本研究根據「語言行為理論 (Speech act theory)」、「禮貌理論 (Politeness theory)」、與文化面向之個人主義(individualism) 和集體主義(collectivism)因素，以結合「語言認知 (perception)」與「語言行為表現(production)」的方式，探討台灣大學生語言行為中，中英「請求」中介語(Interlanguage of Request)。受試者分為三組，第一組為30位美國大學生，主要收集英語基準語料 (baseline)，第二組30位台灣大學生，主要收集漢語基準語料，第三組為以英語為第二外語的台灣大學生，主要收集第二外語語料。各組男女人數各半。語料收集的工具包括以五點尺度量表(Five-point Scale-response questionnaires) 和言談情境填充問卷(Discourse Completion Tasks) (DCT)，分別收集受試者在三項變數下，包括請求行為的「高/低困擾程度(Degree of Imposition)」、對話者的「社會地位(Social Status)高低」與「社會距離遠近(Social Distance)」，受試者各在請求行為的「語言認知」與「語言表現行為」方面的資料。本研究共收集5400筆「語言認知 (perception)」及1800筆「語言行為表現(production)」的有效(valid)資料。在「語言認知 (perception)」分析方面，包括分析受試者在提出請求的「困擾程度(Degree of Imposition)」「困難程度(Degree of Difficulty)「提出請求的可能性(the Likelihood of Request)」的反應。在「語言表現方面」方面，依據CCSARP (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper,1989) 「請求行為」分析原則，將單一「請求行為」分割為兩部分:「請求策略(Request strategies)與「請求之外部修飾語(external modifications)」。「請求策略」並依據禮貌程度高低，分為「直接策略(Direct strategies)」、「間接策略 (Conventional indirect strategies)」 「迂迴間接(Non-conventional Indirect strategies)」，並以質性與量化並重方式分析，所得研究結果如下。在「語言認知」方面，兩組受試者在「提出請求的可能性」方面並沒有差別，進而證實研究問卷的有效性；然而在向對方提出請求的「困擾程度」「困難程度」的認知方面，中國學生在所有情境下皆高於美國學生，而這樣的「語言認知」反映在中國人比美國人用較多的「外部修飾語」來修飾「請求行為」。 在「請求策略」的使用喜好方面，中國人、第二外語學習者與美國人皆相同: Conventional Indirect>Direct> Non-Conventional Indirect strategies。有關「直接策略」的使用方面，在「低困擾程度」、「低社會地位」與「低社會距離」的情境下，中國學生比美國學生使用更多的「直接策略」。在「負語用轉移」方面，第二外語學習者在「直接策略」的用法Bare-imperative Help, Please+Imperative, Please+help和間接策略用法 Would you let me…?產生「負語言語用轉移(negative pragmalinguistic transfers)」；而在「負社會語用轉移(Negative sociolinguistic transfers)」則發生在第二外語學習者在「低社會地位」與「低社會距離」的情境下使用「直接策略」如Bare-imperative Help, Please+Imperative, Please+help及在「間接策略」 Can (Could) …? /能不能 (Neng-bu-neng )?, May I …?。最後並建議以結合「語言認知 (perception)」與「語言行為表現(production)」的方式並針對三項變數對學生之語用行為加以分析，有利於對學生「語用覺察能力(pragmatic awareness)」的進一步了解。

The purpose of the study was to investigate Chinese EFL interlanguage request behaviors in terms of both perception and production on the perspective of pragmatic transfer based on theoretical issues of Speech Act Theory, politeness theory and cultural dimension of individualism vs. collectivism. Data were obtained from three groups of participants: 30 native speakers of Chinese college students (CL1s), 30 non-English-major Chinese EFLs college students (Chinese EFLs) and 30 native speakers of English college students (EL1s). Data for analysis consisted of 5400 perception responses collected with the instrument of 5-point Scale-response Questionnaires (SRQ) and 1800 production responses collected with the instrument of 20-item Discourse Completion Task (DCT) varied with contextual factors of Degree of Imposition, Status and Distance. Responses of perceptions were analyzed in terms of Degree of Imposition, Degree of Difficulty, and the Likelihood of Request on performing the act. Responses of productions were coded into two parts: the head act of request strategies consisting of Direct (including Mood Derivable, Explicit Performative, Hedge Performative, Locution Derivable, Want Statement), Conventional Indirect (including Suggestory Formula, Query Preparatory), Non-conventional Indirect strategies (Strong Hint, Mild Hints) and external modifications (i.e. supportive moves) according to the coding schema of CCSARP (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989). With qualitative and quantitative data analysis, some important