The findings and discussion addressed in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 have implications for both ITA education in the U.S. and teaching English as a foreign language in Korea For the former, t his dissertation urge s a need for instruction on two aspects: academic rules with regard to teaching in a U.S. university s etting and patterns of teachers in class directives in English A s discussed in Chapter 5, the directive language behaviors of KTAs that were different from those of NSTAs may be attribut ed to an insufficient or incorrect understanding of the academic dis course community, meaning that they were
156 novice members of the community. As shown in Bardovi Harlig and Hartford s (1993) study, non native speaker novice members can make progress on their pragmatic competence over time. Yet instruction on the U.S. acade mic setting (e.g., what is expected of a TA in a lab session the typical teacher student relationship in the U.S. university setting) can quicken the socialization process, and this could be done in the ITA training programs. For example, we can teach IT As when and how inst ructors assert their authority by providing examples of NSTAs direct directive s with context At the same time, we can teach them when and how instructors seek to promote a sense of inclusion and establish a rapport with the students b y instructing them on ways to soften their directive language Here, it is important to let them know that the teacher ha s a higher status in class and that rapport building does not necessarily mean a symmetrical relationship between the teacher and the s tudents. ITAs especially Asian ITAs educated in a very hierarchical educational setting in their home countries, are often told that the classroom atmosphere in the U.S. is informal and friendly This kind of information, if not addressed appropriately, l eads to misperceptions of sociopragmatics (e.g., s tereotypical attitudes toward the teacher student relationship in U.S. c lassrooms ) KTAs limited linguistic resources of mitigation devices and directive construction types in the academic setting found i n the present study suggest the necessity of instruction on teacher directive language in ITA education On the one hand, n ative baseline data and the directive usage of KTAs that is congruent with that of NSTAs in a range of academic speech events can s erve as a good resource for design ing instructional units on directives for ITAs The varied situations in which directives were
157 used, the types of directives found, the directive construction types employed, and the mitigati o n devic es utilized are all cri tical aspects of in class directives to be learned by ITAs On the other hand, the fact that KTAs directive usage deviated from NSTAs is informative to ITA educators as well By studying how KTAs are different from the NSTAs, they can better understand this particular group of ITAs, predict possible communication problems in ITA student interaction, and prepare relevant lessons for ITAs. In addition, can be compared with the directive usage of other groups of ITAs reported in the li terature If common patterns exist th ey deserve our attention For example, non native teachers reliance on the you can construction found in the present study and Reinhardt (2010) suggests that ITAs should learn about the possible negative impacts of this particular construction on the ir relationship with their students because it communicates permission, rather than possibility, which restricts the hearers choices more than other construction type s such as you could or you want to Lastly the p resent study calls for reflection on ways to bolster ITAs confidence in their English. Although this sounds like a difficult task, it is not impossible. While interviewing the KTAs, I realized that th eir expressed dissatisfaction with their English abilit ies was general rather than focused on specific language skills ; the intensity of their frustration was seemed excessive. In order to alleviate their worries, we could for example ask them to point out what they do not like about their English an d provid e constructive feedback If their English is intelligible and acceptable, we could tell them they are doing well and that they do not have to worry about it. If their English is, in fact,
158 problematic, we can provide them with tips and follow up on their pe rformance. It seems that this kind of support would work best in the form of one on one conferences with a competent member of the discourse community (e.g., faculty members, ITA educators, experienced native speaker TAs). Since the KTAs commented that the personalized feedback session(s) on their teaching were the most useful element of the training course, individual training sessions are expected to maximize the possible benefits of the training. Regarding implications for pedagogy in English education i n Korea, the present study suggests that the form and function of a linguistic item should be taught together. It is relevant to Celce Murcia s ( 1991 ) argument that learners of language should learn an intended social message of a grammar point When the s peakers do not know about the function of a certain expression, it is more likely for them to use it inappropriately which could have undesirable consequences As speakers grammatical mistakes can be excused, but not the pragmatic ones, learning pragmati c aspects of language is necessary for one to have felicitous interaction. Thus, it is important to teach/know both form and function (i.e., pragmatic force ) of a particular linguistic item in context For example, the retrospective interviews showed that the KTAs could not always give explanations for their directive construction or mitigator choices. They know the forms, but not the functions which necessitates appropriate instruction (i.e., pragmatic instruction) in English classrooms in Korea In fact English education in Korea has set a target for building students communicative competence since the release of the fourth national curriculum in the 1980s. However, classroom realities d id not seem to reflect this goal when the KTAs w ho participated in th e present study were at school. English
