Citation

## Material Information

Title:
Politeness in Chinese-American Quotidian Negotiations
Creator:
Zhu, Jinping
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (203 p.)

## Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Linguistics
Committee Chair:
LoCastro, Virginia
Committee Co-Chair:
Blondeau, Helene
Committee Members:
Thompson, Roger M.
Fang, Zhihui
4/29/2010

## Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Chinese culture ( jstor )
Landlord and tenant ( jstor )
Maxims ( jstor )
Money ( jstor )
Negotiation strategies ( jstor )
Politeness ( jstor )
Promises ( jstor )
Social interaction ( jstor )
Social norms ( jstor )
Tenants ( jstor )
Linguistics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
appropriateness, negotiation, politeness
Genre:
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
Linguistics thesis, Ph.D.

## Notes

Abstract:
POLITENESS IN CHINESE-AMERICAN QUOTIDIAN NEGOTIATION This study has attempted to investigate appropriateness and (im)politeness in American-Chinese quotidian negotiations through a detailed analysis of role plays in seven different scenarios, in which the participants negotiate to attain their purpose, as well as analysis of retrospective interviews with all the participants. This study draws on Watts? politeness theory as the theoretical framework, where he introduces two terms to distinguish appropriate behaviors and behaviors beyond appropriateness, namely, politic behavior and (im)politeness (2003). This study addressed two research questions: (1) what is the evidence in the data that the participants are adhering to the negotiation norms, i.e. enacting politic behavior? (2) What is the evidence in the data that the participants are going beyond politic behavior, as required in the norms of the two cultures, to enact ?politeness? and/or ?impoliteness?? The negotiation behaviors of the participants in seven role plays were first analyzed. The role play scenarios are: between a professor and a student on extending the deadline of a report, between two neighbors regarding loud music, between a teaching assistant and a student on a delayed assignment, between a landlord and a tenant on an expiring lease, between two friends regarding returning money, between two officemates on use of lab, and between two roommates regarding an unpaid bill. The researcher triangulated the baseline data with the retrospective interviews, which provides rich evidence as well as authentic evaluations from the participants themselves regarding their understanding and assessment of appropriate behaviors and (im)polite behaviors in the seven scenarios, thus making the conclusions more persuasive. It is found in this study that the negotiation behaviors that are consistent with the negotiation strategies that implement norms were considered appropriate. Examples of these behaviors include making negative appeals and positive appeals. However, negotiation behaviors that do not abide by the norms in one culture are evaluated as (im)polite behaviors by the participants of the other culture. One of such behaviors includes keeping silent, which is one of the negotiation strategies by Chinese and was considered as appropriate by the Chinese participants in this study, was nevertheless regarded as a rude behavior by Americans. This study suggests that Watt?s politeness model is a useful tool to investigate politeness in cross-cultural communication. This politeness model provides a tool to investigate when and why participants in a social interaction perceive a certain utterance as polite or not. Watts? model provides a much wider theory of communication for interpreting politeness. The present study highlights that politeness is better tackled in relation to an entire speech event, the contexts, and the participants? expectations and evaluations of such a situation. This study can be seen as a contribution to the cross-cultural politeness research and can increase empirical and theoretical knowledge of what are appropriate and (im)polite behaviors in cross-cultural communication. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
General Note:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2010.
General Note:
General Note:
General Note:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2016-05-31
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jinping Zhu.

## Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Jinping Zhu. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
5/31/2016
Resource Identifier:
697616237 ( OCLC )
Classification:
LD1780 2010 ( lcc )

## This item has the following downloads:

Full Text

PAGE 1

POLITENESS IN CHINESE-AMERIC AN QUOTIDIAN NEGOTIATIONS By JINPING ZHU A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010 1

PAGE 2

2010 Jinping Zhu 2

PAGE 3

To my parents Their love and support made it possible for me to finish this project 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank all those who have in one way or another c ontributed to the completion of my Ph.D. First of foremost, I am gr ateful to my advisor, Dr. Virginia LoCastro, for her constructive comments, ideas, encouragement, and inspiration during the writing of my dissertation as well as for her invaluable guidance at every st ep of my study and research. The dissertation would not have been possible without her valuable suggestions, dedication, patience, and trust that kept me focu sed. In addition, I believe she is much more than an advisor. She is my life long mentor w hose professionalism, diligence, love, and care of her students have set an example for me. I am also particularly indebted to Dr Helene Blondeau for her expertise in linguistics, and considerable time put in reading and correcting my dissertation. Her detailed and insightful comment s on my drafts were very helpful. I indeed appreciate that she has always shown extreme intere st towards my dissertation and responded to any of my questions in a quick and enthusiastic way no matter how busy she was. I am also obliged to have Dr. Roger T hompson on my committee, who has given me intense support during my research. Also I sincerely thank Dr. Zhihui Fang, who joined my committee as an external member. I feel grateful in t hanking him for all the encouragement and interest he has shown to wards my research. His knowledge of Chinese linguistics and of educat ion was of great help to me. Meanwhile, I would definitely like to t hank Dr. Ratree Wayland, coordinator of graduate students in Linguistics Program, for all the suppor t and care that she has shown to me throughout my entire education. I express my deep appreciation to Dr. Caroline Wiltshire for her support over t he years. I thank Dr. Diana Boxer for her 4

PAGE 5

instruction on the course of Topics of Second Language Acquisition. Her knowledge of linguistics has offered me an insightful view in my study. I also would like to thank Mr. Gordon Tapper and Dr. Jules Gliesche at th e Academic Spoken English Program for generously allowing me to use their lab equipment and classrooms. Their support was tremendous to me. I thank Dr. Bin Li at City University of Hong Kong for her great help in sending me resources that I did not subscribe and for her encouragement and support over the years. Dr. Bin Li has also provided me with useful suggestions on my research methods. I sincerely thank all the American and Chi nese participants who participated in the study and devoted much time and enthusiasm to my research. Moreover, I am thankful to my fellow classmates, first, Michael Ge lbman, for his time spent on discussing my problems and concerns regarding my research and for his suggestions and encouragement. I also thank those people who I discussed my project with and offered me valuable feedback, Bin Li, Binmei Liu, Mutsuo Nakamura, Yunjuan He, Rui Cao, Lili Gai, Rania Habib, and Jirapat Jangjamras I am very appreciati ve of their help and friendship. I am also grateful to my family friends, Li Guo and Yuxin Niu at University of Florida, for helping me prin t out the manuscripts many times and for their love and support. I am truly grateful to ot her faculty members in the Linguistics Program at UF. I thank Dr. Eric Potsdam, Dr. Gary Miller, Dr Takako Egi, Dr. Theresa Antes, and Dr. Gary Miller for teaching me in teresting courses and inspiring me during my study at UF. I also thank Patricia Moon at English Language Institute of Li nguistics Program for offering me valuable input in teaching intern ational students with various linguistics and 5

PAGE 6

language background and for all of her great help and support. I thank Jolee Gibbs and Kelli Granade for their great assistance and en couragement to me. I also wish to thank Linguistics Program at University of Florida for offering me financial aid over the years. Last, but not least, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my family, especially to my parents, for their unconditional love and immeasurable support and help. They had been traveling back and forth between my hom etown and the U.S. to help me take care of my child and giving me strength whenever I need it most. 6

PAGE 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................4 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...........................................................................................10 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................13 Motivation and Purpose of the Study ......................................................................13 Literature Review ....................................................................................................16 Traditional Views ..............................................................................................16 Grice .................................................................................................................17 Social Norm View .............................................................................................19 Conversational Maxim View .............................................................................20 Face Saving View .............................................................................................22 Conversational Contract View ..........................................................................24 Discussion of Politeness Theories ..........................................................................25 Post-Modern View ..................................................................................................27 Negotiation as Speech Event ..................................................................................32 Roots of Chinese Culture .................................................................................35 Confucianism .............................................................................................35 Taoism .......................................................................................................38 Buddhism ...................................................................................................39 Negotiation Strategies ......................................................................................40 Theoretical Framework ...........................................................................................45 Research Questions ...............................................................................................48 2 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................49 Introduction .............................................................................................................49 Methodological Framework Used in this Study .......................................................49 Methods in Cross-Cultural Communication .............................................................51 Discourse Completion Tests ......................................................................52 Interviews ...................................................................................................53 Role Plays ..................................................................................................54 Data Collection .......................................................................................................55 Type of Data ..............................................................................................55 Participants ................................................................................................57 Procedures .................................................................................................58 Transcriptions ............................................................................................59 Analytical Framework ..............................................................................................60 7

PAGE 8

3 DATA AN ALYSIS....................................................................................................63 Introduction .............................................................................................................63 Negotiation between a Professor and a Student .....................................................64 Analysis .....................................................................................................64 Summary ....................................................................................................71 Negotiation between Neighbors ..............................................................................71 Analysis .....................................................................................................71 Summary ....................................................................................................78 Negotiation between a Teac hing Assistant and a Student ......................................78 Analysis .....................................................................................................78 Summary ....................................................................................................80 Negotiation between a Landlord and a Tenant .......................................................81 Analysis .....................................................................................................81 Summary ....................................................................................................85 Negotiation between Friends ..................................................................................85 Analysis .....................................................................................................85 Summary ....................................................................................................90 Negotiation between Officemates ...........................................................................91 Analysis .....................................................................................................91 Summary ....................................................................................................94 Negotiation between Roommates ...........................................................................95 Analysis .....................................................................................................95 Summary ..................................................................................................101 4 RETROSPECTIVE ACCOUNTS ..........................................................................103 Introduction ...........................................................................................................103 Accounts of Appropriateness ................................................................................104 Greetings ........................................................................................................104 Making an Apology .........................................................................................106 Making a Promise ...........................................................................................107 Negative Appeals ...........................................................................................109 Making a Threat .............................................................................................114 Summary ........................................................................................................116 Accounts of Appropriateness ................................................................................117 Summary ..............................................................................................................138 5 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................139 Introduction ...........................................................................................................139 Politic Behaviors ...................................................................................................140 Non-Task Sounding ........................................................................................140 Information Exchange ....................................................................................145 Persuasion .....................................................................................................146 (Im)polite Behaviors ..............................................................................................148 Non-Task Sounding ........................................................................................148 8

PAGE 9

Information Exchange ....................................................................................150 Persuasion .....................................................................................................152 Summary ..............................................................................................................153 6 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................156 Findings ................................................................................................................156 Implications ...........................................................................................................157 Applications to Pedagogy .....................................................................................158 Limitations .............................................................................................................159 Contribution and Future Research ........................................................................160 APPENDIX A TRANSCRIPTION SYMBOLS ..............................................................................162 B QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................163 C ROLE PLAYS .......................................................................................................165 D ROLE PLAY TRANSCRIPTS ................................................................................168 E RETROSPECTIVE INTERVIEW IN ENGLISH .....................................................184 F RETROSPECTIVE INTERVIEW IN CHINESE .....................................................189 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................193 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..........................................................................................203 9

PAGE 10

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS DCT Discourse completion test FTA Face threatening act 10

PAGE 11

Abstract of Dissertation Pr esented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulf illment of the Requirements for t he Degree of Doctor of Philosophy POLITENESS IN CHINESE-AMERI CAN QUOTIDIAN NEGOTIATION By Jinping Zhu May 2010 Chair: Virginia LoCastro Major: Linguistics This study has attempted to investi gate appropriateness and (im)politeness in American-Chinese quotidian negotiations th rough a detailed analysis of role plays in seven different scenarios, in which the partici pants negotiate to attain their purpose, as well as analysis of retrospective interviews with all the participants. This study draws on Watts politeness theory as the th eoretical framework, where he introduces two terms to distinguish appropriate behav iors and behaviors beyond appropriateness, namely, politic behavior and (im)politeness (2003). This study addressed two research questions: (1) what is the evidence in the data that the participants are adherin g to the negotiation norms, i.e. enacting politic behavior? (2) What is the evidence in the data t hat the participants ar e going beyond politic behavior, as required in the norms of the two cultures, to enact politeness and/or impoliteness? The negotiation behaviors of t he participants in seven role plays were first analyzed. The role play scenarios are: between a professor and a student on extending the deadline of a report, between two neighbors regarding loud music, between a teaching assistant and a student on a delayed assignment, between a landlord and a tenant on an expiring lease, between two friends regarding returning 11

PAGE 12

money, between two officemates on use of lab, and between two roommates regarding an unpaid bill. The researcher triangulated the baseline data with the retrospective interviews, which provides rich evidence as well as authentic evaluations from the participants themselves regarding their understanding and assessment of appropriate behaviors and (im)polite behaviors in the seven scenarios, thus making the conclusions more persuasive. It is found in this study t hat the negotiation behaviors t hat are consistent with the negotiation strategies that im plement norms were consider ed appropriate. Examples of these behaviors include making negative ap peals and positive appeals. However, negotiation behaviors that do not abide by the norms in one culture are evaluated as (im)polite behaviors by the participants of th e other culture. One of such behaviors includes keeping silent, which is one of t he negotiation strategies by Chinese and was considered as appropriate by the Chinese participants in th is study, was nevertheless regarded as a rude behavior by Americans. This study suggests that Watts politeness model is a useful tool to investigate politeness in cross-cultural communication. This politeness model provides a tool to investigate when and why parti cipants in a social interaction perceive a certain utterance as polite or not. Watts model prov ides a much wider theory of communication for interpreting politeness. The present study highlights that politeness is better tackled in relation to an entire speech event, the c ontexts, and the participants expectations and evaluations of such a situation. This study can be seen as a contribution to the cross-cultural politeness research and can increase empirical and t heoretical knowledge of what are appropriate and (im)polite behavio rs in cross-cultural communication. 12

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Motivation and Purpose of the Study The present study is an investigat ion of politeness in cross-cultural communication. Politeness occurs in inte rpersonal communication on a daily basis across cultures (Fraser, 1990; Kasper 1994; Watts, 1992, 2003). Researchers on politeness have studied politeness phenomenon for more than a decade due to its pervasiveness. Fraser (1990) distinguishes four main theories in politeness research: the social norm view (Hill et al 1986), the co nversational maximum view (Lakoff, 1973, 1979; Leech, 1983), the face saving view (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987) and the conversational contract view (Fraser, 1990). Most approaches unanimously regard politeness as conflict avoidance. The mostly influential among them is the face saving politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), which states that politeness is achieved by politeness strategies, the choice of which is made in accordance with evaluations of social distance, social stat us and the degree of imposition, to mitigate the face threatening acts to participants fa ce needs. The face threatening acts involve many communicative acts such as reques ts, apologies, complaints, and compliments (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987). In terms to Brown and Levinsons theory, face needs are composed of concern with positive face need, which is the desire to be approved, and negative face need, which is the want to be free from imposition by others (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987). Brown and Levinson claim that their politeness theory is universally valid; however, their model has been challenged by a considerable number of works in the paradigm of cross-cultural pragmatics (H ouse & Kasper, 1981; Ide, 1989; Gu, 1990; 13

PAGE 14

Mao, 1994; Matsumoto, 1989; Scollon & Scollon, 1995). Lee-Wong (2000), for instance, points out, politeness cannot be universal ly expressed by means of politeness strategies. Politeness strat egies are ranked hierarchically by Brown and Levinson, namely, off-record as the most face-redressive, negative politeness as the second, and positive politeness as the last. Blum-Kulka (1991), however, claims that there does not exit a distinct ranking of these strat egies based on the investigation of Israeli participants. In addition, the notion of fa ce advocated by Brown and Levinson as an image associated with individuals is questioned as well. In western culture, being polite is to mitigate face threatening acts so as to maintain his or her self image (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987), whereas in eastern cult ure, which is collective oriented rather than individualistic oriented, behaving in a polite way serves to enhance social harmony (Hu, 1944; Matsumo, 1989; Ide, 1989, Mao, 1994). It is ther efore argued that Brown and Levinsons politeness theory is not applicable to eastern cult ures which possess distinct values and norms. Rather than conceptualizing politeness as mi tigation of face needs which apply to all cultures and languages, so me researchers place politene ss within culture-specific norms (Watts, 1992, 2003; Ide & Ehlich, 1992, Locher, 2004). In other words, a specific event within its own cultural context determines the expected norms regulating such a context. As Watts points out, the role of polite ness is to maintain social equilibrium in interaction (1992). At the begi nning of the twenty-first c entury, he advocated a new post-modern politeness model distinguished fr om Brown and Levinsons traditional model which has been widely applied for about twenty years. In this model, a discursive approach is proposed to account for (im)po liteness within Watts emergent network and 14

PAGE 15

Bourdieus theory of social practice (Watts, 2003). After a critical overview of these approaches, this study adopts Wattss polit eness model to investigate politeness behaviors in informal cross-cultural negotiations between Americans and Chinese. In the majority of exis ting studies on negotiations, there are very few analyses on negotiation discourse (Firth 1991; Ehlich & Wagner, 1995). Much research is about business negotiation and centered on the outcome of negotiati on rather than interaction and language themselves. However, since t he nature of negotiation is communication, study of language in its specific negotiation context can help to improve understanding of the dynamic nature of negot iation such as the hearers interpretation and evaluation of the speakers intention based on the speaker s utterances in a given situation. In recent years, cross-cultural informal negotiations have increased tremendously, concomitant with the growth of international personnel from different cultural backgrounds (Kremenyuk, 2002). In contrast, a wealth of literature published in the area of negotiation has focused on the formal busine ss or political negotiation, rather than examining the quotidian negotia ting activities, not to m ention the cross-cultural negotiations such as those between Americ ans and Chinese (Faure & Zartman, 2001; Kremenyuk, 2002; Putnam, 1992). To bridge this gap, this study investigates (im)politeness as well as the negotiation nor ms in seven informal negotiations between Americans and the Chinese using Wattss po liteness model. The targets of this study are to contribute to the politeness research by using the post-modern approach as well as to shed light on how to understand t he nature of politeness in dynamic, ongoing interactions involving two differ ent cultures: American and Chinese. 15

PAGE 16

This chapter reviews research in the fields of politeness and negotiation. It includes reviews of important theoretical works as well as research on cross-cultural politeness and negotiation. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the works that have influenced the direction of the present work. Literature Review Terkourafi (2005) claims that there exist two kinds of views on politeness research: the traditional views and the post-modern view. The former is based on Grices Cooperative Principle and speech act theory and concludes that the essence of politeness is an application of universal rules (Lako ff, 1973; Brown and Levinson, 1987; Leech, 1983), while the latter, represented by Watts (2003) in recent years, challenges the foundations of the traditiona l approach and proposes that politeness research should focus on participants own perceptions of politeness, which are in connection with their politeness norms across cultures. This next section focuses on a brief overview of the traditional views. Traditional Views Fraser (1990) categorizes four major approaches to politeness: the social norm view (Hill et al, 1986), the conversational maxim view (Lakoff, 1973, 1979; Leech, 1983), the face-saving view (Brown & Levinson 1978, 1987) and the conv ersational contract view (Fraser, 1990). First, in the social norm perspective, politeness is regarded as behavior that meets the standards or expectations of a specific societys norms. This approach conceptualizes politeness in terms of speech styles and formality and its manuals contain etiquette (Hill et al, 1986). Second, the conversational maxim view builds upon Grices cooperative principle and maxims. Violation of a conversational maxim is an indication of speakers ce rtain implicature (Lakoff, 1973, 1979; Leech, 16

PAGE 17

1983). Politeness in this view is used as a tool to reduce friction in communication. Third is the face saving perspective, represent ed by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), which is based on the redressive face action. This approach focuses on how the impact of face threatening can be mitigated by using po liteness strategies. T he fourth view of politeness, the conversational contract vi ew, claims that politeness carry out under certain conditions of conversation contract understood by the participants, which include expectations and obligations on how to behave appropriately (Fraser, 1990). What follows next is a review of each of the four approaches with their concepts being further elaborated. A discussi on of the politeness theories is elaborated at the end. A critical overview of these traditional vi ews can promote an understanding of a contrast with the post-modern view, which serves as t he theoretical framewor k of this research. Grice Grices Cooperative Principle needs to be el aborated in the first place in this study because it is regarded highly important in regulating conversation under the assumption that cooperation is indispensable of a conversation (Lakoff, 1973, 1979; Leech, 1983) Grice, in his paper, Logic and Conversati on (1975), proposes that speakers and listeners should abide by what he calls the Cooperative Prin ciple, which states that make your conversation contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged (Grice, 1975, p. 46). The Cooperative Principle has four main maxims: Quantity, Qua lity, Relation, and Manner, and their submaxims (Grice, 1975). T he maxim of Quantity basically requires being informative as needed in conversational contributions. The maxim of Quality requires interlocutors to tell the truth. Relation states that the information should be 17

PAGE 18

relevant in conversation. Finally, the maxi m of Manner contains more on how something is said rather than the content of that utterance. This maxim has four submaxims that guide the speaker to be clear, succinct, and di rect. When a person speaks according to the maxims, the result is a maximally effe ctive exchange of information (p. 47). Grice states that speakers generally follow those maxims, which serve as constraints for a conversation. Grice uses the term flouting to describe situations in which speakers go beyond one or more of t he maxims. For instance, below is an example: Mary: can you answer the phone? Paul: I am doing my homework. In this conversation, Pauls answer seems ir relevant to Marys question since Paul did not directly say whether he could answer t he phone or not. However, he implied that he could not since he was doing his homework. Gric e introduces the term of implicature in a conversation when a speaker implied or s uggested is different from what he or she utters. Conversational implicature can occu r when one or more of the maxims are not met (Grice, 1975). Grice gives many other exam ples in which some of the maxims are flouted, including explanations about why inte rlocutors can still understand what is being communicated despite the violations. Gric e assumes that conversation interactants have a mutual understanding that their utter ances can be interpreted since they follow the Cooperative Principles most of the times, although ther e are cases where irony or some other similar special acts can lead to deviations or misunderstandings (1975). Below is an example from the data in this research. This is a conversation between a landlord and a tenant. 18

PAGE 19

Landlord: and you know \ you signed that c ontract \ and unfortunately we cannot really make any exceptions\ Tenant: yeah\ I know its hard to do\ but ..uh .. you know its very hard to a foreign student\ to find a place here\ (2 second pause) I think \uh\ because I have been here for one year \uh\ you maybe can o ffer me the convenience\ because\ uh\ its very hard for foreign st udents to find any apartment now\ Landlord: yeah\ I certainly see your situation\ BUT unfortunately\ According to the second Maxim of Quantity, which is do not make your contribution more informative than is required (Grice, 1975, p. 45), this tenant simply need to say one word such as yes to answer the landlord s question. But by flouting the maxim of Quantity, the tenant ac hieved his purposing of conveying his intention that his request needed to be approved given his special situat ion. The tenants information is corrected interpreted by his interlocutor as can be seen from his response, although he did not intend to grant an approval. Grices Cooperative Principle provides suggestions on how to be cooperative in a conversation and if an interactant does not express himself or herself explicitly, alternative interpretations of his or her utterance are usually involved. Social Norm View The social norm view assumes that each so ciety has a set of social norms which prescribe certain behaviors for people to adh ere to (Hill et al, 1986). Generally, if a person behaves in line with the norms, his or her action is evaluated as polite; otherwise, it is deemed as impolite. Some manuals of etiquette or many grammar books describe what language usage is allowed or preferred by the society, thus producing politeness. For example, Quirk et al (1985) in his work states that t he nonstandard subject such as me and Mary which is the coordinate subject, offends the rule of politeness since first person pronoun should be put at the end instead of the beginn ing. In addition to that, this coordinate subject should be in a po lite order of placing Mary ahead because the 19

PAGE 20

rule of politeness requires to address others first then the speaker so as to give respect to others, which should not be changed without any exception. The social norms view states that there are certain standards of behaviors that are expected and required in a society. These st andards are usually connected to specific speech styles which rank politeness based on degree of formality (Fraser, 1990). The more formal a behavior or conversation is, t he more polite they are (Hill et al, 1986). Conversational Maxim View The conversational maxim view is pr oposed by Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983), who based their theory on Gr ices Cooperative Principle (1975) which has been discussed earlier in this study. Lakoff (1973) views politeness as being motivated by a desire to avoid conflict and therefore states that politeness i s developed by societies in order to reduce friction in personal interact ion (p. 64). Lakoff ex plicitly extends the notion of grammatical rule and associates it to pragmatics: We should like to have some kind of pragmatic rules, dictating whether an utterance is pragmatically wellformed or not, and the extent to which it dev iates if it does ( 1973, p. 236). Lakoff argues that pragmatics is rule-governed and suggests two Rules of Pragmatic Competence: (1) Be Clear; and (2) Be Polite (p. 296). However, Lakoff points out that an interesting conversation usually violates these rules at every turn (p. 297), and in most cases, no clarification is needed. Her in terpretation, in other words, implied that people are more willing to maintain or promote interpersonal relationships. Speaking of the second rule, be polite, it has three sub-rules: (1) Dont impose; (2) Give options; and (3) Be friendly (Lakoff, 1973, p. 298). The first rule requires that the speaker should not impose upon the other inte rlocutor or force him or her to do something. As for the second rule, which is to give options, is concerned, it gives the 20

PAGE 21

interlocutor freedom to interp ret the meaning of an utterance at his or her will. In other words, the hearer or addressee can make a decision as to do or not do such an act that the other requests or demands, for example. The third rule, which is to be friendly, means the interlocutors need to talk in a cooperative and friendly manner. Lakoff (1973) raises a question about the relationship between rules of politeness and rules of conversation. As menti oned earlier in the previous paragraph, communication aims at enhancing relationship, which overweighs the truth in some situations. Therefore, the speaker may violate the conver sational rule of being truthful. When this happens, the speakers may choose to use indirect speech, and allow listeners to infer meaning. For instance, when someone asks another to have dinner with him and she is not willing to do so, she may choose to refuse him indirectly such as, Im afraid that I will have to work overtime today, which of course is not the truth. Politeness may be interpreted differently depending on the languages and culture. Lakoff, in her book Talking Power (1990), stat es that Americans tend to believe that honesty and directness in communication are very essential. However, in some other cultures, preferences might be different. Leech (1983) formulated a mo re elaborated framework of conversational maxim view in politeness. He proposes six maxi ms to operate in a conversation: Tact, Generosity, Approbation, Modes ty, Agreement, and Sympathy (Leech, 1983). The Tact Maxim, for example, states t hat the more beneficial to others expressions are, the more polite they are. The maxims of Approval and Modesty require t he speaker to praise rather than criticize the addr essee. The Agreement Maxim states that agreements between interactants should be advoca ted and enhanced. The Sympathy Maxim 21

PAGE 22

suggests the interactants should be sympathet ic and considerate to each other. Those six maxims are not weighed equally in a conversation as suggested by Leech, who regards, for example, the Tact and the Appr obation Maxims to be more important than the Modesty and Generosity Maxims because politeness serves the purpose of pleasing others or making others feel good (Leech, 1983). Face Saving View While Lakoffs (1973) and Leechs (1983) theories that are founded on the Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975), Br own and Levinsons (1978, 1987) politeness theory is based on the notion of face. This section is a grant elaboration on Brown and Levinsons politeness model because, among all the politeness frameworks discussed above, their theory has been for more than a decade the most influential and widely applied approach. Brown and Levinsons politeness theory is the first to use face to explain politeness in human interaction. Their theory focuses on three factors: face, face threatening acts and politeness strategies. To define fa ce, Brown and Levinson (1987) state: We make the following assumptions: t hat all competent adult members of a society have (and know each other to have) (i) face, the public self-image that ever y member wants to claim for her/himself, consisting in two related aspects: (a) negative face: the basic cl aim to territories, personal presevers, rights to nondistraction-i.e. to freedom of ac tion and freedom from imposition; (b) positive face: the positive consistent self-image or personality (crucially including the desire that this self-i mage be appreciated and appr oved of claimed by interactants). (p. 61) Brown and Levinson claim that in every interaction, the potentia l exists to violate one of these components of face through, for exam ple, making a request, which hurts the hearers negative face because his/her fr eedom of action is impeded. Likewise, criticizing affects the hearer to lose his/ her positive face, because the speaker shows a 22

PAGE 23

disregard for the hearers wants. All social interaction, therefore, involves performing potential face threatening acts (FTAs), acco rding to Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987). Performing these acts can cause either speaker and hearer to lose face in a conversation. To redress FTAs, Brown and Levinson prop ose three macro politeness strategies: (1) do the act on record, which includes the substrategy of bald on record and the substrategy with redressive ac tion, (2) off the record. To respond to an utterance, a speaker has to first of all decide whether he or she needs to do the face-threatening act or not. If he or she chooses to do so, consideration should be put on whether to perform the FTA on record or off record. When an utterance is delivered as directly as possible, in other words, the strategy used is bald on record, which contains no atte mpt to minimize face threats. An example of this is Do your homework now! Positive strategy and negative strategy both belong to redressive action under the category of on record. Br own and Levinson state (1987) the following to explain what redr essive action is: By redressive action we mean action that g ive face to the addressee, that is, that attempts to counteract the potential face damage of the FTA by doing it in such a way, or with such modifications or additions, that indicate clearly that no such face threat is intended or desired, and that in general recognizes Hs face wants and her/himself wants them to be achieved. (p. 69-70) As one of redressive actions, positive politeness strategies are appl ied with an intention to minimize threats to the hearers positive face wants. An example of positive politeness for making a request is you are su ch a great person, you help me all the time and I do appreciate it. Give me another ride, will you? Similarly, negative politeness strategies involve producing an utterance which is less likely to threaten the 23

PAGE 24

hearers negative face. For instance, an example is Im sorry to both er you, but could I use your pen for just one minute? Off record strategy, simply speaking, is to give hints to convey his or her intention. For exampl e, the sentence of oh, my pen broke may indicate if someone can lend the speaker a pen. Finally, dont do the FTA, the last strategy, means not to perform the face threatening acts at all, usually it is performed when a speaker evaluates that the ri sk to do the FTA is too high. Brown and Levinson claim that the higher the weight of a given FTA is, the greater the likelihood that the speaker or hearer will lose face with the performance of the FTA (1987). Therefore, politeness is a demonstration of a speakers effort to mitigate the face threat of a particular FTA by means of politeness strategies. Conversational Contract View The conversation contract view is propos ed by Fraser (1975), Fraser and Nolen (1981) and elaborated by Fraser (1990). Fraser (1990) defines politeness as the behavior of operating within the then-current terms and conditi ons of the conversation contract (p. 33). In other words, the achi evement of politeness is realized through the interactants adhering to the set of rights and obligations that play a key role in their interactions. The foundation on which the inte ractants establish rights and obligations vary greatly in accordance with situations. Therefore, in this view, being polite does not involve face mitigation, as in Brown and Levinsons theory, but instead, to deal with an interlocutor in th e light of the terms and conditions of the conversati onal contract. If he or she does not abide by the terms, his or her act is then perceived as being impo lite. This framework sets a link to connect appropriateness with society and culture (Kas per, 1994), which as a consequence, is 24