findings were obtained. Regarding the perception task, CL1s and EFLs did not differ in their judgment on the Likelihood of Request, which further verified the validity of the questionnaire. However, CL1s generally perceived higher Degree of Imposition and Difficulty than did EL1s on requestive behaviors regardless of the shifting of contextual factors Status, Distance and Degree of Imposition and such perception reflected in their more frequent use of supportive moves than EL1s in all contexts. With regard to strategy use, the three groups yielded the same preference order: Conventional Indirect>Direct> Non-Conventional Indirect strategies in all contexts. Although CL1s were found to use more Direct strategies than did their EL1 counterparts, significant difference lay only in Low Imposition, Low Status and Low Distance situations. As for pragmatic transfer, negative pragmalinguistic transfers were found in Chinese EFLs’ use of linguistic forms of Direct strategies such as Bare-imperative Help, Please+Imperative, Please+help and the Conventional Indirect strategy, Would you let me…? Negative sociolinguistic pragmatic transfers were found in Chinese EFLs’ use of Direct strategies in Low Status/Distance situations, and the Conventional Indirect strategy of Can (Could) …? /能不能 (Neng bu neng )…? in Low Imposition/Distance and May I …? Positive pragmalinguistic and sociolinguistic transfers were also found in either Chinese EFLs’ Direct or Conventional Indiret strategies. The study ends up with some theoretical and pedagogical implications. It is suggested that both participants’ requestive responses of production and perception be considered when analyzing interlanguage speech act behaviors in order to gain a better understanding of speakers’ and learners’ pragmatic awareness of speech act behaviors.

ABSTRACT 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS 7
CHAPTER 1 INTROCUTION 16
1.1 BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION 16
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 19
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS 19
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 21
2.1 SPEECH ACT THEORY 21
2.2 POLITENESS IN PRAGMATICS: UNIVERSAL OR CULTURAL-SPECIFIC? 23
2.2.1 Conversational view of politeness 24
2.2.2 Face-saving View of Politeness 25
2.2.3 Culturally speaking: Politeness in collectivistic and individualistic cultures 30
2.3 CROSS-CULTURAL AND INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATICS 33
2.3.1 Interlanguage Pragmatics 34
2.3.2 Pragmatic Transfer: Pragmalinguistic and Sociolinguistic Transfer 35
2.4 THE SPEECH ACT OF REQUEST 37
2.4.1 Cross-Cultural Studies in Request 38
2.4.2 Interlanguage Studies on Request 44
2.4.3 Request Studies in Mandarin Chinese 49
2.4.4 Summary of the reviewed request studies 58
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 60
3.1 PARTICIPANTS 60
3.2 INSTRUMENTS 61
3.2.1 Scaled-Response Questionnaire (SRQ) 61
3.2.2 Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) 61
3.3 THE PROCEDURE OF DATA COLLECTION 68
3.4 CODING SCHEME AND DATA ANALYSIS 69
3.4.1 Definitions of Request Strategies and External Modifications 72
3.4.1.1 Request strategies 72
The request strategies in our coding system are defined and exemplified in the following: 72
3.2.4.2 Supportive moves 81
3.5 DATA ANALYSES 90
4.1 RESULTS OF SCALED-RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE (SRQ) (PERCEPTION) 91