159 education generall y remain ed strongly dependent on the Grammar Translation Method which focuses on written language (Lee, 1983) mainly due to the national university entrance exam Although communicative approach es to la nguage learning and teaching have been emphasized in English education in Korea, teaching pragmatic s has not received sufficient attention This situation could be related to KTAs lack in repertoire of mitigation strategies and directive construct ion types observed in the present study. Korean learners of English do learn pragmatic concepts and forms for directive speech acts but do not learn a wide range of strategies They would benefit from explicit instruction on strategies and communicative p ractice s However, it does not seem possible to teach all the detail s of the pragmatic element s of every possible situation Thus, w hen teaching pragmatic s it is important to provide the students with ample opportunities to analyze language use in context so that they can develop metapragmatic ability a s Thomas (1983) suggests In t his way, learners become sensitive to socio contextual factors and learn a variety of linguistic strategies. Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research Althou gh this dissertation uncovered several similarities and differences between KTAs and NSTAs directive usage, there are a few noteworthy limitations of the study. First, there is lack of generalizability. Since the size of certain sub sets of the data was small, it was impossible to test the statistical significance of every difference observed. In addition, since the present research could not use random sampling (i.e., the NSTA data was collected from one institution and the KTA data from another institut ion), the data investigated in the present study fails to represent the entire native speaker TA and
160 Korean TA population. Thus, caution is needed in interpreting the findings, even though generalizability was not the aim of the present research. Second, c omparability between the two data sets (i.e., the KTA and the NSTA data) is limited. Since each data set derives from the pre existing data, it was impossible to control all the variables of the data, such as the number of recordings, the types of speech e vent, or gender. For example, I could not find the native counterpart of the KTA who supervised the Anatomy lab in the data source. Likewise, I could not find a female KTA who supervised the Anatomy lab. Instead, I had to use what was available. Third, ina ccuracy may exist in the directive token selection procedure. The second coder and I excluded all the ambiguous tokens on which we failed to reach agreement. Thus, this might lead to under identification of the directive tokens. On the other hand, some tok ens that we selected as directive language mi ght reflect over identification because there was no guarantee that our agreement matched with speakers intention s Fourth findings regarding directness or politeness of directive language are somewhat limited because I did not take every related aspect of directive speech acts (e.g., external modification, alerters aggravation ) into account, but instead focused on a few elements assuming other factors held constant Since the head act is the key segment of a directive sequence, and mitigation is generally more frequent than aggravation, the scope of the analysis was narrowed to the head acts and mitigation strategies within th e head acts Lastly, the re was a long t ime lag between the date when teaching was recorded and the interview date; the interview was conducted one to nine semesters
161 after they were videotaped. This was unavoidable, however, because data analysis had to be finished to prepare the questions for the interview. Luckily, it seemed that the KTAs did not have difficulty in recalling the classes they taught while watching their videos. Keeping all these limitations in mind, here are some suggestions for future research. The first one is related to expanding the scale of the study. In order to provide generalizable findings, more data is necessary. If it is possible to gather academic speech from a good number of TAs teaching in different speech events across disciplines, we could examine whether and to what extent other variables such as sp eech event and discipline affect their directive language usage This kind of future research is expected to provide practical suggestions for ITA educators that are discipline specific or context specific In addition, looking at other ITA groups, suc h a s Chinese or Indian TAs, w ould enable us to better support ITA training, since these groups comprise most of the ITA population in U.S. universities. Second it would be fruitful to examine undergraduate students responses to ITAs directive language and their attitud es towards ITAs For example, u ndergraduates perceptions of the directness or appropriateness of each directive construction could help ITA educators see which directive construction(s) are actually preferred by the students. In addition, th e results of this future research can i lluminate whether the perceived directness or appropriateness of ITAs direct ive language is related to undergraduates' perception s of the ITAs This kind of information is useful in ITA education since ITAs could us e it to be better prepared in terms of their teacher talk