PAGE 25

able to account for the dynamic nature of the concept of po liteness in contexts (Watts, Ide, & Ehlich, 1992). Discussion of Politeness Theories The major traditional approaches of polit eness have been reviewed. With regards to Grices conversational maxims, ther e are doubts and disagr eements. Keenan (1976) doubts the feasibility of their universal application, since one of Grices maxims of conversation principles, be informative (p. 45), does not exist in Malagasy society. In that society, speakers usual ly provide less information than is required by their addressee because sharing information is not common. Similarly, Wolfson (1989) argues that the principles of Grices conversational maxims have not been sufficiently studied by observing naturally occurring interactions. As the most widely applied traditional approach, Brown and Levinsons theory of politeness has provoked much discussion regar ding this universal validity of this framework. For example, many researc hers such as Ide (1989), Mao (1994) and Matsumoto (1988, 1989) claim that Brown and Levinsons framework is not valid in eastern cultures such as Japanese and Chinese contexts because Brown and Levinson developed their theory based on we stern conceptualization. An attempt to be friendly in eastern cultures may appear to be an impositi on on the addressee in western culture. For instance, Chinese tend to offer hospitalit y to guests by constantly offering food. However, a guest may feel uncomfortable and imposed upon. In addition, Gu (1990) has raised the notions of sincerity and truthf ulness in Chinese. For example, a Chinese may say there is no food to eat, even though he or she has prepared several dishes for guests. For Chinese, sincerity seems to suggest persuasion, while absolute 25

PAGE 26

truthfulness is not considered as important as displaying the politeness of modesty (Gu, 1990). Speaking of Chinese culture, Brown and Levinsons claim about the face needs of individuals, the core of their model, is c hallenged by studies demonstrating that, in Chinese cultures, different c onceptual principles based on the high value of collectivism play a key role in the understanding of fa ce (Gu, 1990; Lee-Wong, 1999; Mao, 1994; Matsumoto, 1988). Along these lines, Wierzbicka (1991) criticizes Brown and Levinsons politeness model by arguing that this model is flawed because not all cultures share the same concept or notion that matches their individual definition of face. These scholars question the c onceptualization and universalit y of face in Brown and Levinsons politeness theory and claim that the need for autonomy and privacy is not universal but is based only on the western cult ural value of individualism; meanwhile, face in Chinese societies where collect ivism rules, is evaluated and understood differently than that in the western so ciety (Gu, 1990; Lee-Wong, 1999; Mao, 1994; Matsumoto, 1988). For instance, Gu (1990) uses inviting as an example to further illustrate that Brown and Levinso ns theory is not appropriate for the politeness research involving Chinese participants. Inviting is ca tegorized as potentially face threatening act because it may impact the hearers negative face However, in Chinese culture, inviting the hearer, especially if the hearer attempts to refuse while the speaker insists, the hearer will feel the speakers offer is polite and sincere and his or her freedom is not at all impeded. Blum-Kulka (1990) points out that to discuss a universal politeness system, the cultural perspective of face value should be taken into account. She addresses that face 26

PAGE 27

needs allow people to choose politeness strat egies, and differing cultures may value and define face with different leve ls of politeness. In Chinese society, social harmony is important to maintain peace and avoid conflict. Confucius (which is elaborated in detail later in this chapter) requires that co mmunications should be harmonious, and that restraint is often necessary to maintain harmony in conversation (Shenkar & Ronen, 1987). Although with flaws, of all the traditi onal politeness theories, Brown and Levinsons politeness theory has been in a position of authority for more t han a decade. However, a new post-modern politeness theory, pr oposed and represented by Watts (2003), challenges this widely used traditional politen ess view and advocates an alternative theory on the basis of social interaction and emergent network for politeness research. The next section focuses on a discussion of Watts politeness model, which is adopted as the theoretical framework for this study. Post-Modern View Watts proposes that politeness research move to a different perspective from Brown and Levinsons highly influential traditional approa ch which equates mitigation with politeness and directness with impoliteness. He stat es (Watts, 2005, xix): A shift in emphasis away from the attempt to construct a model of politeness which can be used to predict when polite behaviour can be expected or to explain postfactum why it has been produced and towards the need to pay closer attention to how participants in social interaction perceive politeness. His post-modern politeness theory is establis hed on the assumption that perceptions of politeness is in close connection to a participants understanding of social norms, and he claims that politeness is not a synonym of mitigation strategies, which are isolated from the social interactions themselves (W atts, 2003). To judge a certain social act is 27

PAGE 28

appropriate, polite or impolite, the relevant social norms and the participants evaluation and expectations are the key determinants (Locher & Watts, 2006). He therefore proposes that a discursive perspective on polite behavior by seeing it as a part of the relational work inherent in all human social interaction is preferred since humans as social beings do not simply follow theoretic al rules so as to mitigate face-threatening acts (Locher & Watts, 2005, p. 28). Polit eness is therefore a norm-oriented discursive concept. Watts first proposes a completely different definition of politeness by distinguishing between first order politeness or politeness1 and second order politeness or politeness 2 (Watts, 1992, 2003). First order politeness refers to lay peoples understanding or definition of politeness while second order politeness, such as the politeness strategies described by pragmatics books, is a theoretical concept whic h is distinctive from the social structure in which participants are involved (Watts, 2003). Watts states that it should have become clear that politeness1, whatever terms are used in whatever language to refer to mutually cooperative be havior, considerateness for others, polished behavior, is a focus of social struggle over di scursive practices (2 003, p. 17). Watts also distinguishes politic behavior from polit e behavior. Politic behavior refers to the appropriate behavior in an ongoing social intera ction, but polite behavior is the marked behavior which exceeds politic behavior (Watts, 2003). In other words, politic behavior is the non-salient behavior while polite behavior is the salient behavior in an ongoing situation (Watts, 2003, p. 19). While advocating that the core of a politeness theory should be politeness1, Watts rejects Brown and Levinsons equation of politene ss to facework. He argues that not all 28

PAGE 29

cases of facework are perceived as polit e by the participants and participants do not necessarily have to use politeness strategies to produce utterances which are polite. For example, can I have ten stamps and five envelopes uttered by a customer in a post office is usually interpreted as appropriate. Moreover, saying tak e it, take it even you must take it, which is considered by Brown and Levinson as bald on record strategy with no attempt to mi nimize face threatening, is regarded as polite on gift giving occasions in China. As stated above, according to Watts, face needs cannot be used as a theoretical foundation for a politeness theor y. Watts, instead, bases his politeness model on Bourdieus (1977) theory of practice and his theory of em ergent networks (Watts, 2003). The central concept in Bourdieu s (1990) theory is the habitus, which includes a set of predispositions imposing upon the individuals in order to ensure that they act in appropriate ways to reproduce this field (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 78). The schema of the habitus provides the basic grids that direct perception of the social world and the way one orients himself or herself in it (R eed-Danahay, 2005). Usua lly unaware of what drives or motivates their practice, indivi duals have a practical sense instead (Bourdieu, 1977) and perform appropriate practices following social norms and expectations (Bourdieu, 1990). In his view, social practi ce is grounded on the assumption that the way in which participants conduct social ac ts and deal with an interaction depends on their prior histories in similar situations. In other words, social practice depends on the knowledge an individual has internalized as part of his or her habitus which operates within a social field (Bourdieu, 1990). Bourdieu uses footba ll players as an example to show that individuals have this sens e of game (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 79). 29

PAGE 30

Likewise, in this study, the participants in negotiations also have this sense of game. They have an intimate understanding or a sense of how a negotiation game proceeds appropriately. As discussed above, Wa tts (2003) calls this unmarked, socially appropriate behavior politic behavior. He argues that individuals join a conversation in specific social situations with the habitus, which is a k nowledge accumulated from past experiences about what are appropriate social behaviors to a specific situation (Watts, 2003). In Bourdieus practice theory, he proposes that the theory of practice as practice insists that the objects of knowledge are construc ted, the principle of this construction is the system of structured structuring dispositions, the ha bitus, which is constituted in practice and is always oriented towards pr actical function (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 52). Since the habitus is structuring and structured structure, it is responsible for both the reproduction and changes of social structur e. That is why participants in verbal interaction are able to actively elaborate and improvise the nature of the politic behavior, the socially appropriate behavior, in emergent networks (Watts, 2003). Emergent networks form another theoretical foundation to Wattss politeness theory in addition to Bourdieus theory of practice. Watts brings two concepts to social networks, which refer to the connections in dividuals have with each other: latent networks and emergent networks. Emergent networks capt ure the dynamics of an interaction. Latent networks are the social st ructure produced by the historical practice an individual involves in and usually go unnoticed and unmarked (Watts, 1991). Part of the habitus is the knowledge of the latent networks. In other wo rds, habitus is not dormant and unchanged, instead, is dynamic The other part of habitus can be structured and restructured as a response to a trigger, which is emergent network. 30

PAGE 31

Emergent networks can only be found during an ongoing intera ction, and are where participants can negotiate and even attempt to change their positions. For instance, in the same example above, the caller could t ease the moderator instead. In this way, a link to an emergent network is set up, sinc e the callers behavior obviously flouted from the general expectation in such a situation. On the contrary, latent networks include the moderators being expected to create humor and tease the caller. Therefore, an individuals hab itus is built on the construction of politic behavior in latent networks and emergent networks. For example, in a negotiation, a client knows how to bargain with a street vendor based on his/her past similar experience and his/her behavior in bargaining enacts the individuals habi tus in such a situation. Watts argues that an emergent network may not necessa rily change the existing latent network because of the need to maintain an equilibrium in interpersonal relationships (2003). Each emergent network is small as a co mparison to the amount of previously established networks which are attributed to the forming of the relationship (Watts, 2003). Finally, another notable difference bet ween Wattss politeness theory and Brown and Levinson is that Watts argues that lingui stic forms are not inherently polite (Watts, 2003). In other words, could you give me a book is not necessarily more polite than give me a book. The perception of polit eness depends on the social context in which the interaction takes place (Watts & Locher, 2005). For instance, one roommates utterance of give me a book or could you give me a book by one roommate seems equally proper. The latter may be perceived only as appropriate instead of polite (which is claimed by Brown and Levinso n) by the other roommate. 31

PAGE 32

Turning specifically to negotiations, if t he American participant makes a threat, this is not necessarily interpreted as inappropr iate or impolite by Americans depending on whether it meets the American negotiation norms, although can be interpreted as impolite by the Chinese participant because th reat making is not appropriate in Chinese negotiations. Therefore, politeness is a disputed concept, and participants can have divergent interpretations of an ongoing interaction. Due to the discursive nature of politeness, which indicates that politeness is a disputed concept closely related to the soci al norms associated with a certain event, Wattss politeness model abandons speec h act theory which Brown and Levinson applied in their theory, but instead advocat es focusing on speech events to analyze politeness. Therefor e, adhering to Watts politeness model, this study uses speech event analysis rather than one de rived from speech act theory, the difference of which is discussed in the next section. Negotiation as Speech Event Most speech act studies have been concer ned with utterance-level realization patterns (Watts, 2003; Locher, 2004). However, much of the research focusing on individual speech acts and their realization patterns has tended to overlook the dynamic and negotiable aspects of politeness in interact ive contexts, which is the main flaw associated with a speech act approach to polit eness (Watts, 2003; Pan, 2000). That is to say, if the focus is mere ly put on individual speech acts and their realization patterns, the essence of politeness, which is its discursive nature, is ignored. The discursive nature of politeness is evid enced in the way that lay members of society can hold different views of whether a certain social behavior is considered as appropriate, polite or even impolite ( Locher & Watts, 2006; Watts, 1992; Watts, 2003 ). 32

PAGE 33

In other words, the value of politeness may be evaluated differently by different individuals. Watts (1989), in his early st udy on politeness, advoc ates examining an event as a whole rather t han as isolated utterances because speech event analysis emphasizes the interactional nature of politeness and considers the situational constraints in a particular social setting. He further argues that a speech event analysis is necessary for politeness research because it is very important to know a discourse context where politeness is involved, such as the nature of the social activity, the social distance between the interactants and their st atus with respect to the dynamic, ongoing social activity. All of these are related to social norms which influence an individuals perception and evaluation of politeness in a specific speech event. An analysis on speech act, on the contrary isolates politeness from its context thus failing to account for politeness phenomenon. Since politeness is open to interpretation (Watts, 2003, p. 246), po liteness cannot be examined in any single speech act structure out of its context and one can not predict whether a linguistic expression is polite or not until its specific context is revealed. With the speech event analysis, Wattss politeness model provides an appropriate way to investigate why a linguistic utterance might be open to interpretation by interlocutors as polite in an ongoing conversation (Watts, 2003, p.143). This study examines cross-cultural pol iteness in the speech event of negotiation. An analysis of such an event requires kno wledge of what constitutes a negotiation: its processes and strategies. Putnam and Jones (1982) define negotiation as a communication process by which two or mo re parties who hold incompatible goals engage in an interaction to reach a mutually a cceptable solution. It is a face to face 33

PAGE 34

decision-making process between parties conc erning a specific produc t (Graham, 1980, p. 14). Negotiation belongs to the most frequent phenomena in social interactions, because it is not only the essential activity in business, but also in everyday life, e.g. where professors, students, work coll eagues, neighbors, and families are involved. Spangle and Isenhart (2003) state that when people are involv ed in problem solving in everyday life, it is also called negotiation because each participant has goals to reach and ways to achieve them, which is similar to other formal negotiations in nature. This kind of negotiation, namely everyday negotiation or quotidian negotiation, is what this study focuses on. Negotiation across cultures often take s place nowadays as people travel to different countries for vari ous purposes, such as employment and academic exchange or training. Fang (1999 ) states that, from the view of many we sterners, Chinese people are proud of their culture and sometimes the culture remains ambiguous, and their approach to negotiation is indirect and sometimes even time wasting; whereas Chinese regard Americans as direct, bold, aggressi ve, even rude. Based on the difference, communication breakdowns occur frequently and t he root reason is that both sides fail to understand each others culture and values. It is well known that culture defines peopl es behavior (Beamer, 1992; Adler, 1991; Brislin, 1998; Triandis, 1994). Beamer ( 1992) states that culture governs communication behavior (p. 291). Swidler ( 1986) states that culture influences behaviors by shaping a set of habits, skills and styles from which people construct strategies of action (here strategy is broadl y used to refer to a general way of action). Since culture and behaviors are closely linked, it is important to understand Chinese 34

PAGE 35

and American cultures to anticipate the ways they negotiate. Therefore, what follows next is a review on relevant aspects of Chin ese culture, which are reflected in, and also in many ways, shape the styl e of Chinese negotiation. Roots of Chinese Culture Chinese culture has been influenced by three major systems of ethics: Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism (Yao, 2000; Harvey, 1990; Hucker, 1995), which compose the essence of the traditional Ch inese culture and serv e as foundation of Chinese peoples moral value. Briefly, C onfucianism is mainly related to human relationships; Buddhism is primarily concer ned with immortal worlds; and Taoism is focused on how harmony is reached in our lives (Fang, 1999; Yao, 2000; Harvey, 1990; Hucker, 1995). Confucianism Chinese Culture is predominantly based on the ideas of Confucius, which not only influences the Chinese norms but also that of Asia. According to Yao (2000) and Faure (1999, 2001), Confucius states that only a society which is organized under a strict moral code can exist in a prosperous way. It distinguished and regul ated five cardinal relationships: between ruler and the rul ed, husband and wife, par ents and children, older and younger brothers, and fr iend and friend. All of these relationships except for the last one are highly hierarchical. In other words, the ruled, i.e. wives, children, and younger brothers, were required to show gr eat respect, loyalty and obedience to their rulers, husbands, parents and older brothers. Confucius provides guidelines for behavior conducted by people in society. On ly with rigorous implement of these relationships can a society achieve harmony and prosperity. Chinese social norms are still derived from the guidelines (Yao, 2000). 35

PAGE 36

Research in cross-cultural communication has shown that some values held by Chinese seem hard to be expl ained based on the Western cu ltures due to the cultural difference (Chiu, 1990; Leung & Bond, 1984; Fang, 1999; Zhang & Yang, 1998; Yao, 2000). Take an example of having a dinner wit h Chinese family. Americans usually can hardly understand why the Chinese people keep on piling up food on their plate even after they have said they are full. Chinese culture is situat ion-centered, in other words, choices are greatly influenced by the sit uational context (Yang 1986; Bond & Hwang 1986; Bian & Keller, 1999a, b). T he difference between Wester n and Asian cultures is mainly due to the existence of individual values versus collective values (Hsu, 1985; Hofstede, 1980; Triandis et al. 1990; Singh, 1997) In individualistic cultures, typically found in Western Europe and North America, i ndividual interests tend to prevail over group interests. Hsu (1985) states that, the concept of personality is an expression of the western ideal of individual ism. It does not correspond ev en to the reality of how the western man lives in western cu lture, far less any man in any other culture (p. 24). In collectivist cultures like China, there is a st rong concern for group interests. Collectivists are oriented towards harmony. Chin ese culture is different from U.S. culture, in that it prefers collectivism, which requires that focus be put on the society rather than individuals (Hsu, 1985; Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1980, 1984). Many cultural norms relevant to negotiati on are related to Confucianism, including Chinese social hierarchy and t he concept of face (Yao, 2000). Face is described as the positive social value a person effectively clai ms for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact or an image of self de lineated in terms of approved social attributes (Goffman, 1955, p. 213). Chinese face values are different 36

PAGE 37

from that of western countri es (Gu, 1990; Hu, 1944). The Chinese has two kinds of face: Mianzi and Lian. According to Hu (1944), Mian zi is a reputation achieved through getting on in life, through success and ostentat ion (p. 45). Mianzi can be borrowed, struggled for, added to, padded all terms indicating a gradual increase in volume. It is build up through initial high position, wealth, power, ability, through cleverly establishing social ties to a number of prominent people, as well as through avoidance of acts that would cause unfavorable comment (Hu, 1944, p. 61). Lian repres ents the confidence of society in the integrity of egos moral char acter, the loss of which makes it impossible for him to function properly within the community (Hu, 1944, p. 45). According to Fang (1999), Yang (1986), and Yao (2000), Confucius also taught Chinese that a person who causes another to lose face is considered ignorant of the moral code of behavior and thus regarded as a worse case of face losing. Saving anothers face is preferred much more t han telling the truth. Us ually a person whose face is saved, feeling indebted, is grateful of the others conduct and is at will to return his goodwill in the future. Chinese face is evident in Chinese negotiation context. Confucianism requires people to pay attention to role and hierarchy so as to maintain the stability of society (Yao, 2000). Accordingly, behavior in a co llectivist culture bas ed on Confucianism should obey the power relation in a social relationship, as for instance in a negotiation situation involving a professor and a student. A student should usually obey his or her professor and if concerns or questions exi t, they should be expressed only indirectly. Compared to Americans, Chinese people tend to accept without any problem the power relationship as a result of the hierarchy in a society (Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Ambler & 37

PAGE 38

Witzel, 2004, Yao, 2000). Therefore, when examining negotiations or other speech event, the hierarchical relationships and harmony as advocated in Confucianism should be taken into consideration. Taoism The foundation of Taoism is Ying and Yang (Fang, 1999; Hsu, 1953; Pye, 1982; Harvey, 1990; Hucker, 1995), which are two opposite forces. Ying and Yang represent all the opposite forces in the whole unive rse, which are defined respectively as a feminine, passive and dark force and a masculine, active and light force. The understanding of Ying and Yang is that the key to life is a balanced combination of the two forces: a compromise, which is the ess ence of Taoism. According to Taoism, Ying and Yang, working at the same time, serv es to oppose as well as complement one another all together (Harve y, 1990; Hucker, 1995). Taoi sm favors simplicity and satisfaction. Taoism states that direct c onflict will be less successful over the long term than more flexible and enduring strategies. This indicates that an avoidance of direct encounter should be advocated in any social in teraction including negotiation, which is the event examined in this study. The moral value influences the way Chinese people negotiate (Fang, 1999, Pye, 1982; Seligman, 2000). In a negotiation, Chin ese tend to be more concerned with the ways than the end and they seem like to conduct long back-and-forth bargaining and communication in a negotiation, hope to arri ving a satisfactory compromise. While Americans tend to believe that the di sagreements should be solved directly and concisely, rather than getting back to it time and again. Chines e, on the other hand, prefer to linger on one point in a negotiation. 38

PAGE 39

Taoism emphasizes that all things are connected. Graham and Lam (2003) argue that Chinese think more holistically, while Americans tend to think more sequentially or reductively. In the initial stages of negotiation, Chinese tend first to establish agreement on general principles before moving to more specific issues in order to avoid or postpone direct conflict. This practice can conflict with Western negotiators who want to move to concrete and specific details (Pye, 1982). Buddhism Buddhism came to China from India in the first century A. D. While Confucianism and Taoism have shaped Chinese culture, B uddhism has provided the Chinese with a kind of immortal food (Harvey, 1990; Hucker, 1995; Fang, 1999). Buddhism enables many Chinese to endure hardship and suffering in the belief that they will eventually find happiness in their next lives. Buddhism encou rages harmony and kindness. This story has been well known by almost all the Chi nese: in Chinese Buddhism, a good monk makes all the attempts to control his des ires and adapt to difficult environments with great endurance. The influence of Buddhism is that Chinese people are encouraged to be persistent and patient, which is clearly rele vant to the ways to handle negotiation. This is also the case for negotiation case s, where people should not give up hope and be persistent to their goals. Ho wever, at the same time, people in negotiation should be careful not to give the other a hard time which could hurt his or her feelings, thus being kind is necessary. After reviewing the cultural traits which influence the ways Chinese people communicate with others in gener al, a focus on how people fr om two different cultures, American and Chinese, negotiate is followed. 39

PAGE 40

Negotiation Strategies Faure (1999) states that stra tegies in negotiation either in international or everyday contexts are led by norms and values relating to culture. He also assumes that when people engage in negotiations, they have prior expectations about the normal process of such a meeting in their pr imary culture (1999). According to him, in some cultures, action will be direct and conflict widely accept ed; in others, action will be indirect and conflict not openly acknowledged. Similar to F aure, Kremenyuk (2002) also claims that negotiation in any setting involves informal understandings and formal ground norms that serve as expectations about how each party will behave during discussions. Strategies implement norms serving to enable or constrain negotiations (Ambler & Witzel, 2004; Chiu, 1990; Faure, 1999; Gr aham, 1980; Graham & Lin, 1987; Putnam, 1992, Leung & Bond, 1984; Zhang & Yang, 1998). In other words, each culture provides its social members with a set of negotiation norms by which the process of negotiation is carried out and the agr eements are reached. In the context of cross-cultural negotiations since individualist culture, namely the culture of American negotiators in this study, and collectivist cu lture, which refers to the culture of Chinese negotiators, are distinct, it strongly suggests that these groups will differ with respect to their negotiation strate gies (Faure, 1999; Pye, 1982). Politeness in cross-cultural negotiations is contingent upon shared and unshared norms. Cultural background undoubtedly influences how negot iation behaviors are perceived because it shapes views of negotiation of different parties In the light of t hese different negotiation norms, utterances that are acceptable between Chinese negotiators can be fairly inappropriate between American negotiators. Within different countries different society and cultures undoubtedly shape negotia tion norms, negotiation process and 40

PAGE 41

accompanying structures. As a natural c onsequence, they shape as well expectations, practices and evaluations of the participants involved in a negotiation. This study demonstrates that cross-cultural negotiations reveal differences in how individual behavior in negotiations varies across cultures. In all cases, participants in negotiations br ing culture into the interaction. For participants, culture conditions how negotia tions will be perceived, including their counterparts and the stereoty pes (Pye, 1976). The cultural line drawn between what should be and what should not be done, or tolera ted, varies from one culture to another. Negotiation strategy, which is the overall orientation to achieve a goal, is also led by cultures or norms. Cross-cultural negotiations us ually involve participants from different cultural background. Any discord behavior which does not match with norms prevalent in a negotiation stage can be considered as inappropriate. Negotiation norms are the criteria explicating politeness and appropriateness in such an event. Any deviation or flout from the norms is considered beyond appropriatene ss, either polite behaviors or impolite behaviors, depending on negative or positive c onsequence it leads to. Negotiation norms, which are reflected by strategies, exert a key role on the way each party carries out and perceiving negotiation. In any cross-cultural negotiati on, there are differences in the expectations held by people from different cultures. Before a discussion on differences between the negotiation strategies in America and in China begins, it is important to point out the similarities. In both countries, as well as in other c ountries throughout the world, negotiations generally proceed through the following stages: nontask sounding or 41

PAGE 42

greeting, task-related exchange of informa tion or request making, persuasion, and concessions and agreement, although specific stages may differ to some degree in literature (Graham, 1980; Graham & Lin, 1987). The nontask sounding, or the prenegotiation stage, is to discuss topics other t han business to show friendliness as well as to learn about the other partys backgr ound and interest. The information exchange, the second stage, deals with the parties ne eds and wants. Persuasion or the main negotiation stage, as the third stage, involves each party using various strategies to achieve his or her goals. The final stage, including concessions and agreement, is the stage at which an agreement which is bas ed on mutual approval is made (Graham, 1980; Graham & Lin, 1987). The f our stages will be used and examined in this study. Strategies are applied in negotiations. It is therefore necessary to find the strategies used by Americans and Chines e. Allerheiligen, Graham, and Lin (1985) examined the negotiations in the United States, Japan, Br azil, and the Republic of China and find that Chinese negotiation styles ar e very similar to Japanese styles, but not American styles, although the level of honesty differs. Since the processes and strategies occurred in Japanese negotiations share commonality with China, this study assumes and adopts the strategies used by Japanese as well to examine Chinese negotiations. The related common strategies are listed as follows, based on literature review of Chinese and Japanese negotiati on styles and international business negotiations (Allerheiligen, Graham, & Lin, 1985; Chan, 1998; Ghauri & Fang, 2001; Fang, 1999; Graham, 1980; Hodgson, Sano, & Graham, 2000; Young, 1982). Despite the consistency of the negotiati on process across cultures, the content differs between the two cultural groups. This is true in cross-cultural negotiations where 42

PAGE 43

counterparts have different interpretati on and understandings on how to negotiate (Graham, 1980). For Americans, the first stage, nontask sounding, is very brief and sometimes omitted, since they focus on how to achieve their business goal. However, for Chinese, nontask sounding includes aski ng about their counterparts background, interests, even families, to express their friendliness and to maintain the harmony between the two parties (Allerheiligen, Gr aham, & Lin, 1985; G hauri & Fang, 2001; Fang, 1999; Faure, 1999; Graham, 1980, Hodgson, Sano, & Gr aham, 2000; Young, 1982). The second stage, which is the information exchange stage, is relatively direct, with clear statements of needs and wants. Americans tend to say what they want and explain the reasons behind the request only if necessary. For Chinese, this stage is usually associated with long explanations followed by an indirect request (Allerheiligen, Graham, & Lin, 1985; Ghauri & Fang, 2001; Fang, 1999; F aure, 1999; Graham, 1980, Hodgson, Sano, & Graham, 2000). The stage of negotiation is considered to be essential for a negotiation. Angelmar and Stern (1978) state t hat there are twelve categories for negotiation interaction, which are: questions, recommendations, promises, warnings, threats, commands, commitments, concessions, punishment, rewards, positive appeals, and negative appeals. They define that rewards and promises could usually yield positive responses while punishments and threats could bring unhappy feelings and negative responses (Angelmar & Stern, 1978). Recommendations are regarded as a positive strategy that could help the negotiators to achiev e their expected go als (Graham, 1980). 43

PAGE 44

In this same third stage of negotiations Chinese use the following strategies: asking questions even repeatedly, positive strategies, and silence but seldom use negative strategies that cause negative in fluence (Fang, 1999; Pye, 1982; Young, 1982). For example, Chinese often a sk the other party to repeat ex plaining their certain point, which in many cases results in their counterparts impatience, thus being more inclined to conceding (Chien, 1986; Pye, 1982). So asking questions not only derives useful information, but also serves as an effective st rategy. Further, to maintain the harmony of both parties, Chinese are inclin ed to use the positive strategies such as rewards and recommendations. However, even in these case s, only subtle and indirect threats and commands are regarded as legitimate st rategies and are t herefore appropriate (Allerheiligen, Graham, & Lin, 1985; Ghauri & Fang, 2001; Fang, 1999; Faure, 1999; Graham, 1980, Hodgson, Pye, 1982; Sano, & Graham, 2000). Another difference from Americans is that Chinese use silence to show that they are not sa tisfied with the other partys response (Fang, 1999; Pye, 1982; Young, 1982). In other words, Chinese try to avoid open disagreements with their counter parts in order to create a harmonious working relationship. The last stage is the wrap-up stage, wh ich includes concessions and then agreement (Graham, 1980). An important difference between Americans and Chinese is that Americans tend to make concessions throughout the negotiation, settling one issue, then proceeding to the next. In contrast, Chines e prefer to make concessions at the end of the negotiations, and then agreement is concluded rather quickl y (Allerheiligen, Graham, & Lin, 1985; Ghauri & Fang, 2001; Fang, 1999; F aure, 1999; Graham, 1980, Hodgson, Sano, & Graham, 2000). In other word s, Americans target at a good deal 44

PAGE 45

while Chinese concern about a long-term relationship (Graham 1980, 2004; Fang, 1999). American as well as Chinese negotiation norms will be used as the baseline to examine (im)politeness by parti cipants from America and China in this study. Since so far there are no studies regarding the norms of informal negotiati ons, I must assume that norms for informal business negotiation reflect what goes on in formal negotiations. They are considered as appropriate negotia tion behaviors in these two countries and are therefore called politic behaviors a ccording to Wattss politeness model as discussed earlier. This study focuses on strategies used by Americans and Chinese in the third stage of persuasion, which is the most im portant component or heart of a negotiation. As a summary, for Americans, the strategies are composed of positive strategies which bring positive feelings, including promis es, recommendations, rewards, and positive appeals; and negative strategies (which brings negative feelings) of threats, warning, negative appeals, punishments and commands. As for Chinese, their positive strategies consists of asking questions, promises, recommendations, rewards, positive appeals, and silence, while negative strategies such as indirect threats, commands, and negative appeals are seldom used. Theoretical Framework This study will use Wattss politeness theory as its theoretical framework. Although Brown and Levinsons politen ess theory has been the most influential one of the traditional politeness t heories, it has the following drawbacks. First of all, Brown and Levinsons theory fails to take the social context into account. They link politeness to the realiz ation of speech acts and claim that these 45