4.1.1 Groups’ Perception on Contextual Factors 91
4.1.2 Degree of imposition 92
4.1.2.1 Degree of Imposition 93
4.1.2.2 Social Distance 94
4.1.2.3 Social Status 95
4.1.2.4 Interlocutors’ Gender 95
4.1.3 Degree of Difficulty 96
4.1.3.1 Degree of Imposition 97
4.1.3.2 Social Distance 98
4.1.3.3 Social Status 98
4.1.3.4 Interlocutors’ Gender 99
4.1.4 Likelihood of Request 99
4.1.4.1 Degree of Imposition 100
4.1.4.2 Social Distance 101
4.1.4.3 Social Status 101
4.1.4.4 Interlocutors’ Gender 102
4.1.5 Summary of the Result of Scaled-response Questionnaires 102
4.2 DCT RESULTS 104
4.2.1 The Procedure of Statistical Analysis 104
4.2.2 The Three Groups’ Selections of the Three Main Request Strategies 107
4.2.3 Groups’ Selections of Three Main Request Strategies on Contextual factors 111
4.2.3.1 Imposition 111
4.2.3.1.1 In High Imposition Situations 111
Table 4.2.3 displays the three groups’ use of the three main request stragegies in High Imposition situations. 111
4.2.3.1.2 In Low Imposition Situations 112
Table 4.2.4 displays the three groups’ use of the three main request stragegies in Low Imposition situations. 112
4.2.3.2 Social Status 114
4.2.3.2.1 In High Status Situations 114
4.2.3.2.2 In Equal Status Situations 115
4.2.3.2.3 In Low Status Situations 116
4.2.3.3 Distance 118
4.2.3.3.1 In High Distance Situations 118
4.2.3.3.2 In Equal Distance Situations 119
4.2.3.3.3 In Low Distance Situations 120
4.2.3.4 Interlocutors’ Gender 122
4.2.3.4 Summary 122
4.2.4 The Use of the 9 Sub-strategies by the Three Groups 133
4.2.4.1 The Use of Linguistic Forms of Direct strategies 134
4.2.4.1.1 The Linguistic Form: S1.1 Bare Imperatives 134
4.2.4.1.2 The Linguistic Form: S2.1Please + Imperative 138
4.2.4.1.3 Explicit performative: S2.0 I am asking you to …/麻煩(ma fan); 拜託(bai tuo) 142
4.2.4.1.4 S3 Hedge Performative: I’d like/want to ask you …我想請(wo xiang qing)/讓你幫我忙(rang ni bang wo mang)… 144
4.2.4.1.5 S5 Want Statement 145
4.2.4.1.6 Summary of the Use of Linguistic Forms of the Direct Strategy 147
4.2.4.2 The Linguistic Forms of Conventional Indirect Strategy- Query Preparatory 150
4.2.4.2.1 Query Preparatory used by Groups on Contextual Factors 150
4.2.4.2.2 The Linguistic Form: S7.1 Can (Could) …? /能不能 (neng bu neng )… 151
4.2.4.3.3 The Linguistic Form: S7.2 Would you …?/ 願不願意 (yuan bu yuan yi).. 153
4.2.4.2.4 The Linguistic Form S7.2.1 I would appreciate it if ~/ 如果…會非常感激(ru-guo…hui fei-chang gan-ji) 154
4.2.4.2.5 The Linguistic Form: S7.3 May I …? 可不可以(Ke-bu-keyi)? 155
4.2.4.2.6 The Linguistic Form: S7.3.1 Would you let me~ (你 可以/能 讓我 ni ke-yi / neng rang wo…) 158
4.2.4.2.7 The Linguistic Form: S7.4 Is there any chance/way that…有沒有機會/方式(you mei you ji-hui /fang-shi)… 160
4.2.4.2.8 Summary of the Use of Six Linguistic Forms of Preparatory 161
4.2.5 External Modifications: Supportive Movies 166
4.2.5.1 The Use of Supportive Moves by Groups on Contextual Factors 166
4.2.5.2 The Use of Supportive Moves by Groups per Requestive Response 169
4.2.5.3 Types of Supportive Moves Used by Groups 172
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION 179
5.1 CONCLUSION 179
5.2 IMPLICATIONS 186
5.3 LIMITATION 188
REFERENCES 189
APPENDIX 204
APPENDIX 1: THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EL1 204

Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational Routines in English. London: Longman.