162 Third, investigation of grammaticality and appropriateness of KTAs directive language is recommended. While dealing with the KTA data, I found some of the KTAs directive language problematic. How ever, these instances were not fully discussed here, since grammaticality and/or appropriateness of the directives tokens were beyond the scope of this dissertation. The results of this future research mig ht well uncover problem s in KTAs directive usage awareness of which would benefit ITA education as well as English language education. Fourth, other segments of a directive sequence are further possible topics for future research. It would be interesting to investigate whether and how ITAs increase impos ition of directive language (e.g., intensifiers) since they have institutional power but lack pragmatic power in class In addition, it would be intriguing t o compare ITAs with the native base line in terms of their use of e xternal modification (i. e., both upgraders and downgraders outside head acts) in the academic context. It has been noted that non native speakers tend to be verbose in external modification (i.e., longer procedures ) when performing directive speech acts in everyday interaction (e.g., Fae rch & Kasper, 1989 ). Furthermore, non verbal strategies, such as facial expressions g estures, and intonation, as well as alerters (e.g., honey stupid cow ) are other research topics which can function as both downgraders and upgraders. Finally, i t i s also a worthy goal to investigate teachers directive usage in other settings and particularly that of instructors who teach English or the subject matter in English in Korean universities. In this context, they teach Korean undergraduates, meaning that they are not inferior to their students in terms of pragmatic power. It would be interesting to examine whether their directive behaviors are similar to or different
163 from those of the KTAs investigated in this dissertation. There are other possibilities wi th regard to the participant recruitment (e.g., Korean teachers directives in elementary classrooms; native speaker teachers directives in elementary/university classrooms in Korea). In conclusion, t his dissertation in form s how KTAs non native teachers, perform directive speech acts in a U.S. university setting C ompar ing KTAs in class directives to the native baseline provides suggestions for ITA training in hig her education in the U.S. and for English language education in Korea Triangulating intervi ews, which focus on those directive behaviors of KTAs which differ ed from th os e of NSTAs, revealed that the deviant patterns stemmed from lack of both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge. This finding draws our attention to the importance of prag matic instruction, which is believed to help speakers avoid infelicitous cross cultural interaction. This dissertation does not take undergraduate students perspectives or offer any suggestions for them Rather, its focus is only on the KTAs directive l anguage behaviors meaning that it takes a one way approach. In this regard, it falls within the realm of inter language pragmatics (ILP) rather than cross cultural pragmatics (CCP) I hope this dissertation can serve as a trigger for a number of insightfu l studies on non native teacher discourse which promise to enrich the fields of ILP CCP, ITA education, and English language education in general And f inally I hope these continued research efforts in the field of applied linguistics effect a change in peoples views on cross cultural communication That is as more and more people, native and non nat ive alike, feel responsib le for the felicitous nature of their interaction s they are increasingly likely
164 to work together for more satisfactory cross cultu ral interaction regardless of linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the interlocutors
165 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM (FOR ACCESS TO TEACHING VIDEOS)
166 APPENDIX B TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTION Symbol Description [ ] (xx) ( ) < >
167 APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT FORM (FOR RETROSPECTIVE INTERVIEWS)
168 LIST OF REFERENCES Agar, M. (1985). Institutional discourse. Text 5 147 168. Ard, J. (1989). Grounding an ITA curriculum: Theoretical and practical concerns. English for Specific Purposes 8 125 138. Journal of Pragmatics 31 25 47. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bailey, K. (1983). Foreig n teaching assistants at U.S. universities: Problems in interaction and communication. TESOL Quarterly 17 308 310. Bailey, K. (1984). The foreign TA problem I n K. Bailey, F. Pialorsi & J. Zukowski/Faust (Eds.), Foreign teaching assistants in U.S. uni versities (pp. 3 15). Washington DC: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs. Banerjee, J., & Carrell, P. L. (1988). Tuck in your shirt, you squid: Suggestions in ESL. Language Learning 38 31 3 364 Bardovi Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1990) Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning 40 467 501. Bardovi Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1 5 279 304 Beebe, L. M. & Cummings, M. C. (1996) Natural speech act data versus writt en questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts acros s cultures (pp. 65 86). Berlin Germany : Mouton de Gruyter. Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face threatening speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The d ynamic i nterlanguage: Empirical s tudies in s econd l anguage v ariation (pp. 199 218). New York, NY: Plenum. Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R C. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson & S. D., Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence i n a second language (pp. 55 73). New York, NY: Newbury House.