PAGE 46

linguistic forms are inherently polite or impo lite. In contrast, as Watts proposes and the earlier discussion in this study shows, no lingui stic forms are in fact inherently polite. Politeness is not a property of linguistic acts per se, but is negotiated in ongoing interaction. Second, in Brown and Levinso ns approach, practically any linguistic act may present a threat to the speaker or hearers positive or negative face. However, negative face in their theory does not apply to eastern cultures as discussed before. Negative politeness is motivated by respec t for the others independence and autonomy of action in an individualistic culture, but is expected by the social norms in a collective society. In fact, the concept of face is inte rpreted differently in different cultures. In addition, politeness is not the same as facewo rk because not all instances of facework will be perceived as polite due to the fact that linguistic ex pressions are not inherently polite. Finally, Brown and Levinson use a speech act approach to analyze politeness, which forces a sentence-based and speake r-oriented analysis in a non-interactive context, and thus fails to account for the dy namic and negotiable aspects of interaction. Therefore, a shift away from invest igating politeness based on an abstract face mitigation theory using a sentence-level, speaker-oriented analysis towards examining politeness via a dynamic discursive approa ch is needed. Since social norms of politeness are negotiated in interaction, a theory of politeness embedded in social theory is expected. Watts correctly places politeness within the context of social theory and defines appropriate behaviors as politic behaviors, closely related to the core concept in Bourdieus social theory, the habitus. The behaviors that are beyond politic behavior are open to be evaluated by the parti cipants as either polite or impolite and can be found in Wattss emergent networ ks where participants negotiate and even 46

PAGE 47

attempt to change their expected positions. Wattss theory is correct in the assumption that politeness cannot reside in single utterances but is in fact negotiated in discourse, in an interactive context. Politeness can ther efore be evaluated differently in different situations by subjective judgments and evaluation based on social appropriateness. Therefore, an investig ation on how lay people who partici pate in an interaction assess the appropriateness of each others social behavior in that particular situation rather than in single static sentences needs to be carried out. Politeness is an essential component of interpersonal communication situations. Most of the existing politeness research has focused on analyzing politeness strategies and realization patterns of speech acts using Brown and Levinson s politeness theory which equates mitigation with politeness and di rectness with impoliteness. However, as stated throughout this chapter, politeness is a so cial practice which should be evaluated by participants in an ongoing interaction. Therefore, politeness research using Watts social theory based politeness m odel should be called for. Politeness is conceptualized differently depending on both cultural and individual differences (Watts, 2003; Hu, 1990), however no one so far has applied Watts model of cross-cultural politeness. Therefore, this study aims to contribute to this specific, unstudied field. Politeness can be best investigated in situat ions that contain some cooperative as well as conflictive elements. It is in those situations that speakers have to risk threatening each others face while at the same time havi ng an incentive for maintaining a good relationship at the same time (Fir th, 1995). The discourse type with these characteristics is the speech event of negotiation. 47

PAGE 48

One particular innovation is that this st udy will use Wattss politeness model, which is based on social interaction and treats polit eness as a discursive social practice in an ongoing situation, to examine politeness in informal cross-cultur al negotiation between Chinese and Amer ican participants. Research Questions This study seeks to answer the following two research questions: (1) what is the evidence in the data that the participants ar e adhering to the negotiation norms of their own culture, i.e. enacting politic behavior? (2 ) What is the evidence in the data that the participants are going beyond politic behavior, as required in the norms of each culture, to enact politeness and/or impoliteness? Chapter 2 discusses the methodology used in this study, including describing the data collection procedure and out lining the analytic framework. Chapter 3 describes the findings in the seven cross-cultural quotidia n negotiation situations. Chapter 4 focuses on the supplemental data: retrospective accounts. In Chapter 5, the main findings of the analysis are discussed and evaluat ed. Finally, in Chapter 6, the conclusions are drawn and the implications of the study for future re search are discussed. 48

PAGE 49

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY Introduction This chapter elaborates the methodological framework of this study, reviews the major data elicitation methods in cross-cultural communication research, and describes the data collection and data analysis in this study. The advantages and disadvantages of the various methodological approac hes are discussed in this chapter. Methodological Framework Used in this Study There are two research methodological frameworks, quantitat ive and qualitative. Quantitative methodologies usually use applicat ion of statistics to typically a large number of subjects, whereas qualitative research obtains more in-depth information, discovers meanings, and reveals the subtlety and complexity of cases or issues (Silverman 2001). Creswell (1994, 2003) states that quantitativ e methodology uses numbers as data to describe events while qua litative research reli es on the written or spoken word to analyze relatively few participants. According to Cassell (1994), quantitativ e methods are strong for stating the research problem in very specific and set term s and achieving high levels of reliability of gathered data and eliminating or minimizing subj ectivity of judgment. However, it usually contains little information on the context of the situation and lacks in-depth description of a social behavior. As the contrary, qualit ative methodology is less driven by very specific hypotheses and more concerned with descriptions. Qualitative researchers are concerned with describing and interpreting a certain phenomena happening in the social contexts (Fryer, 1991). Ting-Toomey (1984) lis ted three characteri stics of qualitative research. First of all, qualitative resear ch focuses on description of conversations. 49

PAGE 50

Secondly, qualitative research aims at interpre ting the principles people use in activities, such as the norms people abide by in a specif ic situation. Lastly, qualitative research examines contexts relevant to the interpretation of discourse. It provides a descriptive analysis of the examined event which cannot be explained us ing numbers and statistical analysis. McKay (2006) argues that which on e to employ, qualitative or quantitative methodology, depends on the following factors: the research questions, the preference of the researcher, and the constraints existing in undertaking the research. The purpose of this study is to discover, based on Wattss politeness model, how politic behaviors and (im) politeness are negotiated and manifested by Chinese and American participants in seven negotiation si tuations. This research will focus on description and interpretation of politeness in interactive context between two participants from different cultures, which therefore calls for qualitative methodology that provides detailed examination and interpretation of a speech event. Qualitative methodology takes into account the specific dynamic aspects of the conversational data and at the same time pays attention to the choices participants make (Cohen, 2004). Since the focus in this study is on interactive conversational activities, a methodology that can provide an in-depth, dy namic and systematic analysis of linguistic behaviors in interactive contexts needs to be selected. In some politeness research where Brown and Levinsons politeness theor y is adopted, quantitative methodologies are used to provide statistical evidence of t he quantity of different strategies. However, for one thing, politeness does not equate with facework mitigation strategies as elaborated in the first chapter ; for another, quantitative analytic methods cannot capture the intricate negotiation of po liteness present in the dynamic ongoing conversation in a 50

PAGE 51

specific context, which is the focus of this study. In addition, qualitative analytic methods are a powerful methodology in understanding culture and behaviors (P atton, 1980) that are closely related to the behaviors the parti cipants from the U.S. and China present in this research. Therefore, a qualitative approa ch, whose nature is interpretive and which seeks to analyze the interactive procedures associated with the social practice of politeness, is adopted in this study. Methods in Cross-Cultural Communication A wide variety of elicitation methods of data collection has been applied to research of cross-cultural communication. Gass & Neu (1996), in their book Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language, write eleven chapters reporting on thirteen data colle ction techniques. With the exception of two studies which used TV commercials and puzzle-solving tasks to generate talk, all the studies used three data elicitation techni ques: DCTs (three written, two oral), role plays (four), and retrospective interviews (two) to collect speech act behaviors. The DCT is by nature a type of questionnaire with thes e characteristics: it is written, one has time to think and plan ahead before he/she starts to write, and there is no interaction involved (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993; Kasper and Dahl, 1991). For the role play, participants are asked to respond orally to a scenario where context is provided and performance is required. Retrospective inte rviews require participants to retrospect on their performance, for example, of role plays that they have conducted. Following is a review on various elicitation methods used in cross-cultural communication studies, including questionnaires, DCTs and ro le plays (Kasper and Dahl, 1991). 51

PAGE 52

Discourse Completion Tests Questionnaires in discourse research usual ly refer to Discourse completion test (DCTs). The DCT is often referred to as writ ten role plays, asking participants to fill out their responses to a given scenario. There are two kinds of DCTs: open questionnaires where no turn follows, and dialogue completi on tasks where a reply is provided (Kasper 1991). Beebe and Cummings (1996) compare dat a from DCTs and naturally occurring telephone conversations and summarize the adv antages of DCTs as follows: (1) they collect a large amount of data quickly; (2) they provide cla ssification of formulas and strategies; (3) they study socially appropr iate responses and obtain insights into the social factors influencing performance. Although Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (2005) state that questionnaires are the most commonly used elicitation proced ure in pragmatics, Rose (2000) is opposed of applying and relying on one method to collect data. This is because participant s write what they think they should say on DCTs, not necessarily what they will actually produce in reality (Boxer, 2002), which brings discrepancy between what they write and what they do eventually. For example, the utterances t hat the participants wr ite on a questionnaire that they claim they would speak in the situation of making an apology can be different from what they actually say in such a si tuation. In addition, the space limitation may restrain the participants to write down only fi rst turn of a sequence of a speech act, thus making it difficulty for the researcher to analyze how discourse is managed sequentially by turns (Beebe & Cummings, 1985, 1996; Rinte ll and Mitchell, 1989). Therefore, Tran (2004) states that the problem a questionnaire has is that the data is not equivalent to actual production data. 52

PAGE 53

Interviews Tran (2004) distinguished three types of interviews: self-revelation, selfobservation and self-report interviews. Eric sson and Simon (1984, 1993) also call selfrevelation interview a think-aloud technique, which requires participants to verbalize their thought processes when working on a specif ic task. For instance, this technique is frequently used by teachers in the classr oom. When a student ans wers a question, a teacher asks the student how he or she arrived at such an answer by uttering a question such as what makes you think so or how do you know t hat. In this way, students are guided in the right direction and are encouraged to think independently. A self-report interview is also called an et hnographic interview, where the researcher interviews participants who are generally nati ve speakers, regarding their understanding of certain social act. This kind of interview is usually based on a participants memory on their past experience. A self-observation interv iew is used in this study. Followed is an elaboration on this type of interview. A self-observation interview is also call ed a retrospective interview. In this interview, participants observe their perfo rmance on video or audiotapes and are asked questions regarding their interpretation of their past behavior and their utterances. Cohen and Olshtain (1993) state that the advantage of this interview is that it helps the researcher to gather participants eval uation and understanding towards in the process of their communicative performa nce. They add that this kind of interview enriches nonnative participants performance if it is carried out in their first langu age. Therefore, this study on cross-cultural negotiation behaviors requires the participants to express their thoughts in their own native languages. 53

PAGE 54

A disadvantage is that the reliability is r educed if the interview is not conducted shortly after the participants performance (Cohen & Olshtain, 1993). This kind of retrospective method also has its limitations in that participants may either consciously or unconsciously report inaccurate informati on about their behavior and the reasons for it, or they may remain unaware of some as pects of their actions (Ericsson & Simon, 1987, 1993). Role Plays There are two types of role plays: closed and open role plays (Gass & Houck, 1999; Kasper & Dahl, 1991). Closed role plays r equire participants to reply to a scenario provided by the researchers. The role play designer asks questions which were already prepared and the role play participants respond to them. From this perspective, the closed role play is more like an oral DCT. Th e closed role play is usually less flexible and less interactive. Open role plays first de scribe a scenario and then participants act it out, so participants have some flexibility in the interaction and the outcome is usually unspecified. The role play has many advantages a ccording to Tran (2004). First, the data obtained from the role play is from actual or al communication rather than in written form and participants can talk as much as they want and develop the conversation topics freely. Second, it provides an efficient wa y for the researcher to collect data from different scenarios. Last, the open role play has been widely agreed to have the advantage of providing sufficient information in a discourse context for an examination of the research questions (Kasper & Dahl, 1991; Kasper, 2000). The role play requires the speakers similar processing abilities as naturally occurring interaction, in other 54

PAGE 55

words, the participants need to react intera ctively and cognitively in a similar way (Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993; Eise nstein & Bodman 1993; Tran, 2004). There are two disadvantages concerning ro le plays (Tran, 2004; Kasper & BlumKulka 1993). First, the par ticipants sometimes have to produce a speech event/act which they may not be interested in; second, sometimes the partici pants exaggerate the interaction to dramatize the effect, which may not be practically what they want to say. Data Collection Type of Data There are two types of role plays: cl osed and open role plays (Tran, 2004; Gass & Houck, 1999; Kasper & Dahl, 1991). The major s ource of data of this study is from role play. Naturally occurring negotiation situations especially cross-cultural negotiations, are very difficult to encounter. It is not practi cal to wait for such an occasion and record a naturally occurring interaction between a Chinese participant and an American participant, since the chance of encountering such a situation is very slim. Due to this practical problem arising fr om the low frequency of occurre nce of natural negotiation, open-ended role play is adopted as the main data collection method in this study. Besides practicality consideration, role play data is able to provides authentic resource for this research project since par ticipants usually are not consciously aware of the linguistic phenomena that ar e focuses of a researchers investigation (Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993; Kasper, 2000; Tran, 2004). Role play data are therefore useful in light of the goals of this study and they provide sufficient informa tion in discourse context to allow an in-depth investigation of the sequential and interactive dimensions of politeness. 55

PAGE 56

A questionnaire was first distributed to the participants to obtain information on everyday negotiations that had happened to them. Specifically, in addition to their personal background, the participants were asked to respond to who were the people they sometimes convince or argue with in t heir work and personal life and elaborate the events. The results were used to design the ro le plays, which are the main resource of data. In other words, the role plays were designed based on the participants experience, or at least they were feasible cont act situations for the participants. The major data source in this study is t he role plays. The data consist of one audio recorded dyadic conversations based on each of the seven situations. Each pair comprises an American participant and a Chines e participant. One of the questions in the questionnaire was that the participants were asked to reflect and elaborate the negotiation experiences that they encountered in the past. Based on the information from the questionnaire, seven situations were designed: negotiations with a roommate, a professor, a teaching assistant, an offi cemate, a neighbor, a landlord, and a friend. Most of the situations created were based on the participants real experience and the participants in most cases were asked to act as themselves, for example, as a roommate, as a university student, as a teaching assistant, and as a lab worker. This is to avoid having participants acting in situations which may be less likely to occur in real life and hence may be unfamiliar to them. As is pointed out by Cresswell (1994), unfamiliarity with situations may cause probl ems for speakers, leading them to produce inappropriate utterances in such contexts The situations are open ended so that the conversation is not constrained but had to be negotiated in the actual encounter. This 56

PAGE 57

characteristic is to enhance the participants personal, active involvement in the situations and to allow free devel opment of an interaction. An informal retrospective interview was carri ed out individually after the role plays. The interviews were to investigate participa nts interpretation of their own behaviors. Shortly after the role plays, the participants individually we re asked to view their own and the other partys behaviors orally in their native language, and to comment upon segments of the interaction. The triangulation process, which means us ing more than one form of evidence or more than one procedure, is employed (Johnstone, 2000) in this study. Specifically, triangulation here is realized through collec ting data in three ways: questionnaire, role plays and interviews. Triangulation is used to generate and integrate findings from different perspectives and verify the researchers interpretations of what is being studied (Silverman, 2001). After an initial discourse analysis of politeness behavior manifested in the role plays, the researcher examines the interview data and br ings the participants own interpretation and understandings in for further analysis. The findings from the retrospective interviews will be compared with the analyses of the role plays. Participants The role play data consist of seven interactive conversations involving 14 participants, seven Americans whose native language is English and seven Chinese were from Mainland China. All of them are users of English, who are aged from 25 to 35 years old. They were working or conduc ting graduate study and research in a major university in southern part of the United States. The Chines e participants were the same informants as those who completed the questionnaire. 57

PAGE 58

Procedures The recording of the role plays occurred in a room where only the two participants were present. According to Johnstone (2s000), having people tape themselves is the best way to proceed, without t he researcher being present. T herefore, the researcher did not participate in the data collection of the role plays. Pr ior to the recording, each participant was given a role description by t he researcher. Afterwards, the participants were left alone in the room and asked to act out the situation. No time limit was given. The data collection consisted of three procedures. Firstly, all the Chinese and American participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire aiming mainly at obtaining their negotiation experiences that were used to design the role plays. This took about 15-20 minutes. Secondly, two days later, the role plays, which are the major source of the data, were recorded. The participants conducted dyadic conversations in pairs based on the seven situations. It took 1020 minutes for each pair to role play one scenario. Each participant was given a piec e of paper/card describi ng their situation, role and possible goals (participants goals we re not revealed to each other in advance). Lastly, shortly after the negotiation, followup interviews were conducted by the researcher with individual participant in order to gain insi ghts into their behavior i.e. their perceptions of the negotiation. The inte rviews sought to discover the participants perceptions of their own actions and the acti ons of the other interactants. During these follow-up interviews the tape recording was replayed, and general as well as specific questions were asked. These interviews were also tape recorded. The follow-up interview provides insight into the processe s which occur at the ti me of the original interaction. It also permitt ed the participants to clarify ce rtain communication problems, 58