Asher, R.E., & Simpson, J.M. (Eds.). (1994). The Encyclopedia Of Language and Linguistics. (Vol, 6), pp3267. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Aston, G. (1995). Say 'thank you': Some pragmatic constraints in conversational closings. Applied Linguistics, 16, 1, 57-86.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K, & Hartford, B. (1993). Refining the DCT: Comparing open questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks. In L. Bouton, & Y. Kachru (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series (pp.143-165), Vol.4. Urbana, IL: Division of English as International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitonal pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677-713.
Barron, A. (2000). Acquiring "different strokes:" A longitudinal study of the development of L2 pragmatic competence [HTML document]. GFL: German as a Foreign Language [online] 2. Retrieved [5.10.'00] from the World Wide Web: http://www.gfl-journal.com/
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How To Do Things With Words in A Study Abroad Context. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Beebe, L.M., & Cummings, M.C. (1996). Natural speech act data vs. written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In J. Neu, & S.M. Gass (Eds.). Speech Act Across Cultures (pp.65-86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Billmyer, K. (1993). The Role of Gender in Conversation: Some Insights from A Community Of Teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 54 (12). (UMI No. 9413862)
Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 517-52.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1983). Interpreting and performing speech acts in a second language: A cross-cultural study of Hebrew and English. In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 36-55). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11(1), 131-46.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 37-95). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.) (1989), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 37-70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker,& S.M., Sharwood, M. Swain, (Eds.), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research: A Commemorative Volume For Claus Faerch (pp. 255-72). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Blum-Kulka, S. and Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: a cross -cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5,196-213.
Blum-Kulka, S., & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 123-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 165-79.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Alblex Publishing Corporation.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp.1-34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Bond, M.H., Wan, K., Leung, K. & Giacalone, R.A. (1985). How are responses to verbal insult related to cultural collectivism and power distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(1), 111-127.
Boxer, D. (1993). Complaints as positive strategies: What the learner needs to know. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (2), 277-299.
Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding Research in Second Language Learning: A Teacher's Guide to Statistics and Research Design. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge.University Press, Cambridge.
Byon, A. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1673-1704.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Carrell, P. and B. Konneker. (1981). Politeness: Comparing native and nonnative judgements. Language Learning, 31, 17-31
Carrell, P., & Konneker, B.H. (1981). Politeness: Comparing native and nonnative judgments. Language Learning, 31(1), 17-31.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course (2nd ed.). Heinle & Heinle, second edition.
Chang, H. C., & Holt, G. R. (1994). A Chinese perspective on face as inter-relational concern. In S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues (pp. 95-132). Albany: SUNY Press.
Chen, G.M., & Chung, J. (1994). The Impact of Confucianism on organizational communication. Communication Quarterly, 41:93-105.
Chung, S.H.A. (1995). A cross-cultural pragmatic exploration of polite request strategies: Chinese and American English. Dissertation Abstracts International, DAIA 56 (04). (UMI No. 9528281).
Clark, H.H, & Schunk, D.H. (1980). Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition, 8, 111-143.
Clark, H.H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A.D. (1996). Developing the ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 253-267.
Cohen, A.D., & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), 33-56.
Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Edmondson, W., & House, J. (1991), Do learners talk too much? The waffle phenomenon in interlanguage pragmatics. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker,& S.M., Sharwood, M. Swain, (Eds.), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research: A Commemorative Volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 273-87). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 64-81). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1982). The origins of interlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 3(3), 207-223.
Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14:1-23.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 221-247). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219-216.
Fraser, B., Rintell, E., Waters, J. (1980). An approach to conducting research on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Eds.), Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research (pp.75-91). Rowley, Ma: Newbury House.
Fukushima, S. (1996). Request strategies in British English and Japanese. Language Sciences, 18(3-4), 671-688.
Fukushima, S. (200). Request and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Gao, H. (1998). Don’t take my word for it.—Understanding Chinese speaking practices. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 163-186.
Garacia, C. (1996). Reprimanding and Responding to a Reprimand. Journal of Pragmatics, 26:663-697.
García, C. (1993). Making a request and responding to it: A case study of Peruvian Spanish speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 127-152.
Gass, S.M., & Varonis, E.M. (1991) Misconmumunication in nonnative speaker discourse. In N. Coupland, H., Giles, & J.M., Wiemann, “Miscommunication” and Problematic Talk (pp121-145). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Gibbs, R. W. (1985). Situational conventions and requests. In: J. P. Forgas (Eds.), Language and Social Situations. New York: Springer Verlag
Grahame, B. (1995). Requesting strategies in the cross-cultural business meeting. Pragmatics, 5 (1): 45–55.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol.3): Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatic, 14, 237-257
Gudykunst, W. B., & Mody, B. (Eds.) (2002). Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510-543.
Gumperz, J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking Context (pp. 229-252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hassall, T. (2003). Request by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(12).1903-1928.
Hassall, T.J. (1997). Requests by Australian Learners of Indonesian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra.
Hassall, Tim. (2001). Modifying requests in a second language IRAL, 39 (2001), pp. 259–283.
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Hill B., Ide S., Ikuta S., Kawasaki A., Ogino T. (1986). Universals of Linguistic Politeness. Quantitative Evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(1): 347-371.
Hill, T. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence in a Chinese EFLs context. Dissertation Abstract International, DAIA 58(10), (UMI No.9813574)
Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple-choice data. Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 1-26.
Ho, D. Y. (1976).On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociologist, 81, 867-884.
Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management Review, 9/3,389-398.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Culturals and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Holmes, J. (1987). Compliments and Compliment Responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics, 28, 458-508.
Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19 (2), 155-99
Holmes, J. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
Holmes, J. (1993). New Zealand Women Are Good to Talk To: An Analysis of Politeness Strategies in Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(2): 91-116.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness, New York: Longman.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J.-N. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 719-729
Hong, W. (1996). An empirical study of Chinese request strategies. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 122, 127-138
Hong, Wei. (1993). A cross cultural study of request in Chinese and German. Dissertation Abstract International, DAIA 54(07). (UMI No. 9334361)
House J., Kasper G., & S. Ross (Eds.) (2003). Misunderstanding in Social Life. Discourse Approaches to ProblematicTalk. London: Longman.
House, J, & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F.Coulmas (Eds.). Conversational Routine (157-86). The Hague: Mouton.
House, J. (1986) Cross-cultural pragmatics and foreign language teaching. In Seminar fur Sprachlehrforschung der Ruhr-Universitat Bochum (Eds.), Probleme und Perspektiven der Sprachlerhrforschung (pp.281-295). Frankfurt, Germany: Scriptor.
House, J. (1989). Politeness in English and German: The function of please and bitte. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 1-34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
House, J. (2000). Understanding misunderstanding: A pragmatic-discourse approach to analyzing mismanaged rapport in talk across cultures. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Eds.), Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures (pp. 146-164). London: Continuum.
House, J., and S. Blum-Kulka (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F.Coulmas (Eds.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech (pp.157-185). New York: Mouton.
Hu, H.C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of face. American Anthropologist, 46(1), 45-64.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of Sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Johnston, B., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1998). Effect of rejoinders in production questionnaires. Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 157-82.
Kasper, G, & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlangauge pragmatics: An introduction. In G. Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka, (Eds.), Interlangauge Pragmatics (pp.3-17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 193-218.