169 Bellinger, D. C., & Gleason, J. B. (1982). Sex differences in parental directives to young children. Sex Roles 8 (11), 1123 1139. Blum Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics 3 (1), 29 59. Blum Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics 11 131 146 Blum Kulka S., House, J., & Kasper G. (Eds.) (1989) Cross cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied L inguistics 5 (3), 196 213. Boxer, D. (2002a). Applying sociolinguistics: Domains and face to face interaction. Philadelphia PA : John Benjamins Boxer, D. (2002 b ). Discourse issues in cross cultural pragmatics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22 150 167. Boxer, D. (2004). Studying speaking to inform second language learning: A conceptual overview. In D. Boxer & A. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 3 24). New York, NY: Multilingual Matters. Brown, P. (1980). How a nd why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In S. McConnell Ginet, R. Borker, & N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 111 136). New York, NY: Prager. Brown P., & Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some u niversals in language usage Cambridge England : Cambridge University Press. Byrd, P., & Constantinides, J. C. (1988). FTA training programs: Searching for appropriate teaching styles. English for Specific Purposes 7 123 129. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (198 0). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1 1 47. Carrell, P., & Konneker, B. (1981). Politeness: Comparing native and nonnative judgments. Language Learning 31 (1), 17 30. Celce Murci a, M. (1991). Grammar p edagogy in s econd and f oreign l anguage t eaching TESOL Quarterly 25 (3), 459 480. Chaing, S. Y. (2009). Dealing with communication problems in the instructional interactions between international teaching assistants and American coll ege students. Language and Education 23 (5), 461 478.
170 Chang, K. Y. (2009). Linguistic politeness in requests by Korean learners of English. Journal of Linguistic Studies 14 (1), 63 91. Dalton Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content based ins truction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics 27 (2) 241 267. Davi e s, C. E. (2003). How English learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across culture. Journal of Pragmatics 35 1361 1385. Davies, C. E., & Tyler, A. E. (2005). Discourse strategies in the context of cross cultural institutional talk: Uncovering interlanguage pragmatics in the university classroom. In K. Bardovi H arlig & B. S. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk (pp. 133 156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Davi e s, C. E., Tyler, A., & Koran J. K., Jr. (1989). Face to face with English speakers: An advanced training class for inte rnational teaching assistants. English for Specific purposes 8 139 153. Douglas, D., & Myers, C. (1989). TAs on TV: Demonstrating communication strategies for international teaching assistants. English for Specific Purposes 8 169 179. Drew, P., & Heri tage, J. (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Eckert, P., & McConnell Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communica te in the classroom : A study of two language Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14 1 23. Erickson F., & Shultz J. (1982) The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in interviews New York, NY: Academic Press. Ervin Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? T he structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5 25 66. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. ( 1989 ). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper ( Eds ), Cross cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 221 247). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Finder, A. (2005, June 24). Unclear on American c ampus: What the foreign teacher said. The N ew York Times Retrieved from http ://www.nytimes.com Fitch, F., & Morgan, S. E. (2003). l the ITA i dentity t hrough s tudent n arratives Communication Education 52 297 310
171 Gallego. J. C. (1990). The intelligibility of three nonnative English speaking t eaching assistants: An analysis of student reported communication breakdowns. Issues in Applied Linguistics 1 219 237. Galvin, K. M. (1992). Preparing TAs for instructor student relationships. In J. D. Nyquist & D. H. Wulff (Eds.), Preparing teaching ass istants for instructional roles: Supervising TAs in communication (pp. 89 97). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association. Garc a, C. (1989). Disagreeing and requesting by Americans and Venezuelans. Linguistics and Education 1 299 322. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24 (1), 90 121. teaching assistants: Examining the other end of the power spectrum. Communication Quarterly 47 12 32. Goodwin, M. H. (1980). Directive response speech sequ activities. In S. McConnell Ginet, R. Borker, & N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 157 173). New York, NY: Prager. Gorsuch, G. J. (2006). Discipline specific practica for international teachin g assistants. English for Specific Purposes 25 90 108. Gunnarsson, B L. (1997). Women and men in the academic discourse community. In H. Kotthoff & R. Wodak (Eds.), Communicating gender in context (pp. 219 247). Philadelphia PA : John Benjamins. Hahn, J requests. Linguistic Research 26 (3), 161 179. Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly 38 201 223. Han, S. (2005). The interlanguage pragmatic development of the speech act of requests by Korean non native speakers of English in an ESL setting (Doctoral dissertation ). Available from ProQue st D issertations and Theses database. ( UMI No. 3165689) He, A. W. (2000). The grammatical and interactional organization of teacher s directives: Implications for socialization of Chinese American children. Linguistics and Education 11 (2), 119 140.
172 Herrington, D. G., & Nakhleh, M. B. (2003). What defines effe ctive chemistry laboratory instruction? Teaching assistant and student perspectives. Journal of Chemical Education 80 (10), 1197 1205. Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied Linguistics 18 1 26. Hoekje B., & Williams, J. (1992). Communicative competence and the dilemma of international teaching assistant education. TESOL Quarterly 26 (2), 243 269. Holmes, J. ( 1983). The structure of teacher s directives. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and c ommunication (pp. 89 115). London England : Longman. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. New York, NY: Longman. Ide, S. (1991). How and why do women speak more politely in Japanese? In S. Ide & N. H. McGloin (Eds.), Aspects of Japanese women s la nguage (pp. 63 79). Tokyo Japan : Kurosio. Jenkins, S. (2000). Cultural and linguistic miscues: A case study of international teaching assistant and academic faculty miscommunication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 477 501. Jeon H. y. (2006) Gender and characteristics of utterances in language users. Korean Linguistics 31 47 70. Jia, C., & Bergerson, A. A. (2008). Understanding the international teaching assistant training program: A case study at a northwestern research universit y. International Education 37 (2), 77 98. Jung E. H., & Hur S. h. (2005) Requesting by Korean EFL university learners with respect to power. English Language and Literature 51 (5), 1133 1152. Jung, E. H., & Lee, M. h. (2007). A cross cultural analysis of compliment responses by native English speakers and Korean learners of English. Korean Journal of Linguistics 32 (1), 143 163. Kasper, G., & Dahl M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13 215 247. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language Malden MA : Blackwell. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 1 1 67 82
173 Koike, D. A. (198 9). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal 73 (3), 279 289. Lee, D. (1987). The semantics of just. Journal of Pragmatics 11 377 398 Lee, K S. (1983). For the improvement of English langua ge teaching in Korea. English Teaching 26 1 28. Lee, S G ., & Kim, S H. (1992) Nam seongeo yeoseongeoe gwanhan yeongu [A study on the differences between men and wome n language ] E omunhak Y eongu [ Language and Literature Studies ] 2 (1), 35 74. Liu, Y., & Hong, H. (2009). Regulative discourse in Singapore primary English classrooms: Teachers choices of directives. Language and Education 23 (1), 1 13. Lo C astro V., & Tapper G. (2008) International teaching assistants and teacher identity. Journal of A pplied Linguistics 3 (2) 185 218. Luo, J., Grady, M. L., & Bellows L. H. (2001). Instructional issues for teaching assistants. Innovative Higher Education 25 209 230. Martnez Flor A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towar ds a taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 18 167 187. McChesney, B. J. (1994). The functional language of the U.S. TA during office hours. In C. G. Madden & C. L. Myers (Eds.), Discourse and performance of international te aching assistants (pp. 134 152). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Mills, M. H. (1999). "Teacher talk" in the Russian and American classroom: Dominance and cultural framing. In M. H. Mills (Ed.), Slavic gender linguistics (pp. 131 152). Philadelphia PA : John Benjamins Nikula, T. (2002). Teacher talk reflecting pragmatic awareness: A look at EFL and content based classroom settings. Pragmatics 12 (4), 447 467. Olshtain E., & Blum Kulka S. (1985) Degree of approximation : Non native reactions to native speech act behavior. In S. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.) Input in s econd l anguage a cquisition (pp. 303 325) Rowley, MA: Newbury House Plakans, B. S. (1997). Undergraduates experiences with and attitudes toward internationa l teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly 31 (1), 95 119. Pickering. L. (2001). The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly 35 233 255.
