Request softeners

This section presents the descriptive and inferential statistics on the types of request softeners used by AHLs, SALs and ENGs. It begins with comparisons across the three groups, followed by longitudinal data for the SALs.

i. Cross-group comparisons of request softeners

As can be seen from Table 6.4, ENGs used softeners more frequently than both AHLs and SALs in all situations in all rounds. Somewhat unexpectedly, the AHLs also used more softeners than the SALs in T1 and T2. The biggest contrast between the number of request

softeners between ENGs and SALs occurred when their status was lower than their interlocutor. The SALs used the least number of softeners when their status was lower than the interlocutor, and it decreased dramatically from T1 to T3.

Table 6.4: Descriptive statistics for the number of request softeners used by AHLs, SALs and ENGs (%)

Participant’s status

Request heads χ² Exact Sig.

Mutual Direct 0(F) 0 Conv ind 1.02(F) ₁ Noncon ind 0(F) 0 High Direct 2.47(p) _.21 Conv ind 2.47(p) .21 Noncon ind 0 0 Low Direct 3.64(p) .05* Conv ind 3.64(p) _.05* Noncon ind 0(F) 0 Participant’s status Use of softeners

Mutual High Low

T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 ENGs (n=30) Not used 12 (40) 18 (60) 16 (53) Used 18 (60) 12 (40) 14 (47) AHLs (n=30) Not used 19 (63) 17 (57) 24 (80) 19 (63) 26 (87) 19 (63) Used 11 (37) 13 (43) 6 (20) 11 (37) 4 (13) 11 (37) SALs (n=21) Not used 18 (86) 18 (86) 16 (76) 19 (91) 17 (81) 16 (76) 20 (95) 4 (19) 3 (14) Used 3 (14) 3 (14) 5 (24) 2 (19) 4 (19) 5 (24) 1 (5) 17 (81) 18 (86)

Effect of study abroad on SALs’ pragmatic performance on English request devices

125

The chi-square analyses in Table 6.5 show that in T1 significant differences were found

between the number of ENGs, AHLs and SALs who used request softeners when they had mutual (χ²= 10.96, df = 2, p < .01), lower (χ² = 8.51, df = 2, p < .05) and higher (χ² = 15.44, df = 2, p < .01) status than their interlocutors. Further chi-square analyses revealed a significantly higher number of ENGs used more request softeners than AHLs when they had lower status than their interlocutor in T2 (χ² = 8.01, df = 1, p < .01). Additionally, a

significantly higher number of ENGs used request softeners as compared to SALs when they had mutual (χ² = 10.66, df = 1, p < .01), higher (χ² = 5.76, df = 1, p < .01) and lower (χ² = 12.35, df = 1, p < .01) status than their interlocutor.

Similarly, in T2,there was a significant difference between the number of ENGs, AHLs and

SALs who used softeners when they had a mutual status interlocutor (χ²= 12.86, df = 2, p < .01). Further chi-square tests showed significantly more ENGs used request softeners than the AHLs (χ² = 6.76, df = 1, p < .05) and SALs (χ² = 9.46, df = 1, p < .01).

Compared to ENGs, a significantly lower number of SALs used softeners when they had mutual (χ² = 7.79, df = 1, p < .01), higher (χ² = 6.64, df = 1, p < .05) and lower (χ² = 5.12, df = 1, p < .05) status than their interlocutor even by T3.

Table 6.5: Chi-square tests for cross-group comparisons of request softeners used by AHLs, SALs and ENGs

Notes:

1. Pearson’s chi-square values(P) _{= <20 of expected cells is 5. Fisher’s exact test values}(F) _{= 20> of expected cells is 5.}

2. χ² statistical significance: **p <.01, *p <.05 (2 tailed). T1 (NSs vs AHLs vs SALs) T2 (NSs vs AHLs vs SALs) T3 (NSs vs SALs)

Participant’s status χ² Exact Sig.