PAGE 59

and also to verify the participants perceptio ns of discord in the communication. Each interview took 5-10 minutes. Every participant was paid $10 for participating in the study. Transcriptions The data were first transcribed by the researcher, and then checked by a native speaker of American English for accuracy. Because this research project adopts Watts politeness model as its theor etical framework, the tran scription conventions used by Watts (2003) were followed for the data tran scription. The transcript applies the HIAT conventions (Ehlich, 1993). The main featur e of HIAT is that speakers are assigned their own tracks, their utterances are show n simultaneously, as in a musical score. The transcription aims at giving as close revealing of the event without giving readers too many unnecessary details. The following ar e the conventions used and an illustration with an exception from the data in this study is provided. The following negotiation excerpt is between an American professor and her Chinese student on submission of the students lab report. S re fers to the student and P stands for the professor. 1S: uh, uh.. are you busy now\ could you do me a favor \ could you please 2 allow me\ to postpone handing in my lab report 3 P: ok \why cannot you turn it in 4S: uh..(2).. you know\ Im taking 3 core courses this semester\ 5 P: eh-hen 6 S: and two of them have projects 7 \one of the projects will be due\..:e r: also will be due this Friday 8 P: right 9 S: and this project is t eam project\I need to discuss 10 many things with my team partners\ 59 PAGE 60 11P: eh-hen\ 12S: so \Im afraid\ I can NOT finish the old lab report this Friday\ 13 by time 14P: ok\ eh-hen 15S: yeah\ I almost finished the report\ but I still need some time to\ ..uh.. to do 16 more tests and\ do more re search\ so Im afraid \..:er: .its not a good time for 17 me submit this lab report this Friday Analytical Framework The qualitative analytical method for this study is discourse analysis. Stubbs (1983) defines discourse analysis as an analysis of language use beyond the boundaries of a sentence, with consideration of the interre lationships between language and society. Similarly, LoCastro (2003) states that di scourse analysis investigates the choices participants make in their u tterances as well as patterns appeared in specific context. This discourse analytic method is different from the strictly i nductive procedure of conversation analysis. Discourse analysis is not only able to descri be the structure of a conversation but also can pay attention to the interaction which may influence the participants choose of utterances, as well as take participants cultural background and their intentions under consideration. T he emphasis in CA, however, is on detailed description of patterns and regularities in conv ersation, and only the structural aspects of interaction. In addition, since conversation analysis serves the main purpose of examining a single cultural context, it is not appropriate for analyzing interaction between people from different cultural backgrounds because such interlocutors have different expectations and interpretations of norms during interaction. Therefore, this study adopts discourse analysis as its analytic method, which places conversation in a broader context than is the case in conversation analysis. 60 PAGE 61 Specifically, targeting at the two research questions, discourse analysis in this study describes and interprets politic behaviors and (im)politeness conducted respectively by American and Chinese participants in seven negotiations, specifically the different interpretations of such behavio rs by the participants who have different cultural backgrounds, as well as the negotiation norms manifested in informal negotiations. Based on Wattss definition, the behaviors that meet the negotiation norms are politic behaviors, while the ones exceed ing the norms can be considered as polite or impolite depending on the participants interpretation. The negotiation strategies in each culture, namely, American culture and Ch inese culture, are regarded as norms in negotiations, since strategies function as norms serving to enable or constrain negotiations (Chiu, 1990; Putnam, 1992, Leung & Bond, 1984; Zhang & Yang, 1998; Ambler & Witzel, 2004; Faure, 1999; Fang, 1999, Graham, 1986). Chapter 1 has introduced and elaborated the negotiation strategies or norms normally used by Americans and Chinese in different stages of negotiation. The negotiation strategies are considered as politic behaviors for Amer icans and Chinese based on Watts politeness theory and are used as the baseline in this study. Since Americans and Chinese have different negotiation norms, in terpretations of each others behavior from each end can be di fferent. In other words, the politic behavior, such as making a direct threat, considered appropriate by the Americans, can be open to being interpreted as impolite by t he Chinese whose norms avoid this. On the other hand, asking many questions, which is regarded as politic behavior by Chinese, can be open to being interpreted as impolite by the Americans because they deviate from their negotiation norms. The researc her investigates the unmarked politic 61 PAGE 62 behaviors which adhere to the negotiation no rms based on the baseline, as well as marked behaviors which are beyond the negotia tion norms and which are open to be interpreted as (im)polite behaviors. The data analysis was carried out mainly on their behaviors in the negotiations, with a supplemental analysis on their own feedback and interpretation in retrospective interviews. 62 PAGE 63 CHAPTER 3 DATA ANALYSIS Introduction This chapter analyzes the role play data in this study, which is the main body of data of this study. The retrospective account data, which is the supplemental data, will follow in the next chapter. This chapter a ssesses whether the participants are adhering to negotiation norms and whether the utteranc es are regarded as politic behavior. In addition, if participants are going beyond the po litic behavior required in the norms of the two cultures, whether they are enacti ng politeness and/or impoliteness are examined as well in this chapter. Based on Wa tts politeness theory (2003), which is the theoretical framework of this research study, behaviors that meet the negotiation norms are politic behaviors; those exceeding the norms can be considered as polite or impolite depending on the participants interpretation. The role plays comprised of seven informal negotiation scenarios respectively between a professor and a student, between two neighbors, between an instructor and a student, between a landlord and a tenant, between two friends about borrowing money, between two officemates, and between two roommates. Chapter 1 has elaborated on the four st ages of a cross-cultural negotiation between Americans and the Chinese. Briefly, the four stages ar e: nontask sounding, exchange of information, persuasion, and concessions and agreement. The nontask sounding discusses topics other than business to show friendliness as well as to learn about the other partys background and intere st. The information exchange, the second stage, deals with the parties needs and preferences. Pers uasion in the third stage involves each others attempts to modify one anothers subjective expectations through 63 PAGE 64 the use of various strategies. The final stage, including concessions and agreement, reaches an agreement that usually is t he summation of a series of concessions (Graham & Lam, 2004; Fang, 1999). Based on Watts politeness theory (2003), the seven role plays are analyzed in accordance to the four stages in this chapter. The analyses of the role play data are in the order of a negotiation between a professor and a student, a negotiation between two neighbors, a negotiation between a teaching assistant and a student, a negotia tion between a landlord and a tenant, a negotiation between two friends, a negotiation between two officemates, and a negotiation between two roommates. The participant s of every role play include a native American participant and a native Chinese participant. Negotiation between a Professor and a Student Analysis The following informal negotiation is bet ween an American professor and her Chinese student about submission of the students lab report. The Chinese student initiated the conversation, hoping that her professor could give her permission to postpone submitting the report since she wa s busy with other projects as well. Compared with her professor, this Chinese woman spoke rather slowly and in a low voice at the beginning. We will examine how t hey conversed at different stages of the negotiation. The following is a short excerpt: Example (1) 1S: professor\ how are you 2P: Im fine\ thank you Based on the definitions of the different negotiation stages, which have been explained in detail in the previous methodology chapter, this extract can be classified to 64 PAGE 65 the first stage: nontask sounding. In this fi rst line, the student started the conversation by using a formulaic utterance: how ar e you. The professor responded also with a formulaic utterance: Im fine, thank you. Si nce a greeting is an interpersonal act which routinely requires some form of greeting as a response, we usually have two utterances to complete the process, which is called an adjacency pair. A greetings is not inherently polite, instead, it is an appr opriate behavior in a conversation, contributing to the smooth functioning of verbal interaction (Watts, 2003) This is the case for the above excerpt. The students greeting of how are you and the professors pos itive response of Im fine, thank you are appropriate in t he situation, which are interp reted as politic behavior. Although how are you should be responded to, it is rare to use the opportunity to give an extended description of ones health or ones mental or affective state. A brief response is usually normal. However, in t he following excerpt, follo wing the professors positive reply, the student expressed her concern about her professors health, specifically, dental problem. Example (2) 1S: uh..I heard that you went to see a dent ist last week\ I know its painful\ uh.I 2 hope you are feeling better now 3P:(1 second pause) uh..yeah..thanks\ can I help you with something In addition to the formulaic greeting, t he Chinese student expressed her personal concern of the professors specific condition of dental health and showed her personal sympathy. This behavior explicitly fits in Chinese negotiation strategies of the first stage. In the first stage of nontask sounding, Chinese usually start with rela tively long informal nontask talk, while Americans do so very briefl y or not at all. At the very beginning, to serve the purpose of getting closer to the other party of the negotiation psychologically, 65 PAGE 66 therefore it seems that this Chinese student tried this stra tegy to make her professor feel that, emotionally and physically, she understood her pain and was very compassionate for her. However, this Chinese strategy commonly used at the first stage of negotiation may not be expected by the Am erican professor. We can see that from the professors relatively long pause and her slight stutteri ng reacting to the students utterance, which could have resulted from her unexpected surp rise due to the students concern on her health. For the American professor, the dent al issue may be her personal business and it is not appropriate for a student to bring it up and express sympathy. She then immediately discarded the topic by changing to a direct question, can I help you with something. In accordance to Chinese tr adition, the persons response towards the others concerns and care cannot simply be uh, yeah, thanks; otherwise it is regarded as indifferent or inappropriate. The normal and appropriate reply usually contains heartfelt appreciation and/or description of t he medical procedures Therefore, the professors brief reply can be interpreted as inappropriate or impo lite from the Chinese students point of view. The next excerpt on the immediate response from this student supported this point. This excerpt involves the second stage of negotiation: information exchange. Example (3) 1S: uh, uh.. are you busy now\ could you do me a favor \ could you please 2 allow me\ to postpone handing in my lab report 3P: ok \ why cant you turn it in 4S: uh..(2).. you know\ Im taking 3 core courses this semester\ 5P: eh-hen 66 PAGE 67 6S: and two of them have projects \one of the projects 7 will be due\..:er: also will be due this Friday 8P: right 9S: and this project is team project\I need to discuss many things 10 with my team partners\ 11P: eh-hen\ 12S: so \Im afra id\ I can NOT finish the old lab report this Friday\by 13 time 14P: ok\ eh-hen 15S: yeah\ I almost finished the repor t\ but I still need some time to\ ..uh.. to do 16 more tests and\ (1.3) do more research\ so Im afraid \..:er:.its not a good time 17 for me submit this lab report this Friday At this stage of information exchange, the Chinese student put forward a request followed by a very long, even redundant expl anation, while her American professor asked one direct question: why cannot you turn it in. Usually students know that it is their responsibility to submit his/her hom ework on time, or the consequence will be on him/her and it is legitimate. This Chi nese student apparently had some difficulty to fulfill her responsibility so she tried to negot iate with her professor about her special circumstance. To achieve this goal, s he used an indirect request supported by lengthy explanation. This is a very typical strategy when Chinese make a request in the process of a negotiation. She first used the utterance of could you do me a favor to ask for the hearers permission to ma ke the request. Then this Chinese student attempted another indirect request by star ting with could you please. Obviously, her request can be expressed either straightfo rwardly or simply made by one indirect request instead of two. This Chinese student tried to be indirect enough to achieve her goal, in other words. Her indirect reques t is in excess of the required politic 67 PAGE 68 behavior of the interaction and is open to interpretation as polite. Compared to the Chinese student, the American pr ofessor was straightforward. Her direct questioning of the students request surp rised the student to some ex tent, which can be reflected in the students slight hesitation. Since this kind of questioning may be beyond the students expectation or her ritualiz ed understanding of the ways to bring up a question in response to her polite request, it could be interpreted as inappropriate by the student. Following is the third stage of negotiation, persuasion, where both Americans and Chinese use some positive strategies such as promises, recommendations, rewards, and so on and some negative strategies such as threat, where the degree of threat, however, varies greatly. After hearing the Ch inese students explan ation, the American professor first stated that she had an out-of-st ate conference to go to shortly after the original deadline of the lab report, which made it impossible for the student to turn it in late. Then she responded to the students request in a negative way as follows. Example (4) 1P: also\ youve known about this deadli ne for a while \you know\ I didnt assign 2 this RECENTLY\ you know\ for some time \ and I really dont think its fair for 3 other students\ because I know YOU have a lot of work\ but I am sure OTHER 4 students have a lot of work too\ you know so.. 5S: uh.yeah..\ so\ if I subm it the report this Friday In this example, the professor used the negat ive appeal strategy, which attempts to increase ones anxiety about not doing something or stresses the loss they will experience as a consequence. As a response, the student gave a brief pause, but she seemed not stunned at her professors direct remarks which probably left her little room for further explanation. In the process of negotiati on, negative appeals are less 68 PAGE 69 frequently used in comparison with positive st rategies for Chinese negotiators, but still are considered as one of legitimate negotiati on strategies if used in a negotiation. According to the negotiation norms in t he U.S., however, negative appeals as a negotiation strategy like the above is commonl y used and thus may not be interpreted as impolite for Americans. In addition, the status of a professor is regarded as higher than that of a student, thus yielding more power to apply the negative appeal strategy for the professor in this situation. Therefor e, for both sides, it is regarded as the unmarked behaviors which are appropriate in the negotiation context, hence are politic behaviors. Following is another excerpt: Example (5) 1P: so\uh\ I know many students also\ eh\ also have many work to do\ but they 2 can submit the report on time 3S: eh-hen\ but I have\ eh\ a special case\ 4P: \uh-huh 5S: because when I do the lab\ eh\ do 6 eh\ do \doing the experiment\ Im \eh \its my fault not to write it very well\ I 7 found my fault in my report\ so I need to\ eh\ need to do more details 8S: Im afraid I have no time to do it befor e Friday\ but I am su re\ I can give you 9 this weekend \so you still have time to review it and return to me.. In the above extract, the Chinese student appeared very persistent. She raised the request again with an excuse and promised her professor t hat she would be able to finish it up by the weekend so that the pr ofessor would still have a chance to read it before going for the conference. It is obvious that the professors earlier clear negative responses to her request and unfavorable co mparison between her and her classmates 69 PAGE 70 did not change the students initia l intention. She was looking for a chance to propose it again and she made it. In response to the students repeated r equest, the professor finally took the negative strategy of threat. C onsider the following extract: Example (6) 1P: if\ the best \the only thing that I can a llow you to do is\ if you submit your lab 2 report after the deadline\ t hen I will lower it one letter grade from your lab report 3 grade 4S: ..but\ eh\ if eh \I do excellent in 5 your lab report\ do you \ 6P: (sound impatient) if you get an A\ 7S: eh-hen\ 8P: if you do so well that normally you would get 9 an A \the best you will get is B 10S: (3, long pause then very low voice, surprisingly) WHY The direct threat of lowering one letter gr ade no matter how well the Chinese student had an effect on the student. In Chinese negotiat ion norms, chances that a direct threat is uttered are very low, although indirect th reat is considered appropriate and unmarked. Therefore, the Chinese student s turn in lines 4 and 5 reflect her embarrassment and discomfort because she was awar e of the negative force from the professor: she spoke intermittently following a clearing of her throat, which might be used to cover her surprise at the professors straightforward threat and to mitigate the damage to her selfesteem. She tried to offer another way to compensate for her delay; however, it was responded to negatively again by the professor. It is likely that the student would evaluate the professors response as unfair or not appropriate as bordering on being 70 PAGE 71 impolite. It is reflected by the students re sponse in the next turn in which she gave a significant pause as long as three seconds, followed by a stressed one word: why at a much lower volume level. Summary As can be seen from the above scenario between the American professor and the Chinese student, there are in general differ ent understandings by each of them as to what is meant by appropriateness, politeness or impolite, which can be pertaining to the norms associated with a similar situation in each culture. To put it in a simple way, for instance, what might be considered appropr iate by the American professor could be possibly interpreted as impolite by the Chi nese student. This illustrated by example 6. Another facet revealed by the scenario is t hat impoliteness is an obs ervable violation of politic behaviors, which is judged or assessed by the conversation participants themselves. Negotiation between Neighbors Analysis The following scenario is between two nei ghbors, one each fr om the U.S. and China. The American neighbor is a young man in his 20s. He lives next door to the Chinese neighbor who is a woman at the similar age. They simply greet when they see each other outside. The American has an out -going personality. He seems to have many friends and likes throwing parties on weekends, sometimes even on weekdays such as Wednesday or Thursday. His friends take all the parking lot in front of the apartment building at party time s so the Chinese woman sometimes has to park her car at quite a distant place. In addition, his dog barks more when his friends are around and 71 PAGE 72 the noise disturbs the Chin ese womans to some degree at night. The Chinese neighbor decides to negotiate with her neighbor about these issues that bothering her. In the following examples, M refers to the American young man and L refers to the Chinese woman. Let us star t from the very beginning of the negotiation. In this negotiation, the first stage of nont ask sounding is omitted, it goes directly to the second stage of information exchange. Example (7) 1L: hi\Im sorry\ I live next to you\ eh.. eh.I heard some music from your home 2 yesterday\ 3M: yeah\ we had a party last night\. 4L: oh\yeah\ becau se I have to study\.eh..in my 5home\ the wall is not sound proof\ so.. 6M: yeah 7L: (2 seconds pause) eh\I think\ eh. sometimes you 8 get too late at night \so can you\ eh\ I mean\ can you stop the party a little 9 earlier\ lease \ @@ (softly and nervously) In this extract, the Chinese woman fo llowed Chinese negotiation patterns to express her request, that is, expl anation followed by request. She began her conversation with her neighbor with greeti ngs hi and Im sorry on line 1 to show her apology as she might consider that she wa s interrupting her neighbor. Apologizing with Im sorry is a highly routinised, ritualistic linguistic formula which may form part of the politic behavior of a social interaction, which is defined as first-order politeness in Watts politeness theory (Watts, 2003). In lines 1, 2, 4, and 5, the Chinese woman, interestingly, tried twice to give hints to her neighbor to state the probl em of noisy music. As expl ained in the introduction of 72 PAGE 73 the scenario, the music from the Americans room is loud and noisy, which greatly disturbs the woman on some weekdays and al most all weekends. Under this severe situation, the woman still approached the man with an indirect manner and used some music to try to maintain the harmony bet ween her and her neighbor. From a different perspective, gender difference could also cont ribute here, as usually women are more inclined to express themselves indirectly than men. She might have considered her attempts over and over as polite under th is circumstance and would expect a mutual understanding and cooperative a ttitude as a return. It seems that, however, the young man di d not understand it. He replied with an explanation on line 3 instead. The woman went on, still making an effort to give hints to the man from a different perspective, try to ascribing the problem to the quality of wall, which is not sound-proof. It is obvious that the woman hoped, this time, the young man could realize that she was actually bothered by his musi c at the party. She put the blame on the wall rather than on the young man, which again is considered to serve the purpose of avoiding any damage of the in terpersonal harmony. Gi ven the fact that the purpose of her visit was not realized by her neighbor after the above attempts, at last, after a two-second pause, she made a request indirectly whether the young man could end the parties earlier. She might hav e felt that her beating around bushes did not work since the man still had no idea on what brought her there. She used a little to minimize the required action, immediately followed by soft and nervous laughter to minimize the impact of the request and maintain their relationship. The following four examples (8), (9), and (10) in this role play data fall in the third stage of negotiation: persuasion. Typical of American negotiation styles, the young man 73 PAGE 74 made his point throughout the negotiation and was not willing to make any concessions. In the first line below, he replied to the Chi nese womans request to end the party a little earlier with not really, whic h is very negative and blunt. Example (8) 1M: not really\ I mean\ we just have people over listen to the music\ you 2 know\ sometimes we finish earlier\ but mo st of the time I guess.. we dont finish 3 that late\ we finish like 2 or 3\ 4L: oh\ but\ but 2 or 3 is too late for me\ eh\ because usually I go 5 to bed at 11\ so\ eh\ because when the party\ eh \is finis hed\ I can hear a lot of\ 6 like noise\ maybe they talk\ eh\ after t hey go out of your home\ and I still can 7 hear them there around\ so\ eh \ 8M: well you 9L: \I wonder can you 10M: \uh-huh 11L: ask them to leave ear lier \like (2 second pause) 1212 or 11@@ (softly and nervously) The young man responded to the womans request negatively in a direct way by saying not really on line 1. His responses which ar e consisted of clear and direct wording are usually favorable in American culture. However, unlike the Americ an tradition, Chinese, in order to reject a request or proposal, us ually adopt various indi rect ways so as to soothe the possible embarrassment and maintain the relationship. Obviously, the young mans direct refusal was beyond the woman s expectations, her following utterance appears to be stuttering and indecisive. On a second attempt, the woman used again the indirect way to repeat her request by saying I wonder can you to minimize dispraise, after explaining that how the noisy distur bed her at night. Followed is Example (9), which shows what the young man replied to her. 74 PAGE 75 Example (9) 1M: you can always go 2 to the library \ the 3L: and I cannot go to sleep \ at my \ in my apartment \so you know 4M: sure \ you know \ I mean \ 5I have never heard any complain t from the other neighbors \ 6L: (2).. eh ..I dont know about other neighb ors \ maybe I dont know \ but \ eh\I 7mean \since I live here and \eh 8M: oh I live here too 9L: @@ (softly and nervously) yeah \ I know you live here \ but 10M: the apar tment complex 11L: but\ 12you interfere my 13M: hasnt said 14L: my life 15M: well \ you are trying to do the SAME thing \you are 16trying to interfere with MY life by telli ng me not to have these parties \and have 17fun \ so you 18L: \Im not telling you not to have thes e parties\ I just want you to have it a 19little earlier not \ and not to stay 20M: well \I mean 21L: too late\ 22M: we cannot really have it early\ bec ause people are still doing stuff and \ no 23one really gets ready to party until 11 ocl ock 12 oclock at night \ like \ eh \ the 24other neighbors havent complained \ t he apartment complex hasnt said 25anything \ this is..(2)..Gai nesville\ this is a party town \ like \ when you came 26here \you should have thought of that\ 27L: (3). eh .(2 ) but \ @@ (softl y and nervously) \ eh.. eh (silence) 75 PAGE 76 In this extract, the man poi nted out an alternative way for the woman to avoid the noise, such as going to the library. In addi tion, he reminded the woman that both of them live in the apartment comp lex and both of them have right s to do what they want to. All of the above was delivered in a straigh tforward, clear, and explicit manner by the man. She responded again with the light la ughter. The man shifted the topic to demonstrate that the wo man was intervening with his business since that, neither the complex nor other neighbors have ever comp lained about the noise. In doing so, the man interrupted the woman and prev ented her from continuing wit h her turn at talk three times on lines 9, 11 and 14. He further blamed the woman for her ignorance on the fact that this town where they reside has been renowned as a place often throwing parties. The Chinese woman responded wit h uncomfortable laughter. In contrast to the indirect negotiation strategies used by the woman, the American mans direct blame is open to interpretation as impolite by the Chinese woman. The last example involves the issue on parking lots. The Chinese woman asked if the man could have his friends park somewhere else rather than o ccupying all the spots in front of the apartment building, which result ed in her parking in a place quite far from where she lives. Followed are the mans responses. Example (10) 1M: well\ thats something you need to ta ke up with the apartment complex\ this 2 complex doesnt have visitor spots\ so we can park wherever we want\ and then 3 theyre just getting the closest possible space 4L: but 5M: we c annot always keep apartment 6 space reserved for YOU\ we dont know \ I dont know\ what type of car you 7 drive\ so I dont know if youd be there already so\ 76 PAGE 77 8L: ..eh.. 9M: for that\ I cannot tell them to not park in the closer spot\ because you MAY\ or 10 may NOT want to park there later on\ like\ its first come first served 11L: ..eh.. 12L: (long pause) ok \eh\ yeah\ eh \so please ask your friends\ eh 13M: Ill see what I can do\ 14 but no promises \all right 15L: ok\ but \I may talk to you or someone\ if you still are noisy to me\ 17M:ok\ In this part, the man gave more potentially impolite speech by stressing you, and may or may not. For example, the man claimed that we cannot always keep apartment space reserved for YOU indicating that what the wom an suggested to do might not be reasonable and acceptable. T he Chinese woman used quite a few hesitatious such as eh, especially in line 4. Hesitatious is a pause filled with non-lexical phonetic component such as uhh, eh, ah, or even instances of st uttering. (Definition from Merriam Webster Online Dictionary). All of these show the wo mans uncertainty and inability to deal with the mans direct remarks, which may be interpretable as impolite by the Chinese woman because they were in excess of what is expect ed in a similar situati on in China. At the very last, on lines 15 and 16, the woman, fo r the first time in the whole negotiation process, used a negative strategy, namely, making a threat by stating that I may talk to you or someone if the situation recurs. A thr eat is an expression of intent to do harm or act out violently against someone or some thing (Putman, 1992). She used indirect threat which tends to be vague and ambiguous. This kind of threat suggests that a violent act could occur, not t hat it will occur, which is ac hieved by the modification may 77 PAGE 78 in this case. Moreover, she did not overtly say who this someone is, but it could be the leasing office or even a policeman at the wo rst. Although a threat may be interpreted as impolite in most situations, it is, in the negotiation process, interpretable as unmarked politic behaviors since it belongs to one of the negotiation norms commonly accepted by both parties. The American mans easy and quick reply of ok indicates that he felt comfortable with the womans threat in t he negotiation, thus might interpret it as acceptable and appropriate. Summary Based on the above analysis between two neighb ors, we can see that establishing the linguistic structures that are classified as polite or impo lite does not stand its points in the above example. For example, even ma king a threat, as what the Chinese woman did at the end of the conversation, does not necessarily carry impolite interpretation and may be interpreted as appropriate in such a social interaction, namely, a negotiation situation. No linguistic expressions are considered inheritly politeness or impolite. In line with the analysis of the first scenario, the second role play once again demonstrates that different interpretations may be conduct ed by participants with distinct norms. What may be considered as appropriate behaviors could possibly be interpreted negatively and yield opposite effect on the hear er. This is particularly the case in cross-cultural communications. Negotiation between a Teaching Assistant and a Student Analysis The following negotiation is between a fema le Chinese teaching assistant, and an American student, female too, in her com puter class. The students are required to submit their take home test online by 12:00pm on Monday. Late submission will result in 78 PAGE 79 a zero. One of the Chinese TAs students, ho wever, sent her test 20 minutes late. The Chinese TA then gave her zero point. T he student then approach ed the TA. K stands for the American woman, R for the Chinese TA. Example (11) 1K: uh\ excuse me\ I wanted to talk to you about my take home test\ 2R: yeah\ ok\ 3K: uh\ I submitt ed it late\because my dial4 up minutes were used up for the month\ and I couldnt submit it online\ so I had 5 to rush to school\ so I dont feel its fair \that I got a zero on the assignment\ 6 R:uh..yeah..yeah\ because\ because\ you s ubmit your assignment late \you 7 know in our course policy\ la te submission will receive a zero\ The American student, K, started the conversati on using excuse me to indicate that she may have interrupted the Chinese TA and she needed some time for a talk. Her utterances lie within the framework of politic behavior in this type of interaction, following the social norms in initialing an interaction. Wi th an explicit statemen t of I dont feel its fair that I got a zero on the assignment, the American woman dire ctly brought up her dissatisfaction. Direct expressions like that are widely accepted in America, thus Ks utterance can be interpreted as unmarked or appropriate. However, R may interpret it as impolite from her point of view because of the fact that, in China, almost no student would dare to publicly and directly blame his/ her teacher for a possible mistake, whether it results from the student himself/herself, or even the teacher. It might be very possible that R considered Ks complaint on lines 5 and 6 unexpected in a negative way. An interpretation on a certain behavior relates to the social norms that a person understands and takes for granted. Example (12) 79 PAGE 80 1K: but I couldnt submit it then\ I tried to get to sc hool to submit it on time\ I 2 spent a lot of time working on it \so I should at least get some credit for doing it\ 3R: yeah\ 4 understand \but you know\ uh (2 second paus e) its a take-home test\ so you 5 have a long week to finish that assi gnment\ why did you @@@ (soft laughter) 6 wait for until the last minute to submit it\ so 7K:well\ I didnt know that my internet w ould be out when its the time to submit it\ 8 and rushed to school to submit it\ 9R: Im sorry that I cannot give 10 you\ uh\ some points\ because it will be unfair to OTHER students who 11 submitted in time\ so the ONLY thing I can do for you\ is to suggest you to 12 contact the professor to see if he accepts this situation\ After the student K explained the reason for the late submission, the Chinese TA strictly adhered to her point that zero is the only score that a late work can get, no matter what the excuse is. R provided her reasons to the student based on the class policy. R sounded very firm with her decision that it would be impossible to change the students score at this time, given t he fact that the low grade was resulted from her own conduct. As R pointed out to the student: you have a long week to finish that assignment, why did you wait for the last minute to submit it. Finally, she proposed that the student approach the professor of this course to see if the professor could give her an exception. Summary In Example (12), we find it interesting as well as strikingly clear that, compared to the Chinese neighbor in the previous negot iation with her American neighbor, this American woman expressed herself straightforwardly and boldly. She directly pointed out that it would be an unfair deed if the Chinese gave her an unsatisfactory score. The word unfair alone could be a challenge to the Chi nese teaching assistants status and show the students suspect on the assistants professional judgment. We will find out 80 PAGE 81 the interpretation by the teaching assistant herself in the next chapter focusing on retrospective interviews. Negotiation between a Landlord and a Tenant Analysis This negotiation happened between a landlord who is an American male and a tenant, who is a Chinese male. Due to cert ain unforeseen reasons, the Chinese man, named B thereafter, had to move out of his apar tment 15 days later than the date stated on his lease. He approached his landlord, thereafter called D, with a hope to solve this problem as he expected. Example (13) 1D: good morning\ 2B: good morning\ uh. the thing is\ my l ease will be _will be_ expire in 15 days\ 3D: right\ 4B: uh\ but 5 the problem is \uh\ I st ill have some personal reasons..er: (CLEAR THROAT) if 6 you dont mind\I want to live here\ I think\ uh. more than.. more than 15 days\ 7D: um 8B: so\ uh.. I just want to see \woul d you mind I living here\ until I move\ The American landlord D in itiated the conversation by greeting his tenant B. Generally, a landlord always greets a person w ho steps into his/her office in the first place. This is appropriate behavior on a daily basis. We therefore c onsider it politic behavior. The first stage of the negotiation, nontask sounding, is simply composed of short greetings in this case. 81 PAGE 82 After returning the greeti ng briefly, the Chinese man started to reveal his information, namely, he led the second stage of the negotiation. To serve this purpose, he respectively used the structures of the thi ng is on line 2, if you dont mind on lines 5 and 6, and just on line 8. Specifically, B used the formulaic, clause structure, which is the thing is on line 2, as a means to state his problem. When it is time to make a request for a longer stay, he added a phrase, if you dont mind on lines 5 and 6. At the end of his turn in this example, he put in to his request just, the downtoner which can mitigate the impact of his utterance. In Chinese negotiation norms, an indirect r equest other than a direct one is usually expected and considered appropriate. In exam ple (13), the Chinese man started his request with an excuse, followed by if you don t mind to soften it. Since the approach of indirectness is what expected by the norms in a Chinese negotiation, this kind of behavior could be regarded as appropriate by the Chinese man. On the contrary, Americans usually prefer directness in their utterances, therefore the tenants attempt might be regarded as polite, which is in exce ss of the appropriate behaviors in such a context. Hearing the tenants request, the landlord D refused B as indicated in the following example, because as he reminded the tenant that the provision in the contract is very clear that a tenant has to give suffici ent written notice beforehand and to have vacated the apartment by the date in t he contract. Both B and D need to adhere to the contract and make no exceptions. Following is exampl e (14), focusing on persuasion, the third stage of negotiation. Next we wi ll see that both of them tried to reach their goals by persuading each other. 82 PAGE 83 Example (14) 1B: yeah\ I know its hard to do\ but .. uh.. you know its very hard to a foreign 2 student\ to find a place here\ (2 second pa use) I think \uh. because I have been 3 here for one year \uh. you maybe can offer me the convenience\ because\ uh\ 4 its very hard for foreign students to find any apartment now\ 5D:yeah\ I certainly see your situation\ BUT unfortunately. um .my hands are tied\ 6 I cannot really.. I am responsible to the owner of t he apartment complex 7B:uh 8D: and I really cannot make any exceptions\ 9B: er: but its just about less than one mont h\ I can\ I can\ pay more money than 10 the days to be here\ 11D: so you were saying that \you will pay BEYOND what the amount would be in 12 the lease for the month 13B: right\ right 14D: would you be willing to pay \um. the amount for that mont h plus another 15 full month for\ 16B: uh\ 17D: the 15 days\ 18B: yeah 15 days\ 19D: it would be two months rent\ would you 20 be willing to pay that 21B: uh..two months 22D: uh-huh \ right 23B: um..(SILENCE) 24D: would you be willing to do that 25B: (SILENCE) 26D: if you are reluctant to do that\ then you cannot\ 83 PAGE 84 27B: I think it s a little too expensive\ There are two places drawing attention in t he example (14), both re lated to the Chinese tenant. One is the strategy that B used to appeal to the landlords sympathy. He spoke the same sentence twice, its very hard fo r foreign students to find any apartment, in order to receive sympathy and understanding from D so that he could achieve his goal of living at the same place longer. He failed, however. This strategy is not listed in the negotiation strategies commonly used by the Ch inese. In this case, assuming, B could have applied or learnt such a sk ill in the similar situations in the past, which has stored in his memory and ready to put into use when he feels the need. The schema of his habitus related to negotiation skills and stra tegies supplies him with some ways he orients himself in it. The second issue worthy of special attention is silence. B used silence twice when he was in opposition to Ds proposal on the two-month rent. Silence is at times a form of resistance. In American cultural language, silence signals a negative response. Extended silence could reveal a stronger opposing attitude. Silence is a frequently used tactic in Chinese negotiation. Example (15) 1B: as you have known \ Im really\ Im real ly\ ..uh have poor salary from my RA 2 position ..uh and one month more r ent is really expensive for me\ 3D: uh-huh 4B: so could you\ uh\ give me another 5 price for one more month \ Im always a good tenant\if..uh\ if you give me a 6 reasonable price for the additional days\ Ill recommend you.uh..to the new 7 incoming Chinese st udents from China\ 8D: well\ let me think about it 84 PAGE 85 In an attempt to get a better deal, B tr ied another negotiation strategy, making a promise. He offered to t he landlord by saying that if you give me a reasonable price for the additional days, Ill recommend you to the new incoming Chinese students from China. Promises aim to provide the other party with a positive consequence which would make the other party feel positive. Th is strategy is open to being interpreted as appropriate or politic behavior in this negotiation context since it is one of the negotiation norms for both Americans and Chines e. It turned out to be useful, as the landlord changed his mind and asked for only two third of the rent for the additional month as a compromise. Summary The data in Example (13) once again show that the Chinese are more inclined to use indirect requests than direct and explicit ones as the Americans do. This can be due to their understanding of indirectness as an appr opriate norm in interaction. In Example (14), one of the negotiation strategies used by Chinese, keeping silent, was adopted by the Chinese tenant, the role of which is cons idered to highlight ne gation. However, the perception of its role by t he American landlord cold be di fferent. There may be diversity in the evaluation of the strategy. Negotiation between Friends Analysis This negotiation is between two friends. It happened relatively long ago that an American man borrowed some money from the Chinese man. But he had forgotten about it. The Chinese, in this negotiation, intended to get his money back. The American man is called O and the Chin ese N in the following examples. 85 PAGE 86 In terms of Chinese cultur e, it is inappropriate or impolite behavior to ask someone who borrows money to return it, especially to ask in front of their face. Therefore, many Chinese people who have lent money to other s will opt to forget about it if the lender forgets to return and providing the amount is not enormous. Therefore, this current role play involves an interesting situation whic h is triggered by money and the amount is unneglectable for a Chinese student who liv es on a small amount of teaching or research assistantship in a diffe rent country. In this situation, rather than asking directly or giving it up, the strategy that the Chinese man used is to tell his American friend that it was he who needed money, hoping that it could serve as a reminder to his friend that he still owed him some money and should return it. Let us focus on the example (16), which is the second stage of a negotiation, information exchange. Example (16) 1O: how are you doing\ 2N: good\ thank you\ have you brought the physics ??? textbook from the library? 3O: yeah\ 4N: I need to buy it too\ c ause it is.uh. our core co urse\ but I dont have enough 5 money with me today...and..uh..this afternoon it is our first class\ 6O: uh. thats all right\ you can buy it after class\ 7N: ..but..it will be helpful\ if I can have the book in class today\ 8O: yeah\ 9N: .uh. but I need some money\ can I borrow your 20 bucks\ 10O: 20 bucks\ 11N: yeah\ 12O: I dont have 20 bucks to give you\ 86 PAGE 87 14N: uh..(SILENCE) The American friend, O, start ed the conversation by greet ing the Chinese man, N. When two friends see each other, usually they greet each other, which is based on the appropriation required by social norms. In other words, usually unaware of what drives their acts, they can perform appropriate practices following social norms and expectations based on habitus that they have developed. Therefore, the ritualized greeting pattern of how are you, fine thank you is open to interpretation as appropriate or politic behavior. A pervasive Chinese strategy is to assu me that the meanings can be inferred from the context or from hint s. N took much effort to indire ctly remind O of the money issue but failed. In doing so, first N sacrificed hi mself by putting him in the fake situation who did not have enough money to buy the textbook which would be used in the afternoon, with a hope that this could he lp O remember the money that he borrowed. Unfortunately, it did not ring a bell for O. Given such a negot iation situation, N could simply ask for his money back directly. His strategy of giving hi nts or creating a similar situation is in excess of what is minimally required could be a token that the Chinese was trying to be polite than merely be appropriate, although this might be interpreted negatively by his American friend. Finally, after applying all the means and still O could not get his real intentions, he had to raise this issue by asking for a loan of$20 dollars from O. But it must have been out of his expectation that O refused him clearly and directly, since this is supported by his sudden silence thereafter, which may be interpreted as a result of unexpected surprise, disappointment or int entional pausing used to consider the next step. That is to 87

PAGE 88

say, N showed signs that he had interpreted Os behavior as impolite since it violates the politic behaviors for Chinese in operation in the interaction. After O turned him down, N had no way out but to clearly state his target, which is to ask for his money back. Example (17) 1N: do you remember\uh.. you borrowed 20 bucks from me the other week and 2 you didnt pay me back yet so @@@ (SOFTLY) 3O: oh \ my\ I forgot that\sorry 4N: thats all right\but can you\ do you have a card or something 5O: @@@ NO\ 6N: can you withdraw something for me 7O: no\ I ca nnot go to the bank right 8 now\ Im kind of tight right now\so 9N: could y ou ask your friend in class 10O: WHAT I cannot ask somebody else to borrow money to give to YOU\ 11N: but\ I need the money to give to somebody else because I broke her CD\ 12O: yeah\ but it 13 has nothing to do with ME \ 14N: but\ I lent my money to you 15O: yeah\ but I dont want to 16 get involved in YOUR own problem\ 17N: but it is YOU\ who own me money\ 18O: but I dont have any money on me now\ 19N: but Im afraid that I could not believe you\ Im sorry about it\ you told me the 20 same thing..uh..at the end of last year\ maybe you forgot\.uh. we had finals at 21 that time\ 88

PAGE 89

PAGE 90

decisive response is found: no. O expressed his negative idea to N immediately after he heard each of the three questions. O rejected Ns requests with no a ttempt to mitigate the rejection. He even burst into laughter to show he was not in agreement with Ns first question, which is proved by a stressed no. The third time, when N even suggested he ask for money from his fri end, O responded at no time with what then explicitly blamed N for his inconsiderate of others. Although O reacted openly and negatively to all of the three questions uttered by N, he was still within the bounds of politic behaviors appropriate for the special situation of a negotiation. In American negotiations, directness, threats and punishments are allowed and considered as appropriate. Therefore, Os behavior is open to being interpre ted as politic behavior, although it may be interpreted as impolite by N. In lines 22, 23, and 24, N implicitly told O that he could not trust him because he seemed to have repeated the sa me excuse last year. However, instead of directly revealing Os dishonest, N seemed to make excuse for O. He firs t apologized for his views on O, then further ment ioned final exams which might have taken much of Os time and energy, and could result in his fo rgetfulness of returning the money. His behavior is clearly in excess of the appropriate behaviors required in this situation, thus is interpretable as polite. Summary There are several occasions in this scenar io where the Chinese participants used hints to remind his counterpart of an iss ue that he has forgotten. He might have interpreted his behaviors as polite but his American conversant could perceive it the other way round since the negot iation strategy the Chines e people applied violated his 90

PAGE 91

norms. This actually happens frequently in encounters between peopl e from different cultural backgrounds. This again raises t he fact that politeness is evaluated and identified by both of the conversation participants as norm based, and as a natural consequence, same utterance could le ad to different interpretations. Negotiation between Officemates Analysis This negotiation happened between two officema tes respectively from the U.S. and China. The Chinese, male, wanted to continue using the American officemates (also a male) lab equipment for another few days. He approached his officemate to get his permission. The Chinese is called T and the American W in the following examples. Example (18) 1T: hi P \ (the Americans name) 2W: hi\ 3T: uh\ can I just ask you something 4W: sure\ 5T: yeah\ uh\ I havent done with the equipment in your lab\ uh \can I.. can I 6 borrow that equipment again\ because\ t hats because\ we temporally lost 7 power that day\so I didnt finish \and left a mess in the lab \I am sorry for that\ 8W: thats ok\ how 9 much more time do you need it for\ 10T: maybe\ uh\ another weekend\ 11W: I cannot finish my proj ect by this weekend\ maybe 12 I can let you use it later\ In this example (18), which is the informa tion exchange part of a negotiation, T and W first greeted each other in accordance wit h the politic behaviors expected by the 91

PAGE 92

social norms. Then T raised his question which includes the word, just functioning here as an understater. The question would have been appropriate to the politic behavior of the situation, so that just allows it to be potentially interpreted as politeness. In line 7, T made an apology to W for having left a mess in his lab because of the temporary loss of power. Although the mess ascribed mainly to the loss of power, T was responsible for the ex periment and the lab that W allowed him to use. Therefore Ts behavior of making an apol ogy can be interpreted as appropriate. Maybe T was trying to show W that he is a trustworthy person who can be lent the lab equipment without worry. Hearing that his schedule conflicted wit h Ws, T started the persuasion part. Example (19) 1T: uh\ later \ what about next week\ I can do that at night\ 2W: Im gonna need it from\ lets see\ todays Thursday\ 3T: yeah\ 4W: so 5T: maybe tomorrow night 6W: I need it 7T: I 8W: no\ I cannot\ uh\ my project is due a week from 9 tomorrow\ so next Friday\ I pretty much can be using it nonst op till then\ so you 10 can start using it NEXT Friday\ 11T: N EXT Friday\oh thats a little bit late\ can I use that 12 for today 13W:Im currently planning on this\ uh\ I mean \I havent been able to work on it 14 \uh\ Friday is like the best I can do\ 92

PAGE 93

The behaviors of W and T in the above exampl e fall into the politic behaviors since they are appropriate based on the norms in the situation. Even though W uttered the exact word of no to T in using his lab equipment, it is appropriate in this case. For one thing, directness is fully allowed in Am erican negotiation norms and, for another, W provided the excuse in a very reasonable way why he would not be able to let T use the equipment before he give an answer. After W refused to lend the equipment to T, he suggested some alternative to T, such as using the equipment in another lab in a different department. After realizing that T may have some difficulty getting the equipment from others, W offer ed to help. Let us look at the example (20): Example (20) 1W: but yeah\ if that doesnt work out \sta rting next Friday\ you can use it \you can 2 use my equipment again\uh..but befor e like we break for the day\could you 3 please just sort of clean up a little bit \so I can start it tonight \or come back 4 tonight after dinner\ just be like a fresh start work\ 5T: oh\ Im sorry \ Im so sorry\ I apologize for 6 that\ Im very busy today caus e I have an exam tomorrow \so 7W: I mean the thing is like\ I cannot 8 really get started till its a bit cleaner\ and if you c an clean it over the next couple 9 hours just when you get a chance \right no w its 5:20\ so I have a meeting with 10 the chair for the project at 5:45\ and then after that \I am gonna grab some 11 dinner and head back here\ so figure if I get back here at 7:30\ no 7:45\ if you 12 can clean it up by then \ then Id be able to start tonight \and maybe get you the 13 equipment earlier if I finish earlier\ 14T: yeah\ I see\ ok\ I can do a quick clean up\ W offered to help T if T found it hard to us e someone elses equipment. However, as a condition, W requested T to clean up the mess he had left in his lab the other day, because he needed a clean environment to start his work. Since it is not his 93

PAGE 94

responsibility and fault at all with this messy lab, W have the right to command T to clean it up. In addition, direct request and commanding, which are regarded as negative negotiation strategies, belong to the appropriate negotiation norms in America. Despite these, W made this request using could you please, followed by the explanation that he could start right away then. In doing so, he opened up his utterance to a polite interpretation. T responded to Ws request positively and qui ckly, he promised to start right away in addition to making multiple apologies. He said I am sorry, then Im so sorry, which contains a deeper degree adverb of so, to show his sincerity. His behavior clearly is in excess of appropriateness as well, and therefore is open to be interpreted as polite. Summary To attention, one of the adjency pairs used in this scenario is I am sorry and thats all right Different from what some po liteness theories point out that I am sorry is an expression for politeness, we pr ove from the example (18) that it is unmarked in the conversation and can be interpreted as appropr iate in the context. However, if the conversation went without I am sorry by the Chinese, his behav ior would be considered as inappropriate or impolite. On the contrary, in example (20), the Chinese said I am sorry repeated three times, which even involved a degree adverb so it can be evaluated as polite since it was beyond what is normally required in such a situation. Therefore, I am sorry cannot labeled merely as a polite utterance, it can instead be assessed as appropriate or polite, depending on whether it falls wit hin the requirement of the norms or goes beyond it. 94