174 Regn, K. J. (2004). You just can try : The use of directives by internation al teaching assistants in a college chemistry laboratory ( Unpublished master s thesis ). University of Florida Gainesville, F lorida Reinhardt, J. (2010). Directives in office hour consultations: A corpus informed investigation of learner and expert usage. English for Specific Purposes 29 94 107. Rintell, E. (1981). Sociolinguistic variation and pragmatic ability: A look at learners. International Journal of Sociology of Language 27 11 34. Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross sectional study of inte rlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22 27 67. Rounds, P. L. (1987). Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teaching assistant training. TESOL Quarterly 21 (4), 643 671. Rubin, D. L. (1992). Nonlanguage f nonnative English speaking teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education 33 (4), 511 531. Rubin, D. L., & Smith, K. A. (1990). Effects of accent, ethnicity, and lecture topic on of nonnative English speaking teaching assistants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 14 337 353. Phillips, S. Steele, & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender an d sex in comparative perspective (pp. 178 188). Cambridge London : Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (19 69 ). Speech Act s Cambridge London : Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), S yntax and Semantics : Speech acts ( Vol, 3, pp. 59 82). New York, NY: Academic Press. Searle, J. R. (1976). Classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5 1 23. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 7, 289 327. Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology 15 163 191. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse Malden, MA: Blackwell. Schmidt R. (1983) Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communica tive competence. In N. Wolfson & E Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137 174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
175 Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J, & Swales, J. M. (2002). The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English Ann Arbor MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards and analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils Oxford, London : Oxford University Press. Smith, K. S. (1993). A case study on the succe ssful development of an international teaching assistant. Innovative Higher Education 17 (3), 149 163. Takahashi, S., & DuFon, M A. (1989). Cross linguistic influence in indirectness: The case of English directives performed by native Japanese speakers R etrieved from ERIC database. ( ED370439) Tapper, J. (1994). Directives used in college laboratory oral discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13 (3) 205 222. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4 (2), 91 112. Tracy, K ., & J. Carjuzaa. (1993). Identity enactment in intellectual discussion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 12 171 194. Tyler, A. (1992). Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence in international teaching assistants spoken discourse TESOL Quarterly, 26 (4), 713 729 Tyler, A. (1995). The coconstruction of cross cultural miscommunication: Conflicts in perception, negotiation, and enactment of participant role and status. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17 129 152. Waring, H. Z ., & Hruska, B. L. (2012). Problematic directives in pedagogical interaction. Linguistics and Education 23 289 300. West, C. (1998 a visits to women and men physicians. In J. Coates ( Ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp. 328 353). Oxford England : Blackwell. West, C. (19 9 8b). When the doctor is a lady : power, status and gender in physician patient encounters. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and Gender: A reader (pp. 396 412). Oxford England : Blackwell. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society 1, 125 151. Yates, L. (2005). Negotiating an institutional identity: Individual dif ferences in NS and NNS teacher d irectives. In K. Bardovi Harlig & B. S. Hartford (Eds .), Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk (pp. 67 93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
176 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Eunha Hwang was born and raised in Ansan, South Korea. She completed her the department of English l angua ge and l iterature at Kwangwoon University, Seoul in 2000. Prior to completing her doctorate, she earned an M.A. in English linguistics from Korea University, Seoul in 2008. She received her Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Florida in the summer of 2 013.