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8(3), 203-231.
Kasper, G. (1994). Politeness. In R. E. Asher et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 3206-3212). Edinburgh: Pergamon and University of Aberdeen press.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 213-247.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic Development in A Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
Kim, M.S. (1993). Cultural-based interactive constraints in explaining intercultural strategic competence. In R.L.Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural Communication Competence (pp.132-150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kim, W.(1995). Requests as Performed by Korean Non-native Speakers of English. Unpublished M.A. Thesis: University of Korea.
Kirkpatrick, A. (1991). Information sequencing in Mandarin in letters of request. Anthropological Linguistics, 33(2), 183-203.
Koike, D. A. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges To Communication In A Second Language (pp. 257-281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Le Pair, Rob. 1996. Spanish request strategies: A cross-cultural analysis from an intercultural perspective. Language Science, 18.651-670
Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of Pragmtics. London and New York: Longman.
Lee-Wong, Song Mei. (1994a). Imperatives in requests: direct or impolite Observations from Chinese. Pragmatics 4(4), 491-515
Lee-wong, Song Mei. (1994b). Qing / Please-a polite or requestive marker?Observations from Chinese. Multilingua, 13(4), 343-360
Li, D. (2000). The pragmatics of making requests in the L2 workplace: A case study of language socialization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57 (1), 58-87.
Liao, C. C., & Bresnahan, M. I. (1996). A contrastive pragmatics study on EL1 English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language Sciences, 18, 703-727.
Liao, C.C. (1997). Comparing Directives: American English, Mandarin, and Taiwanese English. Taipei: Crane
Liu, Y.H., Pan, Wen-Yu, & Gu.W. (1996). Modern Chinese Grammar: For teachers of Chinese as a second language & advanced learners of Chinese. (S.H, Teng, Eds.). Taiwan, Taipei: Shi-da Shu-yuan publisher.
Lu, Xing, 1998. An interface between individualistic and collectivistic orientations in Chinese cultural values and social relations. The Howard Journal of Communication, 9(2): 91-107.
Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlangauge apologying. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in A Second Language (pp. 155-187). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mao, L.R. (1994). Beyound politeness theory: Face revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451-486.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426.
Meier, A. J. (1998). Apologies: What do we know? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8 (2), 215-231.
Meyer, Janet R. (2001). Effect of Request Type and Situational Features on Negative Politeness in Requests. Communication Research Reports, 18, 158-165.
Nelson, G.L., Bakary, W.E., & Batal, M.A. (1996). Egyptian and American compliments: Focus on second language learners. In: S.M.Gass, J.Neu, (Eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in A Second Language (pp.109-128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
O'Driscoll, J.(1996). About face: A defence and elaboration of universal dualism. Journal of Pagmatics, 25(2), 1-32.
Olshtain, E. & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In S. Blum-Kulka & G. Kasper (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 108-122). New York: Oxford University Press.
Olshtain, E., and Cohen, A. (1989). Speech act behaviour across languages. In Dechert, H. and R. Manfred (Eds.). Transfer in Language Production (pp. XVII: 53-67). Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
Penman, R. (1994). Facework in communication: Conceptual and moral challenges. In S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Challenge of Facework (pp.15-46). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A Contrastive Study of Request and Apology. Amsterdam. Philadelphia: Benjamins J. Publishing Company.
Rintell, E. (1981). Sociolinguistic variation and pragmatic ability: A look at learners'. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27:11-34.
Rosaldo, M. (1982). The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society, 11, 203-237.
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22 (1), 27-67.
Rose, K.R. (1999). Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong. In: E. Hinkel, (Eds.). Culture In Second Language Teaching And Learning (pp.167-180). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K.R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27-67.
Ruhil, A. (1998). “I lost the bus: Can you give me a ride home?” Native and nonnative English speakers’ speech act production and metapragmatic judgments: A study on apology, complaints, and requests. Dissertation Abstract International, 59(08), DAI-A (UMI No.9901766).
Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating Chinese EFLs students' production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 4, 457-84.
Schauer, G. A. (2004). May you speak louder maybe? Interlanguage pragmatic development in requests. In S. H. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace & M. Ota (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook (Vol. 4, pp. 253-273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. (1994). Face parameters in East- West discourse. In S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Challenge of Facework (pp.133-158). Albany: State University of New York Press
Scollon, R. & Wong-Scollon, S. (1991). Topic confusion in English-Asian discourse. World English, 10: 113-125.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.B. (1995): Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell
Searle, J. R. (1975). A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts: Language, Mind and Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Searle, J.R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society. 5, 1-23.
Searle, J.R. (1980). The Background of Meaning. In J. Searle, F. Keifer & M. Bierwisch (Eds.), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics (pp. 221-232). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General Linguistics, 9, 67–92.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231
Selinker, L. (1983). Interlanguage. In B.W.Robinett & J. schachter (Eds.), Second Language Learning: Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, and Related Aspects (pp. 171-196). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press
Shih, E.Yu-hwei. (1986). Conversational Politeness and Foreign Language Teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford University Press
Spencer-Oatey, H. (1993). Conceptions of social relations and pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 27-47.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures (pp. 11-46). London: Continuum.
Suh, J.S. (1999). Pragmatic perception of politeness in requests by Korean learners of English as a second language. IRAL, 37, (3), 195-213.
Takahashi, S. (1995). Pragmatic transferability of L1 indirect request strategies perceived by Japanese learners of English. Dissertation Abstract International, DAI-A 56(05), (UMI No.9532631)
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 189–223
Takahashi, S., & Beebe, L. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 138-157). New York: Oxford University Press.
Takahashi, S., & DuFon, M. A. (1989). Cross-Linguistic Influence in Indirectness: The Case of English Directives Performed By Native Japanese Speakers. Unpublished manuscript, Department of English as a Second Language, University of Hawai'i at Manoa. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED370439).
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-109.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Tim, H. (2001). Modifying requests in a second language. IRAL, 39, 259–283.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face negotiation theory. In Y.Y.Kim & W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in Intercultural Communication (pp. 213-238). Newbury Pk, CA: Sage.
Trandis, H.C. (1994). Culture and Social Behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter.
Upadhyay, S. R. (2003). Nepali requestive acts: Linguistic indirectness and politeness reconsidered. Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (10), 1651-1678.
Vazquez-Orta, I. (1996). Politeness as Defense: A Pragmatic View. Pragmalinguistica, 2:267-286.
Weizman, E. (1989). Requestive hints. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 71-95). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Weizman, E., and Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Identifying and interpreting translated Texts: On the Role of Pragmatic Adjustment. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1312, 67-75.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-179.
Wolfson, N. (1988). The bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. In J. Fine (Eds.), Second Language Discourse: A Textbook Of Current Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablez.
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL.Cambride: Newbury House.
Wolfson, N. (1989). The social dynamics of native and nonnative variation in complimenting behavior. In M Eisenstein. (Eds.) (1989). The Dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical Studies in Second Language Variation (pp.219-36). NY: Plenum
Young, L. W. L. (1994). Crosstalk and Culture in Sino-American Communication.Cambridge University Press.
Yu, M.C. (1999). Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics, 9(2), 281-312.
Zhang, Y. (1995a). Stragegies in Chinese requesting. In Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language. Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), 25-68. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Zhang, Y. (1995b). Indirectness in Chinese requesting. In Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language. Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), 69-118. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Zuengler, J. (1993). The role of gender in interactional learner communication strategies. Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 54 (10). (UMI No.9404754)

Dictionary:
Sinclair, J., & Fox, G. (Eds.). (1992). Collins COBUILD English usage. Glasgow: HarperCollins.
Summers, Della et al. (Eds.) (2001). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (3rd.Eds). Oxford: Longman Group UK Limited.