PAGE 95

Negotiation between Roommates Analysis In this scenario, two roommates, an Am erican and a Chinese, signed a contract together upon moving in and are sharing a two-bedroom apartment. One of the roommates, an American male student, subleased informally his room to his American friend over the summer for th ree months, but bond by the c ontract, he was still the only legal tenant with his Chinese roommate, who is also a male. At th e end of the summer, however, the man who subleased the room disappeared with out paying the last months rent and utility bills, which was $400 in to tal. The Chinese student then approached his old roommate who just retur ned, hoping that he could compensate him for some of the bills. The American is represented by F, wh ile the Chinese C. In this negotiation, the first stage of nontask sounding is omitted by the participant s. The Chinese roommate went directly to the point; in other words, the negotiation goes directly to the second stage: information exchange. Cs goal is to negotiate with F and persuade hi m to take care of part of the unpaid bill immediately. F, however, insisted on looking for the lost roommate first. Example (21) 1C: hello\ could I talk to you for a minute 2F: yes 3C: your\ your friend\ didn t show up any more.. \ and he didnt pay the last 4 months rent and utility \ so I was wondering\ whether you can find him out\ 5 otherwise what will we do \ .. because you know\ you and me 6F: so did he JUST leave 7C: Im sorry I dont know\ 8:F you were\ you were there\ like \did he just move out or 95 PAGE 96 9 didnt leave his stuff like\ 10C: I dont know..sorry\because you know\ the fa\ facility is yours\ I mean\he 11 didnt bring anything in\ 12F: ok\ I dont know \I didnt get any note if he was using my 13 stuff \or he bought more stuff \did you see him move out when did he leave\ 14C: I dont know \ sorry \ he is your friend \maybe you can contact him whether 15 he is out \or just leave \ 16F: yeah\ The Chinese student, C, started the conversation with a question can I talk to you for a minute Instead of directly asking for money from his roommate, he asked a question containing the modal verb can to express the deontic modalities of desire and permission. In Chinese cult ure, to get permission to start a topic is commonly considered as appropriate social behavior. Therefore, Cs behavior can be interpreted as politic behavior here. After getting approval although Cs intention is to have F pay for his fleeing friends part, he did not explicitly state this. He posed instead a question to F, what will we do, to te st Fs attitude as the first step. However, F ignored this question; rather he concentrated on the whereabouts of his friend, who mysteriously left without leaving any note or message. The Chinese student C seemed patient abou t achieving his goal. He answered Fs repeated questions regarding if there were any clue to trace his friend. C replied I dont know three times, which seems like giving hint s to F that they should just forget about looking for the person who eluded and focus on the unpaid bill. We need to note here that the apologetic structur e, Im sorry, does not necessa rily represent polite behavior as we revealed in the previous scenario. In this case, when C replied with Im sorry I dont know he did not mean to apologize for his unawareness but being appropriate in 96 PAGE 97 this social context; thus it can be interpre ted as politic behavior. A blunt reply of I dont know usually is considered as an offending behavior by the Chinese. We would like to argue that what we are witnessing is a negotiation or struggle between C and F to convince each other of their different wa ys in tackling the money issue. The following examples belong to the third stag e of the negotiation: persuasion. Example (22) 1F: eh\ we get school starting soon\ coul d you just pay it now\ and then like\ just 2 so\ we dont get the late fee\ and Ill get in touch with my friend\ try to get a hold 3 of him and work it out\ 4C:..eh.. (slowly) you cannot pay for him\ 5F: well\ Im gonna get him to pay for it \but 6 like \for now\ just for NOW \ when you go to pay your part of rent \ could you 7 also pay that part 8C: uh 9F: just because I dont have ANY mone y on me to pay for rent\ 10C: eh\ you see\ we alrea\ we need to pay the 11 money\ otherwise we need to pay the late fee\ so\ eh \you mean\ you have no 12 money on you 13F: ??? (increase volume) yeah\I dont have checks on me ??? so\ I cannot write 14 the check \ 15C: but\ eh 16F: could you just pay \and then either he gives you the money \or if he (2 17 second pause) wont\ then \ (1 second pause) Ill pay the rent and then you can 18 pay the utilities\ In example (22), F offered a way out, which is to have C pay the total in advance since he did not have any money on him. Then after he caught his friend and asked for the money to repay C. We have already show n earlier in this chapt er that the politic behavior for conflictual interaction in negotiati on allows for non-mitigating, challenging 97 PAGE 98 behavior. It is not perceived as impolite, but is likely to be evaluated by the interactants as appropriate, or politic behavior. In this example, F was making requests. As discussed before, Americans tend to make a request in a direct manner. Theref ore, F could simply say, according to American negation norms, you payHowever, he used an indirect way to express his suggestion. In addition to using the consultati ve device such as could you, which seeks to involve C and bid his cooperation, he also applied the downtoner just, to modulate the impact of his utterance. This is undoubted ly in excess of what is appropriate for positive negotiation strategies; therefore, it can be open to interpretation as polite. He also promised that if his friend failed to r epay C, he would compensate him for the rent part. His positive strategy of making a promis e fits well into American negotiation norms, and thus can be interpretable as appropriate. One of the strategies us ed by Chinese in negotiation is to ask questions, sometime even repeatedly. In the next extract, we can cl early see that the Chinese roommate asked time and again whether he c an get his money back if he paid in total first. Example (23) 1C: but.. \how can I know \ if I pay the money first\ c an\ can I get the money back 2F: oh\ you 3 know where I live\ 4C: I\ I mean 5F: you see me EVERY day 6C: but 7F: we have a year lease 98 PAGE 99 8C: I mean\ if you\ if your friend need to pay 9the money 10F: all what I am saying is that\ Ill get a hold\ I \I will call him up\ get a hold 11of him \and get the money\ 12C: but if you can NOT find your friend\ and cant get 13 money from him\ HOW can you pay me\ 14F: we can just split it up like 15C: how to split it\ I just need\ 16 only need to pay my part \and y ou will pay it for your friend\ 17F: oh\you ALSO need to pay 18 the utilities because\ I mean\ you we re living here TOO using the water 19 C: yeah \I mean\ I 20 F: you should 21 at least pay more utilities\ 22C: NO (seriously and loud) 23F: uh 24C: I \ no \ no (voice getting a little lower) 25F: ...well The second time when C raised this sim ilar question again in line 13, the American roommate F simply interrupted him and offered a solution, which is to split up the total bill. We can infer that F was getting tired of Cs repetition of the same question, maybe because he sensed that all of this was resulted fr om Cs distrust on him. In this sense, F, as an interactant in the context, may interp ret Cs behavior as not appropriate, in other words, as impolite, since it contradict s his negotiation norms connecting with American negotiation strategies. Towards the end of th is extract, something surprised F: the Chinese roommate explic itly and loudly shouted no in response to his proposal of 99 PAGE 100 spitting up the bill. Apparently, C did not behave according to Fs expectations. As a matter of fact, Cs response does not fit in any negotiation no rms either from American or Chinese perspectives. He himself realiz ed his inappropriate beha vior shortly after he lost control. He then tried to turn down his voice volume to some extent. We, therefore, can interpret this kind of behavior which is beyond appropriateness as impolite. The final example shows one of the co mmonly used strategies by Chinese in negotiation: silence. F insisted that C shoul d pay all the utilities since he had not lived there in the summer at all so he should take no responsibility for the utility bill. However, after hearing Fs recommendation, C confirmed it with a repetition, then instantly kept silent, even after Fs second round of attempt at getting his opinion. Example (24) 1F: Ill cover his rent \I think you shoul d pay the utilities\ I think thats FAIR 2C: (2 second pause) I need to pay all the utilities 3F: yeah\ 4C: your friend also lived here for a whole month\ why only I 5 need to pay the utilities\ 6F: I am paying the entire rent like 7C: entire rent 8F: the entire \ like\ Im paying 9 him rent so\ 10C: eh-hen\ 11F: I think you should at least help me out some\ 12C: (SILENCE) 13F: what do you think\ 100 PAGE 101 14C: (STILL SILENCE) 15F: (LOUD) ALL RIGHT, a ll right\ Ill cover it\ 16F: I pay my rent every month so far\ all Im asking is that\ you just cover it for 17 now while I work this out with my friend\ 18C: yeah\ just because I trust your fr iend\ now he disappeared\ how can I make 19 the SAME mistake 20F: well\ I mean now you know me LONGER than my friend\ you 21 know\ I will pay\ 22C: ok\ ok \you didnt take any money\ or didnt take any checks 23 with you now\ eh\ you will give money late r\ just\ ok\ but you need to remember 24 its YOU and ME who signed the lease\ otherwise\ if you c annot get the money\ 25 its \its your.. \YOU s hould take the responsibility\ 27F: ok Summary Silence can have different reactions. In this case, Fs negotiation norms do not contain this strategy, which may make him feel differently towards this strategy. When C, whom he was negotiating with, is silent, he first asked what C was thinking as a response to Cs silence. After continuously getting no response, he stopped asking and offered to pay all the utilities used by his fr iend. In this context, although C did not make any utterance, we still may say that Cs behavi or can be interpreted as impolite from Fs point of view. This is proved by Fs retr ospective reflection in the next chapter. This chapter is the analysis of the role play data. It shows the dyadic conversations each between an American and a Chinese participant in seven negotiation scenarios. Based on Watts polit eness model regarding (im)politeness, which is the framework of this study, a close analysis of appropriate behaviors and (im)polite behaviors are conducted based on th is model, with examples drawn from the 101 PAGE 102 scenarios. The next chapter will include retr ospective accounts by the Chinese and American participants on their and their counterparts negotiation behaviors. 102 PAGE 103 CHAPTER 4 RETROSPECTIVE ACCOUNTS Introduction To supplement the detailed analysis of the role play data in chapter 3, chapter 4 provides the retrospective interview data coll ected from the role-pla y participants. This chapter focuses on a review of the participants personal descriptions and understandings of (im)politeness in the inform al negotiations that they involved in, as well as the reasons behind their choice of negotiation strategies in the events. The interview was used for the purpose of triangulation of data. According to Denzin (1988), triangulation is to apply "multi ple methods in an investigation so as to overcome the weaknesses or biases of a single method" (p. 511), the purpose of which is to enhance objectivity and reliability of the findings (Kasper, 1998). The retrospective interview investigates the participant s interpretations and understandings of (im)politeness during an ongoing conversation. They were required to reflect on their role-plays of negotiation by means of listening to the playback of the recordings. Both American and Chinese participants were asked questions regarding their own negotiation strategies as well as their r eaction and assessment of their counterparts unmarked or marked behaviors. The interviews were conducted in the participants native language to ensure that t hey could communicate with the interviewer, who is the researcher, in a comfortable and clear way. This chapter consists of examples of the retrospective interviews and analysis of the participants statements. This chapter is organized based on the participants own divi sion and explanation of their negotiation behaviors, which are reflected in the intervie ws in this study: appropriate behaviors and non-appropriate behaviors. 103 PAGE 104 Accounts of Appropriateness Generally speaking, judging whether an utterance is appropr iate or not is related to the participants perceived cultural norms associated with a certain situation. The appropriate behavior that the par ticipants in this study understand, quoting from their own words, is what one should say or do in a given situation and usually goes unnoticed. The appropriate behaviors in the events of negotiation, according to them, should abide by the negotiation rule s, in other words, by the strategies that are normally acknowledged and used in negotiations. The rest of this section contains instances of explanations and evaluations of negotiation behaviors by both parties: Am erican and Chinese, regarding their understanding and interpretation of appropriate behaviors in the role plays, with a concentration on the following ca tegories of strategies: gr eetings, apologetic behaviors, making a promise, making negative appeal, and making a threat. Greetings The following interviews focused on greetings such as how are you and Im fine, thank you In Scenario 1, which contains ne gotiation between an American professor and her Chinese student who intended to ask for an extension of her lab report, they first greeted each other. Example (25) is the conversation between the interviewer and the American professor and Example (26) is between the interviewer, female, and the Chinese student, female. J refers to the interv iewer, S refers to the Chinese student, P the American professor. Example (25) 1J: Your Chinese student started the conversation with a greeting, how are you. 2 How do you feel about it? 104 PAGE 105 3P: I feel comfortable with that. 4J: Do you think it is a polite to say how are you ? And your response of Im fine, 5 thank you is polite too? 6P: Well, its appropriate You know, usually when someone says something 7 like how are you, you are supposed to respond like that. Rather than considering her counterparts greeting as a behav ior that is polite, the American participant, P, used the word of appr opriateness, as seen in line 6 in Example (25), to comment on the Chin ese participants behavior. In addition, she also regarded her own response to the greeting spont aneous and appropriate. Meanwhile, her counterpart, the Chinese participants revi ew of her own conduct is shown in the following example. Example (26) 1J: ni weishenmo yong how are you kaishi ni de tanhua? 2 You why use how are you start your conversation 3 Why did you use how are you to start with your conversation? 4S: yinggai xian wenhou ta, mei duo xiang. 5 Should first greet her, not more thinking 6 I should greet her in the first place. I did not give this a second thinking. 7J: wenhou le jiu biaoming ni you limao ma? 8 greeting then shows you polite 9 Do you think greeting her s hows that you are polite? 10 S: buneng shuo hen limao, zhineng shuo sh i shidang de. wo genben mei xiang 11 cannot say very polite, only can sa y is proper. I at all not thinking 12 wenhou shi weile biaoming wo limao. 13 greeting is for showing I polite 14 I cannot say its polite, but it is prope r. I didnt think at all to use greeting 15 to show that I was polite 105 PAGE 106 Likewise, the Chinese participant descri bed her behavior of greeting proper. The two examples above show that both Am erican and Chinese par ticipants considered greeting each other as appropria te rather than polite. Interv iews with other participants who initiated their negotiations with greetings also demonstrate that greetings are regarded as a natural and proper behavio r rather than a polite conduct. Making an Apology Apologetic expressions such as I am sorry and thats ok are interpreted as appropriate based on the interviewees expl anations. The following negotiation in Scenario 6 happened between two officemates: a Chinese man (referred to as T), who wanted to continue using his American officema tes (referred to as W, also male) lab equipment for another day. The Chinese man apol ogized to his American officemate for making a mess in his lab. Example (27) is between the interviewer and the American officemate while (28) is between t he interviewer and the Chinese man. Example (27) 1J: Your Chinese officemate made an apology to you when he was explaining the 2 reason why he left a mess in your lab. 3W: Yes. 4J: What if he didnt say it? 5W: I would then consider him impolite. 6J: Does the saying of I am sorry here making him polite? 7W: Uh, I wouldnt say so, but its perfectly appropriate for him to say that. Making an apology is not considered as a po lite behavior, as seen in Example (27). Reacting to his Chinese officemates apology, the American thought that it was perfectly appropriate to do that. However, leavi ng a mess without apologizing for that was 106 PAGE 107 evaluated as impolite. The following is his Chinese officemates response to his own behaviors. Example (28) 1J: ni weishenmo yao shuo I am sorry? 2 You why said I am sorry 3 Why did you say I am sorry? 4T: wo ba renjia shiyanshi nong zang le, dangran yao shuo. 5 I his lab di d messy, of course should say. 6 I messed up his lab, so of course I should apologize. 7J: shi bu shi jue de ziji shuo le jiu hen limao. 8 Was no was feel self say make polite 9 Did it make yourself feel polite when you said it ? 10T: dao bushi, shi wo gai shuo, dan bu shuo jiu bu limao. 11 Really not is I should say but no say then no polite. 12 Not really, its what I should say. Bu t it would make me impolite if I didnt 13 say it. Likewise, the Chinese officema te did not conceive his apolog y as a polite utterance but rather wordings that fit in the situation, since he had brought inconvenience to his officemate. It seemed to him that making an apology was nece ssary at that moment and should be viewed as an unmarked behavior. Based on his explanation, a marked behavior would be one that is an absenc e of apology under that circumstance. Making a Promise Another negotiation strategy used by both American and Chinese is making a promise. Being a negotiation norm shared and accepted by both parties, it is regarded as appropriate behavior in the negotiation bas ed on the participants explanation. The next example involves a landlord, who is an American male, and a tenant, who is a 107 PAGE 108 Chinese male. In Scenario 4, the tenant made a promise towards the end of the conversation. What he promised was that if his request was granted by the landlord, he would definitely recommend the landlords serv ice to others so as to help him promote his business. In example (29), the tenant is referred to as B and the landlord as D. Examples (29) and (30) are excepts of t he interviews between the interviewer and the two participants. Example (29) 1J: ni zai taipan de zuihou yong de shi shenmo shoufa ? 2 You negotiation end use is what strategy 3 What kind of strategy did you use at the end of the negotiation (with the 4 landlord)? 5B: wo gei ta xia baozheng. 6 I give him promise 7 I made a promise to him 8J: shenmo yang de baozheng? 9 What kind promise 10 What kind of promise did you make? 11B: wo shuo ruguo ta daying wo de yaoqiu, wo jiu gei ta jieshao zhuhu. 12 I say if he a ccept my request, I then gi ve him introduce clients. 13 I said if he approved my reques t, Id recommend people to his complex. 14J: zhemo shuo ni juede heshi ma? 15 This say you feel proper 16 Do you feel its appropriate saying so ? 17B: dangran le. Zhe shi he ta de tanpan, tanpan dangran keyi gei ta 18 Of course this is with he negotiaiton, negotiation of cour se can give him 19 xie baozheng he tiantou. 20 Some promises and benefits 108 PAGE 109 21Of course, because this is negotiati on, which can surely involve making 22 promises that could benefit the other party (if my request is granted) In the retrospective interview with the Chinese tenant, he clearly stated that making a promise was definitely appropriate in a negotiation, as a strategy to draw the other partys attention and interest, thus increasing the chance of achieving his goal, which in this situation, was extending his stay without having to pay an extra charge. His American landlord also agreed that making a promise was considered appropriate, as seen in the following example. Example (30) 1J: Your tenant promised to publicize your apartment complex on the condition 2 that you approved his request of extending his current lease. Do you think that, if 3 you were the tenant, would you use the similar method? 4D: Probably I would. 5J: Is making a promise acceptable in a negotiation? 6D: Yes, I think its more than acceptable. 7J: Do you think making a promise is a pol ite behavior in a negotiation? Any 8 politeness involved? 9D: uh, not so much politenessuh, I d say its appropriate. As seen above, both the American and Chin ese participants evaluated making a promise an appropriate behavior in a negotiati on rather than labeling it as a polite behavior. The interview also suggests that making a promise is a negotiation strategy that is used by Chinese and Americans. The American participant commented that he would probably use the same strategy if being put in the same shoes. Negative Appeals Interviews show that participants who used another negotiati on strategy called negative appeal equally consi der the strategy involved in the negotiation was quite 109 PAGE 110 acceptable and unmarked, since, according to them, a negative appeal strategy, which is a strategy normally used to increase ones self-awareness and anxiety as introduced in Chapter 1, is one of the negotiation stra tegies that people from east or west apply and take for granted in a negotiation. The fo llowing example is the interview between the interviewer and the participants who have used this strategy in their negotiation on an unpaid bill in Scenario 7. Two roomma tes, an American and a Chinese, negotiated an unpaid bill left by a temporary roomma te who stayed over the summer and disappeared without any advance notice. The American is represent ed by F, while the Chinese C. C reminded F again that they were both contract signers so both of them should be responsible for the unpaid bal ances. At the end, C made a negative appeal by saying to F that if you cannot get the money, you should take the responsibility and F agreed. The following is the interview with the American. Example (31) 1J: your Chinese roommate said its your responsibility to pay for the rent if you 2 fail to get the money from your friend, do you think its too straightforward? 3F: In the other conversations, it ma y be a bit inappropriate, uh, too 4 straightforward, but it was a heated or quick b ack and forth between the 5 two of us in a negotiation, so it wasnt really out of line given the nature of 6 our conversation. Uh so that was fine. 7J: So you think it is appropriate rather than inappropriate ? 8F: Right. Making a negative appeal usually results in an uneasy even tense atmosphere in a conversation since it aims to create pressure on one party. It was nevertheless evaluated as an appropriate behavior in a negot iation by the American participant, as shown in Example (31). He pointed out as well that it may be inappropriate in 110 PAGE 111 conversations other than negotiations. Altho ugh being the target of a negative appeal, the American participant still held a supportive attitude towards using this kind of strategy in a negotiation. To find out whet her the Chinese participant, who made the appeal, shared the same ground, a retrospecti ve account between the interviewer and the Chinese tenant is provided as follows. Example (32) 1J: ni zai zuihou dui ta shuo ruguo zhao bu dao ren 2 You at end to him say if find not him 3 jiu ziji jiaoqian, ni juede zhe yang shuo shi bu shi tai zhijie le? 4 then self pay you feel this kind saying is not is too direct? 5At the end of the conversation, you asked him to pay by himself if he failed to 6 find his friend. Do you think its too direct? 7C: shi zhijie, dan meiyou guanxi 8 Is direct, but no have problem 9 It is indeed direct, but thats all right 10J: wei shenmo? 11 Why 12 Why is that? 13C: yinwen zai tanpan zhong ke yi zhemo zhijie gaosu ta keneng chuxian 14 because in negotiation allow this direct appealing him possible appearing 15 de buhao de huoguo. 16 bad result 17 Because negotiation permits negative a ppealing (strategy), to tell him the 18 possible negative result 19J: zhemo shuo, you mei y ou juede ziji bu limao 20 this saying, have not you feel self no polite? 21 Do you feel that its im polite by saying like that ? 22C: mei you, wo juede hen zhengchang hen deti 111 PAGE 112 23 not have, I think very normal very fit 24 Not at all. I think it is very normal and fits in the situation It is evident in Example (32) that the Ch inese participant held that same view that making a negative appeal is proper in a negotia tion and neither of the participants felt that it was an impolite behavior in the conversation. It seemed that making a negative appeal is a commonly agreed strategy in a negotiation. A negative appeal strategy was also used in the negotiation between the Chinese student and her American professor in Scenario 1. The former was trying to obtain her professors permission to postpone a report d eadline. In this negotiation, the professor compared the Chinese student wit h the other students, who she believed were also very occupied by tons of work, but did not reques t any extension. The next interview with the Chinese student indicates that she also deemed her professors negative appeal strategy as appropriate. Example (33) 1J: ni jiaoshou shuo bieren neng wancheng, jiu ni buneng, ni 2 Your professor say others can finish, only you cannot, you 3 Jiude zhemo shuo heshi ma? 4 Think this say appropriate ? 5 Do you think its appropriate that your professor said only you couldnt get the 6 work done while others had no problem? 7S: heshi, ta xiang gei wo yali, suiran wo tingzhe you die 8 Appropriate, she want give me pr essure, although I lis ten have little 9 ganga, wo haishi juede shi heshi de, wolia bu shi zai tanpan ma? 10 Embarrassment, I still thought is appr opriate, we two no are negotiating 11 It is appropriate way of saying th at. She wanted to give me some 12 pressure. Although I was a little embarrassed hearing that, I still felt that 13 its appropriate. We we re negotiating, werent we 112 PAGE 113 14J: ni yiqian he bieren tianpan guo ma? Yong zhezhong fangfa ma? 15 You before with other s negotiate? Use this kind strategy? 16 Have you ever negotiated with others before? Have you used this kind of 17 strategy? 18S: ge bieran fumian yali ma? Wo dangran zai tanpan zhong yongguo. 19 Give others negative pressure? I definitely in negotiation use. 20 Do you mean give others pressure? Definitely, I used this way before in a 21 negotiation. The interview with the Chinese student shows that she did feel a bit uncomfortable hearing her professors negative appeal, but still regarded her behavior as appropriate since it happened in a negotiation. Furthermo re, she mentioned that she used this strategy before in a negotiation. As a supplement, Example (34) is the American professors account of using the strategy Based on her explanation, she as well considered this strategy quite appropriate. Example (34) 1J: You were comparing the Chinese student with other students who managed 2 to submit their reports on time regardle ss of their heavy load, do you think it is 3 appropriate? 4P: Absolutely. One of the things that in my background of working as a 5 teacher is that, the appropriate behavior for a professor in that situation is 6 to, you know, acknowledge my point of policy. Im sympathetic when Im 7 talking with my students, definitely. But would be less sympathetic with her than I 8 was with my other students because y ou know, youve gone through school 9 your whole life, you know exactly what is expected. 10J: What kind of situation or conversati on do you think you were having with the 11 Chinese student? 12P: uh, negotiation, I think so, because y ou know, you have particular goals, and 13 with the role of professor, she does not want to get the assignment late, her 14 goal is to get the students to do it early and you really, uh, need to comprise on 15 these goals, uh, you are saying, uh, ok you know, back and forth, and forth, 16 well, this is gonna work, either we ar e going to come to complete stands 17 though, or we are gonna come up with some thing alternative and agree on it. 113 PAGE 114 18 So I think, it is negotiation. As seen from Example (34), the American pr ofessor clearly claimed that her negative appeal to the Chinese student was legitimate and proper. Fully aware that the situation of the conversation was a negotiation, she stressed that it was necessary to acknowledge her point of policy on late submission although sh e understood that her conduct could discomfort her student. As a re sponse to the question on whether she regarded her strategy as appropr iate, she was very firm. All in all, the above four excerpts exemplify how making a negative appeal falls in the category of appropriateness, according to both Americans and Chinese. Making a Threat Making a threat to someone is usually regarded as impolite behavior in our daily life. However, in negotiation, it is a strat egy considered as appropriate and legitimate behavior by both Chinese and Americans as discussed in Chapter 2 (p. 47). In the scenario between two neighbors over the loud music, the Chinese threatened the American neighbor at the end of the negotiation, stating that I may talk to someone or you if you are still noisy to me and her neighbor r eplied to her with a yes Example (35) contains the American neighbors retrospecti ve account of his understanding of threat making in negotiation of Scenar io 2, followed by Example (36) which has the Chinese neighbors. Example (35) 1J: Your neighbor said at t he end of the conversation that she would talk to 2 someone or you if y ou continued to be noisy. Did you think it was impolite ? 3M: No, that seems reasonable. If after all the sessions we were still loud, she 4 can talk again, that seems normal. 5J: Did you think that what she did was a threat to you? 114 PAGE 115 6M: Yes, it was, but thats fine in negotiations. Because, uh, no absolute 7 compromise was reached, if it is still too loud, its perfectly acceptable and 8 appropriate to say hey, if this is too loud, Im gonna co me back and tell 9 you. 10J: So you think making a threat is fine in negotiation? 11M: Yes. In the situation where you are negotiating, that would be 12 appropriate. I think its even appropriate to be commanding people, 13 cause that is a part of (???) negotiating. Under normal circumstances, making a threat belongs to impolite behavior. However, this is not the case in negotiation, as can be seen from the exampl e (35). In line 3 and line 6, the American neighbor cl early stated that, in negotiati on, making a threat was not impolite; instead, it was reasonable and appropriate. Furthermore, he added that it is even appropriate to be commanding people in a situation where negotiation is involved. Example (36) is the interv iew with his Chinese neighbor. Example (36) 1J: ni zai tanpan de zuihou shuo, ruguo zai zhemo chao, jiu zhao 2 You at negotiation end say, if again this noisy, then find 3 bieren huo ta benren. 4 others or he himself. 5 At the end of the negotiation, you said t hat if its still noisy, you will talk to him 6 again or some other people. 7L: shide. Wo shi shuo le. 8 Yes. I did say. 9 Yes, I did say that. 10J: Ni shi weixie ta ma? 11 You are threaten him 12 Were you threatening him? 13 L: shide. Ta ruguo zai c hao, wo jiu caiqu shouduan. 14 Yes. He if again noi sy, I then adopt way. 115 PAGE 116 15 Yes. If he would be noisy again, I will have to adopt a way. 16J: ni renwei weixie wuli ma? 17 You think threat impolite? 18 Do you think making a threat is impolite ? 19L: buhu. He heli. Ta ye ke yi weixie wo, tanpan ma! 20 No, very proper. He too can threaten me, negotiation! 21 No, its very appropriate. He can threaten me as well (if he wants). (Its a) 22 negotiation! The Chinese neighbor admitted that she threatened her neighbor and did not think her behavior was inappropriate in such a situati on as negotiation. Her view coincides with her American neighbors, w ho also regarded making a threat as appropriate behavior. The above examples suggest that threateni ng should not always be viewed as impolite behavior it can be appropriate as well, dependi ng on the situation where it occurs. Summary According to the participants retrospective interviews, it is found that appropriateness is based on the norms or expectations in a negotiation from the sociocultural perspective of each participant. In Chapter 1, it was repeated that, according to Faure (1999), strategies in negotiation are led by norms and values relating to culture. Strategies implement norms serving to enable or constrain negotiations (Chiu, 1990; Putnam, 1992; Leung & Bond, 1984; Zhang & Yang, 1998; Ambler & Witzel, 2004; Faure, 1999). Clearly, as indicated in the accounts, recognized negotiation behaviors enacted in the strategies are usually considered acceptable and appropriate. Strategies, for instance, such as making a promise or making a negative appeal are common in both Chinese and American cu ltures. Therefore, if applied, they are interpreted as appropriate or unmarked, fit in behaviors by both parties. On the 116 PAGE 117 contrary, behaviors that do not adhere to the recognized strategies or norms are evaluated as polite or impolite acts. The next section will focus on the participants views on non-appropriatene ss of some behaviors. Accounts of Appropriateness Non-appropriateness in this section is composed of politeness and impoliteness. According to Watts (2003) politeness modal which is detailed in Chapter 1, politic behavior refers to the appropriate behavior in an ongoing social interaction, but a nonappropriate behavior is the marked behavior which exceeds politic behavior and can be evaluated as impolite or polite. In the previous section, participants retrospective accounts on what negotiation behaviors they deem as appropriate behaviors were reviewed. Next are the ex amples that describe behavio rs that went beyond the participants expectation or norms. The retros pective accounts below of the participants indicate that they categorize non-appropriateness either into polite behaviors or impolite behaviors, depending on whether or not the behaviors comply with the negotiation norms. Example (37) is between the American professor and her Chinese student about submission of the student s lab report in Scenario 1. The Chinese student is referred to as S, the American professor P. At the beginning of the conv ersation, at the stage of non-task sounding, the Chinese student expressed her concern about her professors dental problem, which is actually a very comm on strategy used at this stage by Chinese, namely, to chat about issues irrelevant to the content of the negotiation, such as the participants themselves or their families, with the purpose of creating an easy and friendly atmosphere. As a re sponse, the American professor replied with a direct question: can I help you with something. 117 PAGE 118 Example (37) 1J: ni gang kaishi biaoshi ni hen lijie ni jiaoshou de ya bing, 2 You just start show you very understand your professor dental problem 3 Weishenmo? 4 Why 5 Why did you show great concerns on your professors dental problem? 6S: weile lajin juli, rang ta mingbai wo lijie ta de tongku. 7 For shorten distance, make her know I understand her pain 8 To bring us closer, by letting her k now that I used to be on the same boat. 9J:ni de mudi shi shenmo? 10 Your purpose is what 11What is your purpose? 12S: zan zhongguoren tanpan bu dou zheyang, xian laolao jiachang, 13 We Chinese negot iate not all this wa y, first chat trivials, 14 ranhou kaishi tanpan. 15 Then start negotiation. 16 Dont we Chinese negotiate like that ? The real negotiation starts 17 after a chat 18 J: na ni jiude ni zai tanpan kaishi guanxin ta hen heshi? 19 Then you think you at negotiation begi nning concern her very appropriate? 20 So, do you think that your showing concerns (to your professor) at 21 the beginning of the negotiation is appropriate ? 22S: dangran le. 23 Of course. 24 Of course 25J: ni juede ni ji aoshou de huida ruhe ne? 26 You think your prof essor reply how 27 How did you like yo ur professors reply ? 28S: ta tai bu limao le 118 PAGE 119 29 She very not polite 30 She was very impolite 31J: weishenmo ? 32 Why 33 Why ? 34S : ta yinggai ganxie wo yixia, ranhou shuoshuo ta de qingkuang, 35 she should thank wo, then say her situation, 36 Shuoshuo biede, er bu shi namo lengmo zhijie de huida, ni 37 chat something else, but not is so cold dire ct reply, you 38 zhao wo gan shenmo? 39 look for me do what? 40 She shouldve thanked me and then mentioned about her situation 41 or something else, rather than only replying me in a cold and direct 42 way: can I help you with something ? Obviously, the Chinese student thought her showing concern to the American professor was very appropriate, fitting in the situation of negotiation. She, however, was dissatisfied with her professors response, wh ich she evaluated as impolite and cold. In contrast with the Chines e students accounts, the Am erican professor reflected in her interview that the Chinese student should not have asked about her dental problem, which was her own business. She therefore considered the Chinese students behavior inappropriate and impolite. While Americans tend to ask direct questi ons and consider doing so appropriate, Chinese often interpret this strategy as inapp ropriate since it is against the traditional Chinese indirect way of questioning. The follo wing is the retrospective account by the Chinese student regarding her professors straightforward question of why cannot you turn it in 119 PAGE 120 Example (38) 1S: zhe yang wen tai zh ijie, ta hen mei limao. 2 This kind ask too di rect, she very not polite. 3 She is very impolite by asking me such a direct question 4J: na ni xiwang ta shuo shenmo? 