χ² Exact Sig. χ² Exact Sig. Mutual: Main comparisons 10.96(P) .004** 12.86(F) .001** 7.79(F) .01** Posthoc: ENGs vs SALs

Posthoc: ENGs vs AHLs Posthoc: SALs vs AHLs

10.66(P) 3.27(P) 3.10(P) .001** .12 .11 6.76(F) 9.46(F) 0 .02* .005** 0

High: Main comparisons 8.51(F) .03* 2.68(P) .29 6.64(F) .02* Posthoc: ENGs vs SALs

Posthoc: ENGs vs AHLs Posthoc: SALs vs AHLs

5.76(P) 3.98(F) 2.24(F) .03* .10 .37

Low: Main comparisons 15.44(F) _{.001** 6.15}(F) _{.12 5.12}(F) _.04*

Posthoc: ENGs vs SALS Posthoc: ENGs vs AHLs Posthoc: SALs vs AHLs

12.35(F) 8.01(F) 2.14(F) .001** .01** .36

Effect of study abroad on SALs’ pragmatic performance on English request devices

126

ii. Within-group comparisons of request softeners ENGs

As can be seen from Table 6.6, a high number of ENGs used ‘Would/Do you mind/like’, especially when they had mutual status interlocutor. Interestingly, the ENGs who used request softeners to lessen the impact of requests preferred to use ‘I was wondering’ regardless of whether they had the same, higher or lower status as their interlocutor.

Table 6.6: Descriptive statistics for the types the request softeners used by ENGs (n=30) (%)

Here, the within-group request softener results for AHLs were also provided so that we can see the types of request softeners they used in T1 and T2 compared to ENGs and AHLs. As can be seen from Table 6.7, there appears to be almost no increase between the number of learners who used softeners regardless of the interlocutor’s status. In the mutual-status situations, a low number of AHLs used softeners. Similarly in the low-status situations, there was a slight increase in AHLs’ use of softeners. There was very little change between the number of AHLs who used softeners in T1 and T2 when they had higher status. Fisher’s Exact

Test revealed there was no statistical significance between AHLs’ use of softeners in T1 and

T2 when their status were of mutual (X2 = .62, df = 1, ns), lower (Fisher = .86, df = 2, ns) and

higher (Fisher = .63, df = 2, ns) than their interlocutors.

Table 6.7: Descriptive statistics for the types the request softeners used by AHLs (n=30) (%)

Softener types Mutual High Low

I was wondering 8 (27) 6 (20) 7 (24)

Would/Do you mind/like 9 (30) 3 (10) 1 (3)

Do you reckon 1 (3)

Is it possible

Do you think 1 (3)

2 (7) 6 (20)

Total ENGs used softeners 18 (60) 12 (40) 14 (47) Total ENGs not used softeners 12 (40) 18 (60) 16 (53)

Types of softeners Mutual High Low

T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2

I was wondering 1 (3.3) 1 (3) 1 (3)

Would/Do you mind/like 11 (37) 12 (40) 5 (16.7) 9 (30) 4 (13) 10 (33)

Do you reckon 1 (3)

Is it possible 1 (3)

Do you think

Total AHLs used softeners 11 (37) 13 (43) 6 (20) 11 (37) 4 (13) 11 (37) Total AHLs not used softeners 19 (63) 17 (57) 24 (80) 19 (63) 26 (87) 19 (63)

Effect of study abroad on SALs’ pragmatic performance on English request devices

127

SALs

Though the number of SALs who used request softeners increased steadily from T1 to T3

when they had mutual and higher status than their interlocutor, it remained low throughout this period (See Table 6.7). Chi-square tests revealed there were no statistical significant differences between the number of softeners SALs used when they had mutual and higher than their interlocutor in T1 and T3 (χ² = 1.07, df = 1, ns; χ² = 1.72, df = 1, ns respectively).

The only significant increase between the number of softeners SALs used from T1 to T3 was

when they had lower status than their interlocutor (χ² = 7.30, df = 1, p < .05).

Table 6.8: Descriptive statistics for the distribution of request softeners used by SALs (n=21) (%)