5 Than you expect her say what? 6 Then what did you expect her to say ? 7S: ta zhishao yao biaoshi tongqi ng, zai liaojie yidian qingkuang. 8 She at least should show sympathy then know mo re difficulty. 9 At least she should have showed he r sympathy to me, then probably 10 asked me more about my difficulty Based on the Chinese students explanations, she expected a return of concern from her professor, similar to what she offered at the beginning. Howeve r, instead of concern or sympathy, what she got from her prof essor was a direct and brief question. The student therefore considered her professors question very impolite, since it was beyond the scope of what a teacher should say to a student when the student is encountering difficulty, from the Chinese sociocultural perspective. There is another example of directne ss, which was regarded by the Chinese participant as very rude and very impolite Example (39) is t he Chinese participants retrospective account of her conversati on with her neighbor revolving around frequent parties that he throws and extra parking space t hat his friends take, which is in Scenario 2. In replying to the Chinese womans r equest to end the party a little earlier, the American neighbor said not really without any hesitation. In addition, he asked his Chinese neighbor to go to the library instead of staying at her apartment to study and blamed her for not being aware in advance of t he fact that the town where the university 120 PAGE 121 is located is famous as a party town. Ex ample (39) is the American neighbor, Ms, retrospective account. Example (39) 1J: You told your neighbor that this is a party town, you should be aware 2 that when you come he re, what makes you say it ? 3M: I said that because Gainesville is a party town, and uh, I just felt that that 4 was the best thing to say in that situation because th at is exactly how it is 5 around here and in a lot of places. 6J: do you think it is too direct? 7M: No 8J: so you think it is appropriate to say something like that ? 9M: Yeah. 10J: You asked your neighbor to study in the library? 11M: Yeah. All of my roommates, whenever t hey study, they just go to the library 12 just because we usually have people over either partying or hanging out, so 13 stuff really doesnt get done in my apartment, so if you want to get something 14 done, you go to the library. Id say that if you have 30 people partying and 15 having fun, and one person who is trying to do something, I mean, especially 16 like the overwhelming majority is like 30 to 1, so 17J: You thought that your directness fits in the situation ? 18M: Yeah, of course The American neighbor who likes to throw pa rties directly blamed his Chinese neighbor for her ignorance of this party town and considered his own directness and behavior appropriate. The following example, however shows the Chinese neighbors negative comments on the American neigh bors behavior. The Chinese is represented by L. Example (40) 1J: ni rang nide linju zao dian ji eshu juhui, ta huida no, ni you 2 You asked your neighbor early a bit finish party, he replied no, you have 121 PAGE 122 3 shenmo ganjue? 4 what feeling? 5 When you asked your neighbor whether he could finish the party a little 6 earlier, his response is no. What do you think about it ? 7L: wo hen chijing, shengqi. Wo de yaoqiu hen heli, dan ta 8 I very surprise angry. My request very r easonable, but he still 9 zhemo wuli zhijie jujue wo. Wo tingwan ta shuo de hua dou dai 10 this impolite direct refuse me. I a fter hearing he say word s even shocked 11 le yixiaohui. 12 a little while. 13 I was very surprised and angry heari ng his reply. My request was very 14 reasonable, how could he directly re fuse me like that! I was even shocked 15 and speechless for a little while the moment I heard his response. 16J: suoyi ni jiude ta bu limao? 17 So you felt he not polite ? 18 So you felt that he was not polite ? 19L: Dui, hen bu limao. Zhe shi wo jia, weishenmo wo yao qu 20 Yes. Very not polit e. This is my home, why I go 21 tushuguan xuexi? Wo xiang dai na jiu dai na. 22 library study? I like stay where then stay where 23 Yes, very much so. This is my apartm ent, why do I need to go to the 24 library? I can stay wherever I want 25J: wo faxian ni shi ting le ji miao meiyou shuohua. 26 I find you are stop several seconds no talking 27 I found that you paused for a few second (after his response) 28L: shi ya. wo zai xiang z hege ren zenmo zhemo woli. 29 Yes, I am thinking this person how this impolite. 30 Yes, I was thinking how this pe rson could be this much rude 31J: na ni jiude ta yinggai zenmo huida? 32 Then you think he s hould how reply 33 Then how do you think he should reply to you? 122 PAGE 123 34L: jiu san ta jianyi wo qu tushuguan, ye yinggai weiwan de 35 Even though he suggest me go library he should indirectly 36 shuo, nayang cai heshi. 37 say, that wa y is appropriate. 38 Even if he suggested I use library, he should say it indirectly, which is the 39 appropriate way. Based on the Chinese neighbors re sponse, it is clear that she was very angry at her neighbors direct suggestion on going to the libra ry to study to avoid the music, which she considered as a rude behavior. To her, the appropriate request should be an indirect one. Indirectness is usually the strategy the Chinese people try to adhere to when they negotiate, since it is regarded as one of the negotiation norms by Chinese. Since direct utterances are out of line, they are considered as inap propriate or impolite behavior by Chinese. However, Americans prefer directness in negotiation (Chapter 1, p. 50). An indirect utterance by the Chinese may be assessed by Americans in a different way. Next are another two more retr ospective accounts of indirectness. At the beginning of the same scenario between the two neighb ors, the Chinese neighbor tried to bring up the problem in an indirect way. Instead of asking her neighbor to minimize the number of his parties or end the party earlier, the Chinese neighbor started with I heard some music from your home. Receiving little response to that, she made the second attempt by trying to give hint s to the American by saying that the wall was not sound proof. When both of these failed, she got to the point, which was to request her neighbor to stop the party a little earlier. The interview with her focuses on the reasons behind her efforts to create fake excuses. Example (41) is the interview with the Chinese neighbor, L. 123 PAGE 124 Example (41) 1J: ni weishenmo bu zhijie rang ta zaodian jieshu juhui? 2 You why not direct ask him earlier finish party 3 Why did you directly ask him to finish his party earlier ? 4L: na bu hao, bu limao. Y ao jianjie cai heshi. 5 That not good, not polite. Should indirect is proper. 6 Thats impolite. We should be indirect to other, which is the proper way 7J: ni dengshi shi zemo xiangde? 8 You at that time is how think 9 What were you thinking at that time? 10L: wo xian gaosu ta wo ne ng tingjian yinyue, wo xiang 11I first tell him I can hear music, I think 12 ta jiu neng fanyin shi ta yinyue tai da, dan meiyou. 13 he then can realize is hi s music too loud, but no. 14 I had thought that he could pick it up that his music was too loud when I first 15 told him that I can hear the music, but he didnt. 16J: meixiangdao, shi bu shi? 17 Beyond your expectation, is no is? 18 Its beyond your expectation, isnt it? 19L: dui ya. Suoyi wo jiu huan ge weiwan de fangshi, wo shuo qiang 20 Yes. So I then change indirect way, I say wall 21 bu geying. Dan ta haishi bu mingbai. 22 not sound-proof. But he still not understand. 23 Absolutely. So I pretended to blam e that the wall was not sound proofing, 24 (hoping that he could get it this time), but still no. 25J: ni juede zai tanpan zhong yi nggai yong jianjie de yaoqiu ma ? 26 You think at negotiation should use indirect request? 27 Do you think that we should make a request indirectly in a negotiation ? 28L: dangran le. Women zhongguoren dou zheyang, zheyang cai heshi ya. 124 PAGE 125 29 Of course. We Chinese all this, th is is appropriate. 30 Of course. We Chinese always do th at. It is the appropriate way Based on the Chinese neighbors talk, it c an be found that she wa s disappointed and surprised that her intent wa s not understood by t he American through the indirect ways: first, she mentioned that she could hear t he music; then, she blamed the wall for not being sound proofing. Actually, her sole purpose was to make her neighbor end the party earlier. In the interview, she stressed that making a request indirectly rather than directly is the appropriate way. As a coin has two sides, while the Chinese neighbor took for granted that her indirect way of making a request was appropriate, the American neighbor thought it wa s impolite. Example (42) is an interview with the American neighbor, M. Example (42) 1 J: As you know later, your Chinese neighbor wanted to complain about your 2 loud music, but instead of making a di rect request, she ment ioned that she 3 heard some music and wall was not sound proofing, do you think her point 4 was clear ? 5M: No, uh, not clear. I didnt pick it up. There might be a better way to 6 open the conversation, to make it seem, uh, less confusing. 7J: If you the one who got bothered by the music and went to knock at your 8 neighbors door, what are you going to say ? 9 M: I would probably, more likely start with, I would say something along 10 the lines of, uh, what you were up to because, uh, you know, something 11 direct. 12J: What did you feel about your counterparts indirectness? 13M: I didnt interpret it as anything out of the ordinary. 14J: Did you think it was impolite? 15M: Yeah, very much so. 125 PAGE 126 As can be seen above, indirect behavior wh ich was regarded as appropriate by the Chinese participant, as, according to the Am erican, he would definitely get to the point instead of beating around the bushes. Reflections on indirection can also be s een from the next example. The situation related to example (43) is that of an American man who borrowed some money from a Chinese man, but he forgot to re turn it at a later time in Scenario 5. The Chinese, in this negotiation, tried all means to get his money back. The American man is called O and the Chinese N. As analyzed in this scenario in Chapter 3, from the perspective of a Chinese, asking for money back from a borrower puts the person in an embarrassing situation. Therefore, at t he beginning of the negotiation, N pretended that he was the one who needed to borrow money from O to purchase a textbook that he needed immediately for a class, with the hope that this behavior could indirectly remind O of the money that he borrowed from N a while ago. Unfortunately, it did not work. As a matter of fact, from the American m ans retrospective account in Example (43), it is found hat he considered Ns indirect behavior vague and not polite. Example (43) 1J: Did you realize that N was trying to remind you indirectly that you had 2 borrowed some money from him ? 3O: oh, no, not at all 4 J: How did you feel about his indirect strategy? Did you think that its 5 appropriate? 6O: I didnt think that thats appropriate uh, its ridiculous to create such a 7 fake situation 8J: Do you think that its impolite? 9O: Yes 126 PAGE 127 Obviously, the American did not figure out w hat his Chinese classmate was trying to indicate, which was to return his money. He responded negatively towards the Chineses behavior by describing it ridiculo us and impolite. Example (44) shows the Chinese man, Ns accounts of his behavior. N, on the contrary, thought that his behavior was very appropriate, with a good and clear intention. Example (44) 1J: ni weishenmo shuo ni que qian mai shu? 2 ou why say you lack money buy book 3 Why did you say it was you wh o needed money to buy a book ? 4N: wo bu xiang rang ta nankan. Jie qian mei huan duo 5 I not want make him embarassed borrow money not return very 6 duiren ya. 7 shame 8 I didnt want to make him feel embarassed. Anyway, it is a shame thing not 9 to return money 10 J: na ni jiude ta neng mingbai nide zhenzheng yongyi ? 11 Then you assue he can understand your real purpose 12 Did you assume that he could figure out your real purpose ? 13O: wo benlai yiwei shi zheyang, meixiangdao ta ting budong. 14 I originally assumed is this, unexpectedly he listen not understanding. 15 Originally I assumed so, but it turn ed out that he didnt pick it up Behavior with good intention by the Chinese participant was nevertheless interpreted as rude and unreasonable by the American participant, as the above examples show. The Chinese classmate tried not to ask directly for his money back as, from his sociocultural perspective indicated in the conversation, forgetting to return someones money would 127 PAGE 128 embarrass the loaner. However, his indirectness eventually turned out to be useless and was unfortunately regarded as impolite by the other party. As shown in Chapter 1, one of the strategi es used by Chinese in negotiations is to ask questions, sometimes even repeatedly. In Scenario 7 between two roommates, the Chinese roommate repeatedly asked his Am erican roommate whether he could have his money back when his roommate found hi s friend. As a response, the American roommate F interrupted his Chinese roomma te C and offered a solution. Towards the end of the negotiation, the Chinese roo mmate explicitly and loudly shouted no in response to his American roommates proposa l of spitting up the bill. The following is the American roommates retrospective a ccount regarding his Chinese roommates behavior in the interview. Example (45) 1J: In the process of negotiation over the bill payment, you may have noticed 2 that your Chinese roommate repeated his question on whether he would 3 be refunded for the money hed pay in advance. How do you feel about 4 that ? 5F: well, it may just, uh, it tends to get a little redundant, if he says it a lot. In that 6 situation, I got a little bored when hearing him repeatedly say can I get my 7 money back. Uh, he said made it sound a little bit too much uh, I think its 8 unnecessary and inappropriate 9J: Did you consider it as impolite? 10F: Yes, definitely 11J: So what kind of way in a negotiation do you prefer? Direct, indirect, concise 12 or? 13F: Uh, direct and concise. 14J: When you suggested that you two split the cost, your Chinese roommate 15 screamed a big loud no, what were you thinking? 128 PAGE 129 16F: Uh, I was surprised. 17J: Did you think it was rude? 18F: Yes, a little bit. 19J: What made you think so? 20F: He was way out of line. No one overreacts like that under normal 21 circumstances. 22J: So you thought thats an appalling behavior in a negotiation? 23F: Yes. Apparently, the Chinese roommates behavior di d not fall in his American roommates expectations of negotiation behaviors, whic h should be concise and less redundant. The Chinese roommates repeated questions fr ustrated the Americ an, who therefore considered it rude. As for the exclamation of no by the Chinese roommate, it actually does not fit in any negotiation norms either from American or Chinese perspectives. Unsurprisingly, the American roommate r egarded it as impolite. Presumably, the Chinese roommate would think so too for his behavior that had gone out of control and beyond the norms. Next is the account by the Chinese roommate on his own behaviors. Example (46) 1J: ni weishenmo yao yibian yibi an chongfu ni de wenti? 2 You why always once again repeat your question? 3 Why did you ask the question repeatedly ? 4C: wo shi youyi de. 5 I did purposefully. 6 I did it on purpose 7J: ni bu xiangxin ta? 8 You not trust him ? 129 PAGE 130 9 You didnt trust him, did you? 10C: bu tai dui, wo zhuyao shi xiang fan ta. 11 Not very correct, I mainly am want bother him. 12 No exactly, the main purpose was to bother him. 13J: weishenmo yao fan ta? 14 Why need bother him? 15 Why did you bother him? 16C: fan ta ta jiu hui meiyou naixin le, jiu hui daying wo de 17 Bother him he then will lose patience, then will accept my 18 yaoqiu. Zhe shi celue. 19 request. This is strategy. 20 By irritating/bothering him, he will get impatien t so as to accept my 21 request. This is strategy 22J: shi tanpan de celue ma? 23 Is negotiation s strategy ? 24 was that a negotiation strategy ? 25C: dui. 26 Yes. 27 Correctly 28J: ni juede zheyan zuo heshi ma? 29 You think this behavior appropriate ? 30 Did you think this kind of behavior is appropriate in a negotiation ? 31C: dangran le. Wo chang yong. 32 Of course. I often use 33 Of course, I use it often. 34J: he shui? 35 on whom? 36 On whom? 37 C: zai zhongguo shi he wode tongshi jiaren, bu renshi de ren, 130 PAGE 131 38 In China is on my colleagues, family, not familiar persons, 39 duo le. 40 many. 41In china, (I used this strategy) on my colleagues, my family, strangers many 42 times. 43J: ni juede zhe zhong celue limao ma? 44 You think this kind strategy polite 45 Do you think that this kind of strategy polite? 46C: bu yinggai shuo limao, yinggai shi gongren heshi de. 47 Not should say polite, should is commonly accepted proper. 48 Should not say its po lite, it is a commonly a ccepted proper (strategy). 49J: ni zai ta shuo he ni pingfeng zhangdan hou dajiao 50 You at he say with you split bill after shout 51 bu, shima? 52 no, right? 53 Did you shout a no after he said th at you two should split the bill? 54C: shide. Tai bu limao le. Wo dengshi mei xiangdao ta 55 Yes. Very not polite. I then not expec t him 56 zhemo zuo, shikong le. 57 this saying, lose control. 58 Yes, it was very impolite. I did not expect such a solution from him, so I 59 lost control. 60J: juede ziji de zu ofa bu limao ma? 61 Thought your behavior not polite ? 62 Did you think that you behavior was impolite? 63C: dui. Tai me i guiju le. 64 Yes. Very no norm. 65 Yes. This is so beyond (negotiation) norms. 131 PAGE 132 Based on the conversation, the Chinese roomma te was very firm that her strategy of repeated questioning is very appropriate and she had used this strategy before in similar situations. She also revealed that her repetition was purposeful, aiming at getting the American impatient and fr ustrated so as to accept her request. As for her exclamation of no, she admitted that she lost control and r egarded it as impolite, as the American roommate did. As can be seen from the above retrospecti ve accounts, behaviors that fall outside of the negotiation norms acknowledged by each party are considered as inappropriate. Repeated questions are obviously an example that complies with Chinese negotiation norms, but violates the norms adhered to Americans, thus interpreted as rude by Americans but appropriate by Chinese. Follo wing is a similar case which involves different assessments of the same negotiation behavior: keeping silent. Keeping silent occurred in two situati ons in this study, between a tenant and a landlord in Scenario 4 and between two roommate s in Scenario 7. In the first situation, the American landlord asked twice if the Chinese tenant was willing to pay for two months in lieu of an extension of his curr ent lease, but he received a response of silence. In the second situation, the Amer ican roommate asked his Chinese roommate to help him out by taking care of some portion of the bill, but the latters response was continued silence. As a negotiation strategy used by Chinese rather than by Americans, keeping silent is viewed either as an appr opriate sign or impolite mark. The American roommate perceived silence as negative, awkward, and making people uncomfortable; therefore, he considered it impolite. Exampl e (47), which is the account by the American landlord D, s hows his opinion on keeping silent. 132 PAGE 133 Example (47) 1J: Your tenant gave it a long silence afte r you asked him to pay for two months 2 rent as a condition to extend his lease. It was still silence after you repeated the 3 same questions, right? 4D: Thats correct. 5J: What did you think about his silence ? 6D: Uh, hed be either trying to process, uh, like not knowing how to go 7 further, or possibly thinking of the next strategy, its really kind of 8 ambiguous. 9J: Do you think that keeping silence is appropriate ? 10D: No, I think thats rude. Silence puts pressure on the other people. If I 11 were in that situation, I wouldnt do it. Thats not the wa y you are talking 12 to people. Apparently, based on the American landlords evaluation, the Chinese tenant was rude and ambiguous in using silence as a res ponse to his question. The American landlord clearly mentioned that he would not engage in the same behavior if he were in the Chinese tenants position, since his norm does not include such a way to talk to people. Example (48) is the Chinese roommates responses on keeping silent. Example (48) 1J: ni you hao ji ci dou baochi chenmo. 2 You have several times keep silence. 3 There are several occasions that you kept silence (in the negotiation). 4C: shide. 5 Yes. 6 Yes. 7J: shi xiang bu chu yao shuo shenmo haishi guyi de? 8 Is think no out want say what or intentionally? 9 Did you do it because you couldnt figure out what to say or did you do it 133 PAGE 134 10 on purpose ? 11C: wo guoyi de. 12 I intentionally. 13 I did it intentionally 14J: weishenmo? 15 Why 16 Why? 17C: zheshi wode jimo ya. Shuoxian wo chenmo ta jiu zhidao wo 18 This is my strategy. Firstl y I silence he then know I 19 bu tongyi ta shuode, dier zheyang raoluan tade qingxue. 20 not agree his saying, secondl y this disturb his mood. 21 That was my strategy. Firstl y, by silence he knew that I didnt agree with 22 him; secondly, silence can disturb his mood. 23I: wenshenmo yao raoluan ta de qingxue? 24 Why want disturb his mood? 25 Why did you want to disturb his mood ? 26C: ren xinfan le jiu bu l engjing, jiu rongyi daying wode yaojiu. 27 Person disturbed then not calm, then easily accept my request. 28 If a person is disturbed, he is not calm. Then my request will be easily 29 accepted. 30J: ni renwei zhemo zuo heshi ma? 31 You think this behavior appropriate? 32 Do you think its appropriate to do so ? 33C: zhezhi jimo hen heshi. 34 This is strategy, very appropriate. 35 This is a strategy, very appropriate Similar to repeated questioning, the Chinese k ept silent on purpose: to exert pressure and invoke discomfort in the other party, so as to achieve her goal. As one of strategies 134 PAGE 135 that is commonly used by Chinese in negotiations, keeping silent is regarded as appropriate by the Chinese participant. Conver sely, it causes problems when used in negotiations with Americans who prefer stra ightforwardness and their list of negation strategies does not include silence. Silenc e is therefore a rude behavior from their perspective. The above examples have indicated that different cultures may have various understandings and interpretations of appr opriateness and (im)politeness. The next example shows the participants attitude toward s personal issues. In the United States, it is usually considered impolite if a pers on is too nosy. Private invasion is by no means an appropriate behavior, especially fo r people who are not very close to each other. However, this conception is totally unknown to most of Chinese people. Private topics such as age, weight, marital status even salary, are openly inquired about and discussed, even between two strangers. In Scenario 5, where an American man borrowed some money from a Chinese man, when O, the American man, rejected N, the Chinese mans request for money, N then directly reminded O that he owed him 20 dollars. The following are his three questions to O, which are: whether O had a card on him, whether he could withdraw some money for him, and whether he could a sk his friend in class for money if he did not have any with him. Lastly, the Chinese man even pressed O that he had to get his money back in order to compensate for his fr iends CD that he broke. The following is Os account of his reaction to Ns behavior. Example (49) 1J: Do you think N is a lit tle rude in doing that ? 135 PAGE 136 2O: Yeah, I guess it was. I mean its a li ttle rude especially coz hes like 3 bringing in an outside, you know, b ecause he wanted to borrow money 4 from me, and I said no, then he tried to bring in, bring up something from 5 before that really didnt really h ave anything to do with it, you know. 6J: Did you think that your refusing hi s request directly is appropriate? 7O: Of course, I was being stra ightforward with him. 8J: he asked you to borrow money from your friend, would you use the 9 similar way to deal wi th a similar situation? 10O: I dont think so. Thats extending it too far. If I want to borrow money 11from somebody and that person doesnt have any, then its my job to find 12 somebody else for the money. I am not gonna tell them to go find 13 somebody to lend me money. That is rude 14J: So he shouldnt have told you to go find somebody else for money. You mean 15 thats none of his business? 16O: Exactly. In the interview, the American clearly stat ed that it was none of the Chineses business to ask him to borrow money from another friend of his; therefore, he commented that it was very rude to mind others business. He added that he would never do such a thing to others. Without any doubt, he then refused the Chinese friends request. He regarded his refusal as very reasonable and appropriate as it adheres to the norms of being straightforward and clear. The following is t he Chinese mans account of his and his counterparts behaviors. Example (50) 1J: ta que zhijie jujue ni le, ni zenmo renwei ? 2 He then directly reject ed you, you how think ? 3 He directly refused to lend mone y to you, what did you think? 4O: ta namo zhijie, wo dangshi hen chijing. 5 He so direct, I at that time very surprised. 136 PAGE 137 6 I was very surprised then that he was so direct in refusing my request 7J: ni juede ta yi nggai zenmo shuo ne? 8 You think he should how say? 9 In your opinion, what should he have said ? 10O: ta yinggai zhao ge yuany i zai jujue wo, hai yao shuo 11 He should find an excuse to refuse me, and should have said 12 Baoqian. Zhe shi zhongguo xiguan. 13 Sorry. This is Chinese habit. 14 He should have found an excuse to reject my request and should have 15 said sorry This is our Chinese way. 16J: ni juede ta limao ma? 17 You thought he polite ? 18 Did you think that he was polite ? 19O: bu limao, hen bu limao. Ta yao weiwan de shuo. 20 No polite, very no po lite. He should indirect say. 21 No, he was impolite, very impolite. He should have said it indirectly 22J: weishenm ni rang ta qu zhao pengyou jie qian huan ni? 23 Why you ask him go find friend borrow money return you ? 24Why did you ask him to find his friend to get so me money to refund you ? 25O: wo shi xiang bang ta xiang banfa 26 I am try help him find way 27 I was just trying to help him find a way out 28I: ni juede zhemo zuo heshi ma? 29 You think this way appropriate ? 30 Did you think it was an appropriate way to do so ? 31O: na dangran le. Hen he shi ya, wo zai bang ta. 32 That for sure. Very appropriate, I am help him. 33 That was for sure very appropriate. I was helping him (to find a way out). 137 PAGE 138 As can be seen in line 21, the Chinese parti cipant was a bit furious at his counterparts direct refusal, which he commented as very rude. What he preferr ed, as he mentioned, was an indirect way, followed by an excuse Definitely, the Americans conduct was out of his expectations and norms In addition, he regarded his minding others business as appropriate since he was trying to help his friend out. Interestingly, the above examples relating to Scenario 5 indicate the discrepant interpretations of each others behaviors by the two participants. What the Chinese considered appr opriate, such as helping his American friend figure out a way to get the money, was regarded as rude and nosy by the American man. Nevertheless, the direct refusal t hat the American man deeded proper and reasonable was ev aluated as a rude behavior by the Chinese man. Summary Negotiation norms play a crucial role in each participants eval uation of whether a behavior is appropriate or not. Since negotia tion norms vary widely across cultural groups, interpretation of a behavior may accord ingly be different, wh ich accounts for the fact that one behavior is regarded as proper by a Chinese participant but as rude and awkward by his or her American counterpart. The accounts in this chapter demonstrate that judgment by the par ticipants is linked to the norms t hat they identify as rules that they should follow. The following chapter, Chapter 5, includes discussion of the results, organized according to the research questions. 138 PAGE 139 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Introduction Chapter 3 analyzes the seven negotiation sc enarios on an individual basis and Chapter 4 presents the retrospective accounts by the American and Chinese participants of their negotiati on behaviors. This chapter focuses on the research questions stated in Chapter 1. The research questi ons are: first, what is the evidence in the data that the participants are adhering to the negotiation norms, i.e. enacting politic behavior? Second, what is the evidence in the data that the participants are going beyond politic behavior, as required in t he norms of the two cultures, to enact politeness and/or impoliteness? The discussion of the results includes t he evidence in politic behaviors, which is in line with the negotiation strategies used by the Chinese participants and the American participants in this study (a summar y of the strategies used is provided), and the evidence of (im)polite behaviors, whic h consists of examples of behaviors that do not stick to the negotiation strategies. Negotia tion strategies are determined by negotiation norms, which are key factors that influence whether a behavior is politic or (im)polite. In negotiations, stra tegies implement norms that negotiators are expected to abide by (Chiu, 1990; Pu tnam, 1992; Leung & B ond, 1984; Zhang & Yang, 1998). To address the firs t research question, in the first place, a summary of the negotiation strategies used by the American and Chinese par ticipants in this study is provided, compared with the baseline negotiation stra tegies included in the literature review of Chapter 1; second, discussions on the appropriate behaviors or politic behaviors in different stages of negotiation are carried out thereafter. The 139 PAGE 140 second research question on (im)polite behaviors is answered through a discussion on behaviors in each stage that do not fall in the box of negotiation strategies. Politic Behaviors The negotiation strategies used by the Am ericans and the Chinese in this study, as a comparison to the baseli ne strategies in Chapter 1. In stage one, nontask sounding, t he strategy that the Americans used in this study is exactly the same as the baseline strategy in this stage; while in addition to using the strategy identical to their baseline strat egy, the Chinese participants brought in a new one, which is to conduct brief informal talk. In stage two, the strategies that both parties adopted are the same as their independent baseline strategies. Similarly, the strategies the Americans employed in stage three covers most of their baseline strategies, except for giving a reward or punishing. The Chines e participants as well drew on most of the strategies that their baseline strategies include, with the ex ception of making a command. The next section is the detailed discussion of t he negotiation behaviors that comply with the negotiation strategies in the first three stages where most baseline data came from. Those behaviors are consider ed by the participa nts as appropriate according to the analysis of retrospective interviews in Chapter 4. Non-Task Sounding Nontask sounding refers to informal and even possibly non-negotiation related chat prior to exchange of negotiation relate d information, such as talking about ones family or hobby. For Americans, the negotiati on norm they hold for this stage allows very brief talk or even no chat at all. Fo r Chinese, on the contrary, their negotiation norm usually requires relatively more talk, which could range from inquiring about their 140 PAGE 141 counterparts personal interest s, health, to his or her families, with the purpose of showing concern, maintainin g harmony, and increasing friendliness (Faure, 1999). In line with the negotiation norms, with no e xception, all the Am erican participants of the seven negotiations conducted brief, info rmal nontask talk. The brief talk uniformly includes simple greetings, such as hi or how are you doing. The retrospective interviews with them indicate that they belie ved such brief greetings or nontask talk fall in the category of appropriat eness in a negotiation. Below is an example representing their view. Example (51) 1 Interviewer: You greeted your Ch inese counterpart with a hi, right? 2 Interviewee A: en-uh. 3 Interviewer: Did you think that was appropriate at the beginning of a negotiation? 4 Interviewer A: Yeah, uh, very appropriate. 5 Interviewer: Why didnt you talk about so mething more, such as your Chinese 6 counterparts daily life, family, etc? 7 Interviewee A: (surprised) what for? 8 Interviewer: to, maybe, shorten t he distance between you two and increase 9 friendliness? 10 Interviewee A: I dont think thats nec essary. Negotiation issues are more 11 important than relationships. I was interested in identifying and analyzing key 12 issues of the negotiation. The American participant cons idered greeting the other par ty in a negotiation very appropriate (line 4). When being asked about extending to other topics at the beginning of a negotiation, such as about each others family, the American participant first reacted with what for (line 7) with surpri se, then responded that he did not think going 141 PAGE 142 into other topics was necessary since from hi s perspective, besides greeting each other, a negotiation should merely cover the iss ues to be negotiated instead of personal relationships. The American participants reac tion to greetings is that it is appropriate behavior. Appropriateness is what Watts calls politic behavior in his politeness model. This is the behavior which is deemed proper and adequate by the interactants in a certain social interaction, rather than bei ng polite or impolite. The adequate behavior is the behavior that complies with the norms required for particular cultural context (Watts, 1992). According to Watts politeness theory, the participants adhering to the norms can be considered conducting appropriate behaviors. Example (51) is an example confirms Watts theory by showing that the partici pant described her behavior of giving a simple greeting, which fits the negotiation norms for Americans, as appropriate. Turning to the Chinese participants, al though the negotiation norm for Chinese at the stage of nontask sounding tends to involve long, informal talk, for all seven Chinese participants, there is only one who seemed to adhere to this negotiation norm, which is to talk relatively at length at this stage; the rest of them simply conducted brief nontask sounding such as greeting the other party with hi, hello, how are you, or good morning. This unexpected brief nont ask sounding performed by the Chinese participants raises two questions. First, how di d their American counterparts assess the brief nontask talk; second, what caused t he Chinese participants to choose brief chatting instead of the regular lengthy one? For the first question, unanimously, the American participants considered their Chinese counterparts br ief greetings as appropriate. This is not surprising, since the 142 PAGE 143 quick nontask sounding at the beginning of a negotiation fits the negotiation norms held by Americans, who prefer getting to the point in a negotiation. The second question is related to the Chinese participants themse lves: what contributes to the change? Retrospective interviews with the Chines e participants show that 100% of the interviewees, including the only one who st arted the negotiation with long nontask sounding, responded that long no n-topic related talk was not necessary for informal everyday negotiation and greetings were good enough to initiate such kind of negotiation. Obviously, from the vi ew of the Chinese participant s, the factor contributing to the change is the context of the informa l everyday negotiation itself. One of the typical responses follows. Example (52) 1Interviewer: ni kaishi tanpan qian dui ta shuole ni hao. 2 You begin negotiation before to him say hello 3 You said hello to him at the beginning of the negotiaiton. 4 Interviewee B: dui. 5 Yes. 6 Yes. 7 Interviewer: wenshenmo bu duo liaoliao? 8 Why not more chat 9 Why didnt you chat more? 10 Interviewee B: wenhou ta zugong le. richang shenghuo women bu 11 Greeting him enough, daily life we not 12 dou zhemo kaishi dui hua ma? Zhe shi richang 13 all this start conversation ? this is daily 14 tanpan, suoyi wenhou yixia jiu xing le. 15 negotiation, so greetings then work. 143 PAGE 144 16 Greetings alone are enough. Isnt it what we do to start a 17 conversation everyday? This is everyday negotiation, so greeting 18 should work. 19 Interviewer: ni jiude ji u wenhou ranhou tianpan heshi ma? 20 you think only greetings then negotiate proper? 21 Do you think greetings alone before negotiation are appropriate 22 Interviewee: shide. 23 Yes. 24 Yes. 25 Interviewer: na chang de liaotian ne? Nayan bushi keyi cujin 26 Then long chat ? That not or is may promote guanxi ma? 27 Then what about long talk? Is it supposed to promote each others 28 relation in a negotiation? 29 Interviewee B: liaotian dangran ye heshi ya, keyi cuojin guanxi. Dan 30 Chatting surely too appr opriate, can strengthen relation. 31 zai richang tianpan zhong, li aotian ke you ke wo, 32 but in everyday negotiation, chat may have may not, 33 wenhou jiu keyi le, hen he shi. Dan bu wenhou jiu 34 greetings should fine, very proper. But no greetins then 35 bu limao le. 36 not polite. 37 Chatting is surely appropriate t oo and it can strengthen relation. But 38 for everyday negotiation, chatting can be omitted. Greetings alone 39 should be fine and are very proper. Bu t (to start a conversation) without 40 greetings it is impolite. All in all, the Chinese participants considered either brief greetings or relatively long chatting to start a negotiation as appropriate. While relatively long nontask sounding is the norm for the first stage for Chinese in business negotiations (Chiu, 1990; Putnam, 1992), simple greetings alone can be regarded as a negotiation norm as well for the 144 PAGE 145 same stage in informal, everyday negotiations. This, perhaps, in addition to context, is also due to a young student population. Both are considered to be within the scope of appropriateness, thus politic behavior in a negotiation. Information Exchange The second stage of negotiation is informati on exchange, which functions to reveal to the other party the negotiati on-related issues, interests, or concerns. Hall (1976) states that different cultures may have different informa tion-sharing strategies in negotiation. In the second stage, the negotiation norm for Americans is that they tend to say what they need and explain the reasons behind the request only if necessary; in other words, they embrace direct information exchange strategy, while for Chinese, this stage is usually associated with long explanations to back up an indirect request or make an implicit request (Fang, 1999). At the stage of information exchange in this study, with no exceptions, all the American participants expressed their needs br iefly and directly and all of the Chinese participants used the indirect strategy, which is to make an indirect request with a long explanation for this request. Therefore, the participant s all seemed to adhere to their negotiation norms at this stage. Watts (2003) states that behaviors within norms or expectations would be regar ded as appropriate. This is precisely the case here: retrospective interviews with participants in Chapter 4 indicate that each of them deemed his/her way of information exchange appropriate since they adhere to the negotiation strategies which are implemented by norms in their culture in the context of negotiation. Norms of what are regarded as appropriate is closely related to their specific cultural context. Low or high context is a cultural dimension that influences the way 145 PAGE 146 information is communicated: explicitly or imp licitly (Hall, 1976). In low-context cultures, such as the U.S., information is given us ually directly and communication is solutionminded; in high-context cultures, like China, information is shared indirectly and communication is harmony-oriented (Pye, 1982; Ting-Toomey, 1985). This statement is supported by the data in this study: the Amer ican participants, who are from low-context cultures, adopted the direct strategy to exchange information and the Chinese participants, who are from high-context cu ltures, employed indirect communication strategies. While Americans prefer straightforward app roach, which can be achieved by direct request, Chinese are very hesitant about engaging in the direct approach and are inclined to make efforts to us e an indirect way to reach a goal. This is due to the fact that Chinese people are collectivist with an emphasis on maintaining and promoting interpersonal harmony and relationships, given the norm of avoiding any direct or aggressive behaviors which may risk relation ship directed by Confucianism, whose essence is harmony (Hofstede, 1991; Ting-Toomey, 1988; Yao, 2000). Persuasion Briefly, persuasion in the third stage invo lves each partys attempts to modify one anothers subjective views or expectations by means of various negotiation strategies. Strategies that are widely used by Americans include positive influence strategies, such as making a promise, recommendations, and rewards, etc., and negative influence strategies, including making threats, puni shments, negative appeals and commands. In this same stage of negotiations, Chinese employ similar strategies, although they prefer positive strategies to maintain the harmony of both parties rather than negative ones. In addition, the following strat egies are used only by Chinese: asking questions and 146 PAGE 147 keeping silent. Chinese tend to ask questions as a persuasive strategy; they also use silence to show that they ar e not satisfied with the other partys response. In other words, Chinese try to avoid open disagreem ents with their counterparts in order to maintain a pleasant relationship. In this third stage of negotiation, namely, persuasion, both positive strategies such as promises, recommendations, rewards, etc and negative strategies such as threats, commands, and negative appeals are in cluded. Chapter 1 in this study states that these negotiation strategies, positive or negative, are regarded as implementation of norms that are adhered to by both Chinese and Am ericans in a negotiation. Based on their past experience, negotiation participants have stored certain behaviors for a particular event, which abide by culture-specific norms and expectations. Linguistic behavior which is perceived to be appropriate to the social constraints of the ongoing interaction is defined as politic behavior or appropriate ness (Watts 2003: 19). It is unmarked and non-salient. Therefore, thes e negotiation behaviors entail negotiation norms that are labeled as politic behavior that the participants expect and consider appropriate or unmarked under similar negotiation circumstances. The detailed analyses in Chapter 3, Data Analysis, and Chapter 4, Retrospective Accounts, have suggested that the partici pants from both cultures China and America, evaluate their and t he other partys use of the commonly shared negotiation behaviors, including negative and positive stra tegies, as appropriate, in other words, politic behaviors. The analyses provide evid ence in this stage that the participants adhering to the negotiation norms were enacti ng politic behavior or appropriate behavior. For example, to make a threat, which can be regarded as a rude behavior in other 147 PAGE 148 events, the American and Chinese in this study, however, seem to have mutual understanding and acceptance of the use of it, as it is one of the negotiation strategies shared by both parties. The notion of negot iation and strategies associated with negotiation, which are consistent to the cult ure-specific norms on appropriateness, have already been defined and stored in the negotiators minds and guide their behaviors in negotiation. This further affirms Watts view that appropriate behavi ors are those that adhere to the norms in a given situation, in this study, in the situation of negotiation. However, since this is cross-cultural communication, negotiation norms are not identical in American and Chines e cultures; thus mismatches can result due to different evaluations of the negotiation behaviors conducted by people from different cultural background. In other words, an utterance that is perceived as appropriate by one party might not be considered so in the same light by the other par ty. Lee and Song (2000) also state that appropriateness is subject to cultural expectations, and cultures can draw boundaries to the understanding of appropriateness. The next Se ction in this Chapter demonstrates that a behavior which is considered appropriate by the Chinese based on their sociocultural perspective is nevert heless put into an opposite category by the Americans. The next section presents a discussion fo cusing on the second research question: what is the evidence that the participants are going beyond politic behavior, as required in the norms of the two cultures, to enact politeness and/or impoliteness? (Im)polite Behaviors Non-Task Sounding According to the prior discussion on appropr iate behaviors, all the negotiations in the stage of nontasking sounding involves brief greetings except one, which is between 148 PAGE 149 an American professor and a Ch inese student regarding an ext ension for a lab report. At the beginning of the negotia tion, the Chinese student expressed her concern and sympathy about the professors dental condition, as seen in Example 52. Example (52) 1 S: uh..I heard that you w ent to see a dentist last week\ I know its painful\ uh. I 2 hope you are feeling better now As can be seen in the analysis of retrospecti ve interview in Chapter 4, the Chinese participant was affirmative t hat her nontask talk about the professors health condition was appropriate since Chinese people are in clined to mention something irrelevant before getting into the real business in a negotiation. Although she did not use the exact word: negotiation norms, in the interview, she was obviously aware of them in the negotiation and behaved according to the ru les, hence regarding her conduct as appropriate in terms of the no rms that consistent with the Chinese culture. In the interview with the researcher, she expr essed that the nontask chatting can help establish the connection or boost the relationship so it serves the purpose of facilitating the negotiation goal. Such behavior, which was considered appropriate by the Chinese student herself, conversely, was evaluated as impolite by her professor because it is different from the American professors vi ew on norm. According to the professors explanation in Chapter 4 (p. 148), the beginning stage of a negot iation should only involve brief or none talking. Watts (2003) defines politeness or impoliteness as a marked behavior which goes beyond appropriate behav iors that stick to the norms. This example supports Watts perspective in t hat the marked behavior could be perceived as polite or impolite, in this case, impolite. The data analyses in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 provide evidence that a speaker and a hearer may hold different norms on a certain 149 PAGE 150 event and it is very possible that a behavior t hat is meant to be appropriate or polite by one party is taken in an opposite direction by the other due to the different cultural specific norms that they hold. Information Exchange In this stage, as discussed earlier, Chinese tend to exchange information by means of indirect or implicit strategy, wh ile Americans prefer a brief and direct way. Hence, the sociocultual difference could yiel d different interpretati on and evaluations of each others negotiation behaviors. Take the negotiation between two neighbors regarding the noisy music for example. A dhering to Chinese negotiation norms, the Chinese woman made efforts to direct the topic of the noisy music from her neighbors party. The music from the Americans apar tment was loud and noisy, which greatly disturbed the woman on some weekdays and almost all weekends. First, she tried to give him a hint by saying that I hear d some music from y our home yesterday. Realizing it did not work, she pretended to blame the wall: the wall is not sound proof. While still getting little reaction, she had to make the request indirectly: I think sometimes you get too late at night, can you stop your party a little earlier? It seems that, however, the American man did not pick it up. The analysis of the mans detailed reflections in the Chapter 4, Retrospective Interview, shows that he thought the Chinese womans lengthy request should instead be stra ightforwardly expressed, which is not only more efficient but also not misleadi ng. Thus, he labeled the womans conduct as rude or impolite. Likewise, in the scenario of borrowing m oney, the Chinese man, who wanted to get back his money that his American friend had borrowed from, created a fake situation that he needed the money to pay for the textbooks. His intent ion and indirectness were 150 PAGE 151 again not picked up by his American friend and to even the worse, were considered impolite based on the retrospective interview with the American in Chapter 4, since directness is preferred by Americans based on their cultural-specific norms. Conversely, the American participants dire ctness is evaluated as impolite by the Chinese participants. B ilmes stressed as well in his stud y of negotiation in Thailand that any knowledge of negotiation activity must be rooted in knowledge of how people from that specific culture conduct such activi ties (1992). He investigated Thai and U.S. community mediators and found that Thai mediators more frequently seek harmony by asking disputants to forgive each other and to apologize, which is due to Thailands sociocultural norms which put priority on harmonious relationship. Take Scenario 3 between the American student and the Chinese teaching assistant for instance. The students were required to submit their take home test online by 12:00 pm on Monday. Late submission would result in a zero. One of the Chinese TAs students made a late submission and received a zero. When the st udent approached the TA, she directly told that Chinese TA that she unfortunately used up all the minutes allowed online and she thought it was unfair to give her a zero. Su ch a direct request was interpreted as improper, rude from the Ch inese TAs point of view. The Chinese TA complained about the American students frankness and directness in making the request, which is very inappropriate or impolite, because in low context cultures, like China, information is usually exchanged indirectly. This reflection fits in with Watts (2 003) view that there is sharedness of expectations against which behavior is j udged and any conduct falling outside of the norms is considered either polite or im polite. Impoliteness c an be attributed to a 151 PAGE 152 mismatch of expectations due to cross-cultural difference. In addition, Eelen states that, terms such as polite and impolite can never be said to merely describe behavior, since their use always involves a moral eval uation and thus a morally involved position (2001: 183). Persuasion As discussed before, behaviors that ar e beyond the norms are categorized as (im)polite behaviors (Watts, 2003, p. 162). (Im) polite behaviors are the ones that are out of expectations. Following is the evidence in the stage of persuasion that shows the participants are going beyond politic behavior, as required in the norms of the two cultures. In addition to the negative and positive appeal strategies, the Chinese participants used two strategies that Americans do not possess: asking questions repeatedly and keeping silent. In the sc enario between two roommates, the Chinese roommate repeatedly asked his American roommate whet her he could get his money back if he paid the total in advance. The data analysis in Chapter 4 shows that, to the Chineses repeated question, the American counterpart re sponded in the retrospective interview that it was unnecessary and inappropriate in a negotiation, thus regarded as impolite behavior. Similarly, keeping silent, one of the co mmonly used strategies by Chinese, is evaluated as impolite behavior by the Americ ans, according to their reflections in Chapter 4. Silence ca n be used in social encounters to avoid imposition, confrontation or embarrassment which may not be avoided when one uses verbal expression (Jaworski & Stephens, 1998; Sifianou, 1997). In a high-context culture like China (Pye, 1976), keeping silent is an appropriate negoti ation strategy which can avoid open 152 PAGE 153 disagreement, thus serving the purpose of ma intaining harmony. However, silence can be uncomfortable and intolerable, in this case, particularly for someone whose have different negotiation norms. For instance, the different evaluations of silence were shown in the retrospective interview wit h the American roommate and the Chinese roommate over the unpaid bill. To the Chinese, this silence is quite normal and legitimate in negotiation, since he regarded it as a non-verbal negotiation to reflect his reaction to his roommates proposal, which was reluct ant and disagreeable. On the contrary, from his American roommates pers pective, this silence was inappropriate and annoying, because he expected the Chinese to talk it out even if he was holding an opposite view. Chinese people tend to hope that t heir counterparts are able to figure out that silence means they are dissatisfied or disagree with what has been stated or proposed. However, Americans seem to be considerably uncomfortable with silence, which can make them hesitate about their views or even give them up. This proves that cross-cultural differences on perception of silence in negotiation based on the soicocultural perspectives affect assessment of politeness. Summary The discussions in this chapter that polit ic behaviors are within the expectation of social norms in specific situations of negot iation, while (im)politeness is beyond what is expected. Specifically, in the stages of negotiation, the negotiati on behaviors that are consistent with the negotiation strategies which are determined by norms are considered appropriate; the negotiation behaviors that do not abide by the strategies are evaluated as (im)polite behaviors. This study has provided evidence that the shared strategies are considered appropriate by both parties, including, for example, making a threat. Watts politeness theory correlates appropriateness with social norms that are 153 PAGE 154 commonly expected in a specific situation. In this study, any behavior which is within the appropriate negotiation social norms is considered politic or unmarked conduct, because they meet with the social norms in the particular context of negotiation. The participants deem that it is appropriate and normal to apply the negotiation strategies within their social norms in a particular context, even making a threat, which thus cannot be classified as rudeness. However, any utterance out of the scope of their negotiation norms are considered either polite or impolite. This study is thus supportive that Watts (2003) model appl ies to the cross-cultural comparison on politeness. Evidence in this study further supports the relational approac h to politeness as represented by Watts (2003), wherein he ar gues that analysts need to ''pay closer attention to how participants in social intera ction perceive politeness '' (Watts, 2003, xix). This has been achieved in the retrospective interviews with the par ticipants, detailed in Chapter 4. This study on negotiation supports Wattss (2003) view on using a relational method to tackle politeness and supports t hat politeness should be evaluated based on social appropriateness. This politeness model provides a tool to investigate when and why participants in a social interaction perce ive a certain utterance as polite or not. Watts model provides a much wider theory of communication fo r interpreting politeness, a necessary and essential advance in po liteness research. Politeness analysis should look at the participants behavior and perceptions, linking them with the specific context of interaction and the cultural context, since social norms may vary across cultures and are sometimes the root of problems in cross cultural communication. 154 PAGE 155 As can be seen from this study, communica tion problems arise due to participants different sociocultural backgrounds, which is resulted from participants interpretation and understanding on the interactants a cknowledgement on which forms are normalized and considered as appr opriate. Politeness in crosscultural negotiations is contingent upon shared and unshared no rms. Cultural background undoubtedly influences how negotiation behaviors are per ceived because it shapes views of negotiation of different parties. Data analyses of this study suggest that any behaviors which are beyond social norms, which are reflected by strategies in this case, can be interpreted as impolite. Take the stage of information exchange for example, the Chinese way of information exchange usually sounds much longer and the American participants considered it as inappropriate, since this strategy obviously flouts the Americans negotiation norms which ex pect shorter and direct request. In short, data analyses in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 have provided evidence to suggest that politeness is a discursive or relational concept measured and judged by interactants themselves. Interactants possess their standards and perceptions which fit into their individual normative expectations of politic beh avior or appropriateness in a specific event (Locher, 2004; Watts, 2003). This obviously indicates that a change of situation or social context can very possi bly result in different perceptions or expectations set for that ci rcumstance accordingly. That is to say, the unmarked behaviors which are appropriate in the negotiation context are politic behaviors, although the same ones may be evaluated in the opposite direction in some other situations. 155 PAGE 156 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION Findings This study has attempted to investi gate appropriateness and (im)politeness in American-Chinese quotidian negotiations th rough a detailed analysis of role plays in seven different scenarios, in which the partici pants negotiate to attain their purpose, as well as retrospective interviews with t he participants. This study draws on Watts politeness theory as the theor etical framework, where he introduces two terms to distinguish appropriate behav iors and behaviors beyond appropriateness, namely, politic behavior and (im)politeness. Both appropriatene ss associated with unmarked behaviors and (im)politeness assigned to the marked behaviors have been discussed in all the negotiation situations in this study. This study addressed two research questions: (1) what is the evidence in the data that the participants are adherin g to the negotiation norms, i.e. enacting politic behavior? (2) What is the evidence in the data t hat the participants ar e going beyond politic behavior, as required in the norms of the two cultures, to enact politeness and/or impoliteness? In order to answer these questions, detailed analysis was conducted to examine the behaviors of the participants in role plays comprised of seven informal negotiation scenarios respectively between a professor and a student on extending the deadline of a report, between two neighbors regarding the loud music, between an instructor and a student on a delayed assign ment, between a landlord and a tenant on an expiring lease, between two friends regarding returning money, between two officemates on use of a lab, and between tw o roommates regarding an unpaid bill. In terms with the theoretical fram ework, the perception and inte rpretation of each others 156 PAGE 157 conversational behaviors relate to the par ticipants themselves. Therefore, to have a better and thorough understanding of negotiation beha viors, the researcher triangulated the baseline data with the retros pective interviews, which provides rich evidence as well as actual evaluations from the participant t hemselves, thus making the conclusion more persuasive. In response to the two research questions, it is found in this study and confirmed by the participants themselves that the negot iation behaviors that are consistent with the negotiation strategies, wh ich are determined by norms, are considered appropriate. Examples of these behaviors include maki ng negative appeals and positive appeals, which are shared and acknowledged by bot h Americans and Chinese. However, negotiation behaviors that do not abide by the strategies in one culture are evaluated as (im)polite behaviors by the participants in anot her culture. Examples of these behaviors include keeping silent, which is one of the negotiation strategies by Chinese and was considered as appropriate by the Chinese participants in th is study, was nevertheless regarded as a rude behavior by Americans, since this strategy is beyond the norm from their sociocultural perspective. The in-dept h analysis illustrates the participants evaluation of what constitutes politeness in the given context and their expectations of what the negotiation utterances should be in accordance with the negotiation norms in their respective cultures. The social and cultural norms or the rootedness of (im)politeness in assessments of what are appropriate, or polit ic behaviors, in a specific speech event is important for an analysis of (im)politeness. Implications The results of the present study support the validity of Watts politeness model. This study has demonstrated that the concept of appropriateness is applied in everyday 157 PAGE 158 negotiations, following Watts (2003) politeness theory. Individuals in an interaction rely on standards or norms of appropriateness or (im)politness to judge social behavior which they are involved in. Their standards are built upon social norms and expectations they agree on and adhere to. In other words, the predis positions of their habitus lead them to acknowledge or reproduc e certain social behaviors which they feel or deem to be appropriate or (im)polite in similar emerging situations. To study politeness, based on the data analyzed in this study, it is suggested that researchers employ a relational or discursive approach to evaluate what is appropriate/politic and (im)polite behavior in line with the interactant s evaluations that are linked to and guided by their habitus. In addition, politic behav iors and (im)politeness cannot be analyzed in relation to single utterances or speech acts, nor can they be evaluated only by assumptions of the speakers intent ions. They can only be understood in a contextualized way and with consideration of the culture related understanding of utterances. The findings of this study indica te that Watts post modern politeness theory can apply to cross-cultural politeness research. Applications to Pedagogy Quotidian negotiations occur fr equently in our daily life. T he findings of this study show that evaluations of appropriateness or (im)politeness largely relate to the participants sociocultural norms in a specif ic situation and cultural differences in negotiation are potential sources for misunderstanding between participants who possess different cultural background. For ex ample, keeping silent, which is considered as an appropriate strategy in negotiation by Chinese is otherwise assessed as an impolite and vague behavior by Americans Therefore, it is suggested that understanding the other parties cultural background can help participants facilitate their 158 PAGE 159 negotiation and minimize misunderstanding and confusion. For international students, in addition to teaching language itself, language t eachers need to bring cultural knowledge into curriculum and attempt to seek culture-s pecific patterns of language use in a certain situation. Generally, this study emphasizes the importance of teaching social and cultural aspects of language use. The present study highlights that politeness is better tackles in relation to an entire speech event, the contexts, and the participants expectations and evaluations of such a situation. Hence, it seem s that, in language teaching, rather than teaching single utterances, emphasis can be to analyze diffe rent speech events and demonstrate the appropriate interaction in those events. In this way, a more realistic view of the appropriate use of language could be achi eved. For the teaching of informal negotiations in different sociocultural contex ts, the differences and similarities can be taught in classrooms especia lly to beginners as a guidance to appropriate negotiation behaviors. Limitations Several limitations of the study must be pointed out. Firstly, it is important to note the limitation on methodol ogy. Due to the practical reasons that have been discussed in Chapter 2, the baseline data were obtained from the role plays that required the participants to react to a situation which triggers negotiation, rather than from real time, actual negotiation. Thus, the findings can not be generalized to all cross-cultural intera ctions between Americans and Chinese. Secondly, the present study is primar ily based on the analysis of the verbal behavior of the interactants, since this study adopts Watts polit eness theory as its theoretical framework and Watts model applies only to verbal interactions. Therefore, 159 PAGE 160 paralinguistic features such as pause, gestu res, and facial expressions were not given systematic attention. However, some paralinguistic featur es, such as pausing, were transcribed and mentioned where they seemed to be significant for the participants evaluation in this study. Systematic study focusing on paralinguisti c features and other nonverbal aspects of communication such as posture and movements remains a task for future research. Contribution and Future Research The findings of this study enrich the cro ss-cultural study on negotiation by adding quotidian negotiation, which has not been studied so far, to t he best of my knowledge, as well as on current know ledge of politeness by drawi ng on Watts politeness model, which provides a proper approach for politeness research based on the evidence of this study. From a theoretical point of view, this study can be seen as a contribution to the cross-cultural politeness res earch where native American and Chinese participants are involved, using a postmodern approach. Th is study can increase empirical and theoretical knowledge on what consists of appropriate and (im)polite behaviors in crosscultural communication. Generally speaking, in this study, it is clear that interactants tend to judge the others behaviors using their own norms, that is, culturally-based ways of talking or behaving, which is a conti nual and ongoing proce ss. While the present study has attempted to shed some light on cross-cultur al politeness research in the situation of negotiation, it leaves some areas t hat can be extended for future study. More in-depth work is needed on negotiati on encounters involving parties that speak the same native language, in other words, on negotiations between Americans themselves or Chinese themselves inclusiv ely, which, in turn, will allow contrastive 160 PAGE 161 patterns to be identified in cr oss-cultural negotiations. More detailed, micro-analytic studies are encouraged, covering individual s with different backgrounds, including different languages, and communicating in a variety of settings. While the present study has been able to demonstrate that Watts politeness model is valid in the situation of negotiati on, further research can cover a range of different interactional contexts. A detailed an alysis of a variety of contextual features could further increase understanding of this postmodern politeness model. In reference to politeness research, inve stigations can be conducted with different interactants from various cultural and linguis tic backgrounds to find out whether Watts politeness model also applies. In addition to role play method, it is s uggested that various methods to be used to collect data from naturally occurring conversa tion. Different approaches will be able to offer various insights from different perspec tives, thus produce better understanding of politeness. In conclusion, the present study has been concerned with the evidence of how the participants enacted politic behaviors and po liteness, based on the data analysis of quotidian negotiations between Americans and Chinese. This study has demonstrated that Watts politeness theory provides an appropriate framework to examine politeness behaviors. Notwithstanding its limitations it hoped that this study has made a contribution to current knowledge of politeness research. 161 PAGE 162 APPENDIX A TRANSCRIPTION SYMBOLS \: Termination of a tone group .: A pause between 0.2 and 0.5 of a second ..: A pause between 0.5 and 0.8 second : A pause between 0.9 and 1.2 second /: False start A rising tone A falling tone A rising falling tone _: Stuttering or repetition ???: Indecipherable speech @: Laughter :: Filled pauses 162 PAGE 163 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE Please fill in the questionnaire. The information you provide here will not be available to anyone but the researcher. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. I very much appreciate your in volvement and your cooperation in completing this questionnaire. Name: Sex: Department: Age Range: 18-20 20-30 31-40 41-50 >50 (Please circle the one) 1. In which country were you born? 2. How long have you lived in U.S.? 3. How long have you been liv ing in Gainesville, FL? 4. Do you have any working experience either in China or in the U.S.(including TA or RA)? What is/was your job? How long is/was it? Please elaborate it. 5. What was the first language you learned? 6. How many years have you studied English? 7. What are your TOEFL and GRE score? When did you take them? 8. What is your SPEAK test score? When did you take it? 9. Are you married? 10. Who do you live with? 11. How often do you use English at home? Please circle your answer. Not at all.. RarelySometimesOften. Always 12. Outside your home, what are the occa sions at which you use English? (For example, in the lab, in the classroom, in the church, with a conv ersation partner, etc.) 13. Have you ever argued with or persuaded someone over some matters? Please comment on your experience. 163 PAGE 164 14. Who are the people you sometimes convince or argue with in your work and personal life? 164 PAGE 165 APPENDIX C ROLE PLAYS The Chinese and American partici pants are asked to participate in role plays which are designed to evoke a negotiation. Every si tuation needs two people (a Chinese and an American) and is role played by two pairs. Each participant is given a piece of paper/card describing their situat ion, role and possible goals (participants goals are not revealed to each other in advance). Between a Professor and a Student Chinese participant: Your prof essor/advisor requires you to submit a lab report to her this Friday. However, you are working on several core courses this semester and having 2 papers due by Friday. You would like very much that your professor/advisor could postpone the deadline for the lab report. American participant: You are a pr ofessor. You require your Chinese student to submit a lab report to you this Friday. However, the student is approaching you and asking for putting off the deadline since the student is working on several core courses this semester and having 2 papers due by Friday You do hope the student could get it done by Friday because you are leaving at the beginning of next week for a conference and you dont like to read the report on a plane. Between Neighbors Chinese participant: Your neighb or is an American young man at his 20s. He lives next door to you. You two simply greet when y ou meet each other. He seems having many friends and likes throwing parties on weekend, sometimes even on weekdays such as Wednesday or Thursday. His friends take all t he parking lot in front of your apartment at party times so you have to park your car at quite a distant place. In addition, his dog keeps barking when his friends are around and t he noise disturb your study at night. You decide to talk to the neighbor today, wit hout offending him by being rude or pushy, hoping that his party stops earlier, his fri ends park somewhere else, and the noise could be down. American participant: Your neighbor is a Chinese young man at his 20s. He lives next door to you. You are an out-going person having many friends and like throwing parties on weekend, sometimes even on weekdays su ch as Wednesday or Thursday. Your friends take many parking lots in your comp lex at party times. Y ou sense that the noisy cars and the barking dog are becoming a pr oblem for your neighbor and you really dont want to make this big, but you like the way you live and enjoy throwing parties and talking with your friends. Between a Teaching Assistant and a Student Chinese participant: You are a teaching as sistant in your department. Your students took the mid-term exam last week. One of the questions asks students to write the experiment steps (5 steps) in the correct order, which a ccounts for 15 points. A student is approaching you asking for points on this question, since he is correct in the third step but you took off all the points. In your opinion, if one step is messed up, the whole experiment is messed up. 165 PAGE 166 American participant: You are a student in a Chinese teaching assistants class. You took the mid-term exam last week. One of the questions asks students to write the experiment steps (5 steps) in the correct order, which a ccounts for 15 points. You were correct in the third step but the teaching assi stant took off all the points. You feel that you should get partial credit for your answer. Between a Landlord and a Tenant Chinese participant: Due to some reasons, y ou will have to move out of your apartment one month later than the date stated on your leas e. You want to talk with your landlord hoping to live here until you move. American participant: Due to some reasons, one of your tenants will have to move out of the apartment one mont h later than the date stated on t he lease. Since this violates the lease and a new tenant will move in two mont hs later, you are very reluctant to do it. Between Friends Chinese participant: Your good friend wants to loan 20 bucks from you. However, you are short of money lately. And your friend forgot to return the$5 bucks he borrowed from you 2 months ago. Now he is approaching you hoping that you could loan him $20. American participant: You hope to borrow 20 bucks from your good friend. You borrowed$5 from your friend before and have not returned it yet. But since you are good friends and you are really in a need for $20, you now talk with your friend. Between Officemates Chinese participant: Your officemate wants to use your equipment which you are using in the lab for only a week. You agreed. However, he is still not done using the equipment a week later and made a mess in a l ab one day. He talks with you to see if its ok for him to continue using the machine for an extra week. This conflicts with your schedule. American participant: You used your officema tes equipment in his lab for a week. However, you are not done using it a week later and made a mess in a lab one day due to the loss of power that day. You talk with your friend to see if it is ok to continue using the machine for an extra week. Between Roommates Chinese participant: You and your roommate live in a 2-bedroom apartment. You two get along very well. Your roommate subleas ed his room to his friend over the summer for 3 months. You did not sign any new lease with the second roomma te. At the end of the summer, however, his friend disappeared without paying the last months rent and utility bills, which is$400 in total. You appr oach your first roommate today, hoping that he could compensate for some of the bills. Since he will continue to be your roommate, you do not want to offend him. But you hope to find a way to lessen your damage. American participant: You and your roommate live in a 2-bedroom apartment. You two get along very well. You subleased your room to one of your friends over the summer for 3 months. Your roommate agreed on it and he did not sign any new lease with your friend. At the end of the su mmer, however, your friend disappeared without paying the last months rent and utility bill s, which is \$400 in total. Your roommate is upset. You 166

PAGE 167

dont want to offend your roommate since youll have to deal with each other on a daily basis (you are moving back). You, however, thin k it is not your responsibility once you are away. You are trying to work it out with your roommate. 167

PAGE 168

APPENDIX D ROLE PLAY TRANSCRIPTS Between a Professor and a Student S: professor\ how are you P: Im fine\thank you S: uh..I heard that you went to see a dentis t last week\I know its painful\uh.I hope you are feeling better now P:(1 second pause) uh..yeah..thanks\can I help you with something S: uh,uh..are you busy now\could you do me a favor\could you please allow me\to postpone handing in my lab report P: ok\ why cannot you turn it in S: uh..(2).. you know\ Im taking 3 core courses this semester\ P: eh-hen S: and two of them have projects \ one of the projects will be due also will be due this Friday P: right S: and this project is team project\ I need to discuss many things with my team partners\ P: eh-hen S: so\ Im afraid\ I can NOT finish the old lab report this Friday\ by time P: ok\ eh-hen S: yeah\ I almost finished the repor t\ but I still need some time to\..uh.. to do more tests and\ (1.3) do more research\ so Im afra id\..:er:. its not a good time for me submit this lab report this Friday P: well\ I understand y our problem\ but there are few things I have to say S: eh-hen P: first\ I am leaving for a conference right after\ en.. S: (low voice) this Friday P: no\ actually\eh\on Monday\ I m leaving for a conference\ so I needed\ I had planned S: eh-hen P: on grading the lab reports over the weekend\ because I will have absolutely no time when Im at the conference to read the reports S eh-hen P: also\ you know about this deadline for a while\ you know \I didnt assign this RECENTLY\ you know\ for some ti me\ and I really dont think its fair for other students\ because I know YOU have a lot of work\ but I am sure OTHER st udents have a lot of work too\ you know so S: uh.yeah..\ so\ if I submit the report this Friday P: eh-hen S: when will you\ re \return the report P: when will I return it to you S: eh\ yes P:I can give it back to you on Monday S: on Monday 168

PAGE 169

PAGE 170

PAGE 171

P: its a big\ a big class\ I have a lot of students\ I cannot\ I cannot ma ke exceptions\ you know S: eh-hen P: Im sorry S: eh P: so listen\ try get it in by Friday\ if you absolutely cannot\ then you know \what the alternative alternative is ok S: ok\ thank you P: see you later \good luck with your project Between Neighbors L: hi\im sorry\ I live next to you\ eh.. eh. I heard some noise from your home yesterday\ M: yeah\ we had a party last night L: oh\ yeah\ because I have to study\ .eh.. in my home \the wall is not sound proof\so M: yeah L: (2 seconds pause)eh\ I think\ eh. Sometimes you get too late at night\so can you\eh\ I mean\can y ou stop the party a little earlier \please\@@ (softly and nervously) M: not really \I mean\ we just have peopl e over listen to the music\ you know\ sometimes we finish earlier\ but most of the time I guess.. we dont finish that late\ we finish like 2 or 3\ L: oh\ but\ but 2 or 3 is too late for me \eh \because usually I have I go to bed at 11 \so\ eh\ because when the party\ eh\ is finished \I can hear a lot of \like noise\ maybe they talk\ eh\ after they go out of your home\ and I still can hear them there around \so\ eh\ M: well you L: \I wonder can you M: \uh-huh L: as k them to leave earlier\ like (s second pause) 12 or 11 @@ (softly and nervously) M: the party doesn t start till 11 like L: oh M: it usually \ when we start it\ like then L: eh \eh \but eh\ it really \ eh\ make me very \eh..@@ make me not very happy \because I cannot study \I cannot study in M: who makes you the noise L: in my apartment M: you can al ways go to the library\ the L: and I cannot go to sleep\ at my \in my apartment\ so you know M: sure\ you know\ I mean\ I have never heard any complaint from the other neighbors \ L: (2).. eh..I dont know about other neighbor s\ maybe I dont know\ but\ eh \I mean\ since I live here and\ eh M: oh I live here too 171

PAGE 172

PAGE 173

PAGE 174

PAGE 175

M: ok Between a Teaching Assistant and a Student K: uh\ excuse me\ I wanted to talk to you about my take home test\ R: yeah\ ok K: uh \I submitted it late\ because my dial-up minutes were used up for the month \and I couldnt submit it online \so I had to rush to school \so I dont feel its fair\ that I got a zero on the assignment\ R: uhyeah because\ because\ you submit y oure your assignment late\ you know in our course policy\ late submission will receive a zero\ K: but I couldnt submit it then \I tried to get to school to submit it on time \I spent a lot of time working on it \so I should at least get some credit for doing it R: yeah\ I understand \but you know \uh (2 second pause) its a take-home te st\ so you have a long week to finish that assignment \why did you @@@ (soft laughter) wait for until the last minute to submit it\ so K: well\ I didnt k now that my internet w ould be out when its the ti me to submit it \and rushed to school to submit it \ R: Im sorry that I cannot give y ou\ uh \some points\ because it will be unfair to OTHER students who submitted uh in time \ so the ONLY thing I can do for you \is to suggest you to contact the professor to see if he accepts this situation\ K: ok\ then\ Ill talk to him \thank you R: no problem Between a Landlord and a Tenant D: good morning\ B: good morning\ uh.the thing is\my lease will be_ will be_ expire in 15 days\ D: right B: um\ but the problem is\ uh\ I still have some personal reasons..er: (CLEAR TH ROAT) if you dont mind\ I w ant to live here\ I think\ uh.. more thanmore than 15 days\ D: um B: so\ uh.. I just want to s ee\ would you mind I living here\ until I move\ D: well\ unfortunately\ uh\ the provision in the contract is very clear that you have to give sufficient written notice before hand in order to leave\ and have to be vacated from the apartment \uh\ by the dat e in the contract B: um D: and you know you signed that contract\ and unfortunately\ we cannot really make any exceptions B: yeah\ I know its hard to do\ but ..uh.. you know its very hard to a foreign student\ to find a place here\ (2 second pause) I think \u h. because I have been here for one year \uh. you maybe can offer me the convenience\ because\ uh\ its very hard for foreign students to find any apartment now\ 175

PAGE 176

D:yeah\ I certainly see your situation\ BU T unfortunately. um .my hands are tied\ I cannot really.. I am responsible to the owner of the apartment complex B:uh D: and I really cannot make any exceptions\ B: er: but its just about less than one month\ I can\ I can\ pay more money than the days to be here\ D: so you were saying that \you will pay BEYOND what the amount would be in 12 the lease for the month B: right\ right D: would you be willing to pay \um. the amount for that month plus another full month for\ B: uh\ D: the 15 days\ B: yeah 15 days\ D: it would be two months rent \ would you be willing to pay that B: uh..two months D: uh-huh \ right B: um..(SILENCE) D: would you be willing to do that B: (SILENCE) D: if you are reluctant to do that\ then you cannot\ B: I think it s a little too expensive\ D: well\ unfortunately \we would be losing money if we will just let you leave early \we wouldnt have anybody to fill the the to take the apartment B: but \as far as I know\ uh\ you have some empty apartments in this community D: thats true but\ uh\ we\ uh \depend on the apartments that we have leased already for income \otherwise we would not be able to pr ovide you with the services that we do B: uh (2)\ but as now as you said \you said just now\ you can uh you can uh allow me to live\ uh \one more month \so I can say \you dont have the new lease of this of this room\ right D: uh\ correct\ but si nce you would be paying for part of that month\ we would be at least partially compen sated \and we will have time to find a tenant for that particular apartment B: but you know\ Im really\ Im really\.. uh have poor salary from my RA positi.. uh and one month more rent is really expensive for me\ D: uh-huh B: so could you\ uh \give me another price uh for one more month\ Im always a good tenant\if..uh\if y ou give me a reasonable price for the additional days\Ill recommend you.uh..to the new incoming Chinese student from China\ D: well\let me think about itfor one more m onth\ uh\ well\ actua lly when you lived here you gave us first and last months rent in addition to security deposit B: yeah 176

PAGE 177

PAGE 178

PAGE 179

PAGE 180

C: Im sorry I dont know\ F you were\ you were there\ like \did he just move out or didnt leave his stuff like\ C: I dont know..sorry\because you know\ the fa \ facility is yours\ I mean\he didnt bring anything in\ F: ok\ I dont know \I didnt get any note if he was using my stuff \or he bought more stuff \did you see hi m move out when did he leave\ C: I dont know \ sorry \ he is your fr iend \maybe you can contact him whether he is out \or just leave \ F: yeah\ C: but F: I can call him C: ok\ so can you call him now or F: oh\ not now because I just C: but F: got back C: but you know the due day for us to pay the money is very soon F: oh yeah C: Im afraid we cannot wait F: well\ I just got back at l east like\ I cannot call him now\ I m really busy\ I just got back to town C: @@) Im sorry F: eh\ we get school starti ng soon\ could you just pay it now\ and then like\ just so\ we dont get the late fee\ and Ill get in touch with my friend\ try to get a hold of him and work it out\ C:..eh.. (slowly) you cannot pay for him\ F: well\ Im gonna get him to pay for it \but like \for now\ just for NOW \ when you go to pay your par t of rent \ could you also pay that part C: uh F: just because I dont have ANY mone y on me to pay for rent\ C: eh\ you see\ we alr ea\ we need to pay the money\ otherwise we need to pay the late fee\ so\ eh \you mean\ you have no money on you F: ??? (increase volume) yeah\I dont hav e checks on me ??? so\ I cannot write the check \ C: but\ eh F: could you just pay \and t hen either he gives you the money \or if he (2 second pause) wont\ then \ (1 second pause) Ill pay t he rent and then you c an pay the utilities\ C: but.. \how can I know \ if I pay the money first\ can\ can I get the money back F: oh\ you know where I live\ C: I\ I mean F: you see me EVERY day C: but F: we have a year lease C: I mean\ if you\ if your friend need to pay the money 180

PAGE 181

F: all what I am saying is that\ Ill get a hol d\ I \I will call him up\ get a hold of him \and get the money\ C: but if you can NOT find your friend\ and cant get money from him\ HOW can you pay me\ F: we can just split it up like C: how to split it\ I just need\ only need to pay my part \and you will pay it for your friend\ F: oh\you ALSO need to pay the utilities because\ I mean\ you were livi ng here TOO using the water C: yeah \I mean\ I F: you should at least pay more utilities\ C: NO (seriously and loud) F: uh C: I \ no \ no (voice getting a little lower) F: ...well C: I\ no\ no\ he just F: eh C: he just left after F: oh \so\ he just left like yesterday C: yeah F: ok C: yeah\ yeah F: eh C: so\ I think we\ we need to pay this amount F: well\ I dont know\ I was even here like C: I I see \but\ eh\ you\ you and your friend didnt sign a new lease\ so F: oh\ yeah but C: so if you and F: you agree to it too C: but we didnt sign the new lease\ hes your friend \you need to \you should expect that if\ eh \any questions happened problems happene d\ its your responsibility to do what you need to F: wait \what I am saying \is like you knew him beforehand and said it was ok for him to do this \so in part its also your responsibility case you are the one here\ you should make sure that he didnt leave without paying like he did C: but you ju st say because\ eh\ its you \ eh\ eh\ you and me signed the lease together \and you said you wont sublease your apartment to your friend \eh\ I \I have no no\ yes\ I agreed with that but \eh\ its your re sponsibility to pay the F: well\ I m ean it was your responsibility to make sure that he didnt run out like C: why its my responsibility\ to make sure where he is now F: well \y ou need to make sure he didnt leave without paying you\ like 181

PAGE 182

C: no\ I\ I dont need to \eh\ take any responsibility\ I am just\ its you and me who signed the lease\ so I think\ eh\ if your friend didnt pay the money \its your responsibility to pay t he money\ I dont care anything else\ so F: I mean \Im\ Im \not concerned with that\ what I am concerned with is C: eh-ha F: you let him just leave without stopping him like C: I dont know F: you should have at sa id\ sent\ something about the money C: he just \didnt\ eh \didnt show up for several days\ I have not his contact information \ and maybe he left when I was out\ I cannot\ eh\ stay\ stay whole days\ to look watc h out whether he leaves or not @@ F: I mean you could have noticed when he left \and then said something like (2) I dont know\ ok\ Ill call him \Ill try to get the m oney\ but for now could you pay the rent \and I will get the money from him and pay you back \ C: (low voice) I\ I\ I think\ I cannot do that\ because I\ how can you promise that your friend \you can find your friend\ and F: well \ok\ look I will just cover it if he does not pay C: eh F: Ill cover his rent \I think you shoul d pay the utilities\ I think thats FAIR C: (2 second pause) I need to pay all the utilities F: yeah\ C: your friend also lived here for a whole month\ why only I need to pay the utilities\ F: I am paying the entire rent like C: entire rent F: the entire \ like\ Im paying him rent so\ C: eh-hen\ F: I think you should at least help me out some\ C: (SILENCE) F: what do you think\ C: (STILL SILENCE) F: (LOUD) ALL RIGHT, a ll right\ Ill cover it\ C: your friend should call me \ because he lived in this apartment for 3 months for sure\ certainly he know the phone number in this apartment but F: I just choose my cell phone\ I dont use the phone here C: I need to F: I dont know the phone number for this apartment C: you live here \you dont know the phone number F: no C: eh F: I mean\ he may not know the phone number here\ probably he just does what I do\ he just uses his cell phone all the time \ 182

PAGE 183

C: last time he said he can not\ he lost his key\ while I was at home\ he called this phone number \so he should have known this phone number F: ok\ I guess\ well\ shouldnt you have this phone number from where he called\ like \our phone has caller ID C: eh\ no\ we didnt open t he caller ID\ because they need to charge extra money \we only asked the basic F: ok\ you know what\ I will just call him\ and t hen we will go from there \ok\ like\ I\ I told you I dont have any checks on me\ I cannot do anything right now C: I just F: I pay my rent every month so far\ all Im asking is that\ y ou just cover it for now while I work this out with my friend\ C: yeah\ just because I trust your friend\ now he disappeared\ how can I make 19 the SAME mistake F: well\ I mean now you know me LONGER than my friend\ you know\ I will pay\ C: ok\ ok \you didnt take any money\ or didnt ta ke any checks with you now\ eh\ you will give money later\ just\ ok \ but you need to remember its YOU and ME who signed the lease\ otherwise\ if you c annot get the money\ its \its your.. \YOU should take the responsibility\ F: ok 183

PAGE 184

PAGE 185

PAGE 186

PAGE 187

PAGE 188

J: So you thought thats an appalling behavior in a negotiation? F: Yes. 188

PAGE 189

APPENDIX F RETROSPECTIVE INTERVIEW IN CHINESE Interview Excerpts Between a Professor and a Student Between Neighbors 189

PAGE 190

Between a Landlord and a Tenant Between Friends 190

PAGE 191

Between Officemates Between Roommates 191

PAGE 192

192

PAGE 193

LIST OF REFERENCES Adler, N. (1991). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. Allerheiligen, R., Grah am, J., & Lin, C. (1985). Honesty in interorganization negotiations in the United States, Japan, Braz il, and the Repub lic of China. Journal of Macromarketing, fall, 4-16 Ambler, T., & Witzel, M. (2004). Doing business in China London: Routledge. Angelmar, R., & Stern, L. W. (1978). De velopment of a content analytic system for analysis of bargaining communication. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 93102. Babbie, E. (1983). The practice of social research (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford B. S. (2005). Introduction. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B.S. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics: Expl oring institutional talk (pp. 1-6). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Beamer, L. (1992). Learning intercul tural communication competence. Journal of Business Communication, 29, 285-304. Beebe, L., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Na tural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 65-86). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Berg, B. L. (2003). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bian, W. Q. & Keller, R. L. (1999a): Patterns of fairness judgments in north America and the People's Republic of China. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8, 301-320. Bian, W. Q. & Keller, R. L. (1999b): Chines e and Americans agree on what is fair, but disagree on what is best in societal dec isions affecting heal th and safety risks. Risk Analysis 19, 439-452. Bilmes, J. (1992). Dividing the rice: A microanal ysis of the mediators role in a Northern Thai negotiation. Language in Society 21, 569-583. Blum-Kulka, S. (1990). You don t touch lettuce with your fi ngers: Parental politeness in family discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 259-288. 193

PAGE 194

Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. (1986). The soci al psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond, (Ed.), The psychology of Chinese people (pp. 211-266). Oxford: University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice Cambrige: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity. Boxer, D. (2002). Applying sociolinguistics: Domains and face-to-face interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Brown, P., & Fraser, C. (1979). Speech as markers of situation. In K. Scherer & H. Giles, (Eds), Social markers in speech (pp. 33-62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals interlanguage usage Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buckner, M. (1999). Simulation and role play Alxandria, VA: American Society of Training and Development. Cameron, D. (1990). Int egrating conversation? Language and Communication, 19, 219227. Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (1994). Qualitative research in work contexts. In C. Cassell, & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in or ganizational research (pp. 1-13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chan, C. F. (1998). Business negotiation wit h the Chinese: Evidence from China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Conflict Management in the As ia Pacific: Assumptions and Approaches in Diverse Cultures. 73-121. Chen, D. & Faure, G.O. (1995). When Chinese companies negotiate with their Government. Organization Studies, 16, 27. Chien, C. (1986). Games are forever: A pre liminary discussion on continuity and change in manipulative behavior of the Ch inese. In S. B. Han (Eds.). Asian people and their cultures: Continuity and change. Seoul: Seoul National University Press. Chiu, C. Y. (1990). Distributive justic e among Hong Kong Chinese college students. The Journal of Social Psychology 130, 649-656. Cohen, D. A. (2004). Assessing speech acts in a second language. D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 302327). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 194

PAGE 195

Cresswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitat ive and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches ( 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davison, A. (1975). Indirect speech acts and what to do with them. In P. Cole & L. J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: 3. Speech acts (pp. 143-185). New York: Seminar Press. Delisle, H. (1986). Intimacy, solidarity, and distance: The pronouns of address in German. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 19, 22-26 Denzin, N. (1988). Triangulati on. In J. P. Keeves, (Ed.), Educational research methodology, and measurement, an in ternational handbook (pp. 511-513). Oxford: Pergamon. Denzin, N. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practice for the 21rst century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of pol iteness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Ehlich, K. (1993). HIAT: A transcription system for discourse data. In J. Edwards & M. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and c oding in discourse research (pp. 123-48) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ehlich, K., & Wagner. (1995). The discourse of business negotiation New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5, 25-66. Fang, T. (1999). Chinese business negotiation style Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Faure, G. O. (1999). The cultural dim ension of negotiation: The Chinese case. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8 187. Faure, G. O. & Zart man, I. W. (2001). Escalation and negotiation Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis. Fiksdal, S. (1990). The right time and pace: A micr oanalysis of cross-cultural gatekeeping interviews. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex. 195

PAGE 196

Firth, A. (1995). The dicouse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1992). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in, (2nd ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Fraser, B. (1975). The concept of politeness Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English (NWAVE), Georgetown University. Fraser, B. (1978). Acquiring social competence in a second language. RELC Journal 9 1-21. Fraser, B, (1990). Perspective on politeness. Jounal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-36 Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The asso ciation of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27, 93-109 Fryer, D. (1991). Qualitative methods in occupational psychology: Reflections upon why they are so useful but so little used. The Occupational Psychologist 14, 3-6. Gass, M. S., & Neu, J. (1996). Speech acts across cultures: Chanllenges to communication in a second language. New York: M. de. Gruyter. Gelfand, M. J., & Realo, A. (1999). Individualism-colle ctivism and accountability in intercrop negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 721. Ghauri, P., & Fang, T. (2001). Negotiating with the Chines e: A social-cultural analysis. Journal of World Business, 36 303-325 Glick, D. (1996). A reappraisal of Brown and Levinsons Politeness: some universals in language usage eighteen years later. Semiotica, 109, 141-171. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essay in face-to-face behaviors. Chicago: Aldine. Goffman, E. (1969). Strategic interaction Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public New York: Harper and Row. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3. Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. 196

PAGE 197

Graham, J. (1980). Cross-cultural sales negotiations: a multilevel analysis. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Graham, J., & Lam, N. (2004) The Chinese negotiation In Harvard business review on doing business in China. Boston, Ma ss: Harvard Business School Pub. Graham, J., & Lin, C. (1987). A comparison of marketing negot iations in the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the United States. Advance in International Marketing, 2 2346. Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 237-57. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture Anchor, New York: Garden City. Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press. Heritage, J. (1989). Current developments in conversation analysis. In D. roger and P. Bull (Eds.) Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 21-36). Clevedon, Avon, and Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Harvey, P. (1990). An introduction to B uddhism: Teaching, History and Practices. Cambridge University Press. Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A. & Ogino, T. ( 1986). Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitativ e evidence from Japanes e and American English. Journal of Pragmatics 10, 347-371. Hodgson, J. D., Sano, Y ., & Graham, J. (2000). Doing business with the new Japan. Lanham, Maryland and London: Rowman and Littlefield. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations : Software of the mind. London, United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill. Holtgraves, T. M. (1984). The role of direct and indirect speech in social interaction Ph.D dissertation. University of Nevada. Hsu, F. L. K. (1953). American and Chinese. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Hsu, F. L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and western perspectives (pp. 2455). London, UK: Tavistock. 197

PAGE 198

Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chin ese concept of "face". American Anthropologist, 46 45-64. Hucker, C. (1995). China's imperial past: An introducti on to Chinese history and culture, Stanford University Press. Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 7 371-374. Johnstone, B. (2000). Qualitative methods in sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic polit eness: Current research issue. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 193-218. Kasper, G. (1994). Politeness. In E. R. Asher (Ed.). Encyclopedia of language and linguistic (pp. 3206-3211). Pergamon and Aber deen University Press. Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmat ics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 316-369). London, UK: Continuum. Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, 215-247 Keenan, E. O. (1976). The universalit y of conversational postulates. Language in Society, 5 67-80. Kochman, T. (1984). The politic s of politeness: Social warrant s in mainstream American Public etiquette. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 200-209). Washington, D.C: G eorge Town University Press. Kremenyuk, V. (2002). International negotiation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness. Papers from the 9 th regional meetings of the Chicago linguistic so ciety (pp. 292-305). Lakoff, R. (1977). What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics, and performatives. In A.Rogers, B. Wall & P. J. Murphy (Eds.), Procedings of the Texas conference on performatives, presuppos itions, and implicatures (pp. 79105). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Lakoff, R. (1979). Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style. In J. Orasanu, M. K. Slater & L.L. Adler (Eds.), Language, sex andgender: Does la difference make a difference? (pp. 53-78). New York: New York Academy of Sciences. 198

PAGE 199

Lakoff, R. (1990). Talking power:The politics of language. New York: Basic books. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Lee, W., & Song, M. (2000). Politeness and face in Chinese culture Frankfurt Main: Peter Lang. Leung, K., & Bond, H. M. (1984). The impact of cu ltural collectivism on reward allocation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47, 793-804. Lii-Shih, Y. H. (1988). Conversational politeness and foreign language teaching. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing. LoCastro, V. (2003). An introduction to pragmatics: so cial action for language teachers. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. Locher, M., & Watts, R. (2005). Po liteness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1 9-33. Mao, L. (1994). Beyond politeness t heory: face revisited and renewal. Journal of Pragmatics, 21 451-486 Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexam ination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of pragmatics 12, 403-426. Matsumoto, Y. (1989) Politeness and conversational universals observations from Japanese. Multilingua 8, 207-221. May, T. (2002). Qualitative research in action. London: Sage Publications. McKay, L. S. (2006). Researching sec ond language classroom. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Nash, T. (1983). An instance of Amer ican and Chinese politeness strategy. RELC Journal 14 87-98. Nofsinger, R. E. (1991). Everyday conversation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Pan, Y. (1994). Politeness strategies in Chinese verbal interaction: A sociolinguistic analysis of spoken data in official, business and family settings Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Service. Putman, L., & Roloff, M. (1992). Communication and negotiation. London: Sage publications. 199

PAGE 200

Pye, L. W. (1982). Chinese commercial negotiating style Knigstein, West Germany: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language London: Longman. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Reed-Danahay, D. (2005). Locating Bourdieu Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory crosssectional study of study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22, 27-67 Schmidt R., & Richards, J. (1980). S peech act and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 1 129-155. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Seligman, S. (2000). Dealing with the Chinese London: Management Books. Shenkar, O., & Ronen, S. (1987) Structure and importanc e of work goals among managers in the Peoples Republic of China. Academy of Management Journal. 30, 564-576. Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: me thods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage Publications. Singh, R. (1997). Group harmony and interper sonal fairness in reward allocation: On the loci of the moderation effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72, 158-183. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolingu istic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273-286. Terkourafi, M. (2005). An ar gument for a frame-based approach to politeness: Evidence from the use of the imperat ive in Cypriot Greek. In Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness. Lakoff, R. T. and Sachiko, I (Eds.). 99-116. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cu ltural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4 91-112. 200

PAGE 201

Ting-Toomey, S. (1984). Qualitat ive research: An overview. In W.B. Gudykunst, & Y.Y. Kim (Eds.), Methods for intercultural communication research (pp. 169-184). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles. In Y. Y. Kim. & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213-238). CA: SAGE. Tinsley, C.H (1998), N egotiating in the Unit ed States and Hong Kong. Journal of International Business Studies 29, 4 711-28. Tran. G. Q. (2004). Chapter 6: The met hodological issue in cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics research. The nature and conditions of pragmatic and discourse transfer in cross-cultural interaction investigated through the naturalized role-play. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Melbourne. Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C. & Hui, H. C. (1990). Mult imethod probes of individualism and collectivism, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 1006-1020. Van der Wijst, P (1994). The perception of politeness in Dutch and French indirect requests. Text, 15, 477 501. Watts, J. R. (1989). Relevance and relation al work: Linguistic politeness and politic behavior. Multiligua 8 131-166. Watts, J. R. (1992). Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behavior: Reconsidering claims for universality. In J. R. Watts, S. I de, & K, Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its hi story, theory and practice (pp. 43-69). Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter. Watts, J. R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross cultural pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wolfson, N. (1981). Compliments in cross-cultural perspective. TESOL Quarterly 15, 117-124. Wolfson, N. (1983). Rules of speaking. In C. J. Richards & W. R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 61-87). London: Longman. Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. Yang, K. S. (1986). Chinese personality and its change, In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of Chinese people (pp. 211-266). Oxford: Oxfo rd University Press. 201

PAGE 202

Yao, X. (2000). An introduction to Confucianism Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Young, L. W. L. (1982). Insc rutability revisited. In J. J. Gumperz (Eds.). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zinzius, B. (2004). Doing business in the new China: A handbook and guide. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers. Zhang, Z. X., & Yang, C. F. (1998). Bey ond distributive justice: The reasonableness norm in Chinese reward allocation, Asian Journal of Social Psychology 1 253269. 202

PAGE 203

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jinping Zhu had a B.A. in English Educat ion from Shaanxi Teachers University and an M.A. in Foreign Languages and Applied Linguistics from Xian Jiaotong University. She worked as a university teacher in Xian Jiaotong University for years in Xian, China. She enro lled in the Linguistics Program at the University of Florida in August 2003. 203