This study examines request strategies, detailing the relation between strategies and two social variables, Power and Distance (familiarity), in Chinese and Korean workplaces. Chapter 1 is an overview of the study: the definition of request, the motivation and purpose for the study, and the methodology using the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP). Chapter 2 reviews ancillary theories: speech acts, conversation analysis, politeness, face issues in Chinese and Korean, and the modified conventions of the CCSARP. Chapter 3 illustrates how the request strategies in both languages are coded in the CCSARP. It is the implementation of the CCSARP in these two non-Western languages that marks the significance of the study.
The data were collected from role-plays and naturally occurring conversations. These two genres were chosen so as to “complement each other in terms of exhaustiveness and authenticity” (p. xvi), but they also found non-matching results between the two scenarios. The role-plays were constructed from two social variables, and the three degrees permuted (+/−/ = ) into nine situations.
Chapters 4 and 5 examine the request strategies in each scenario, using both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Codings in the two settings were analyzed and frequencies were charted. The authors also compared the impact of social factors on strategies chosen by the Chinese and Koreans. The results show intricate relations between request strategies and social factors. Overall, Chinese are more indirect than Koreans and more sensitive to familiarity, while Koreans are sensitive to both power and familiarity.
Chapter 6 discusses general findings. The most indirect speech acts in role-play were used for [−P/ = P, −D], [+P, −D] in Chinese and [ = P, −D], [+P, +D] in Korean. That means that in familiar contexts, Chinese speakers tended to use indirect strategies regardless of power, while the Koreans used indirect strategies when they were equal to and familiar with the other ([ = P, –D]), or when superior to and unfamiliar with the other ([+P, +D]). The two groups showed different attitudes in choosing strategies to function appropriately in their community. Direct speech acts, on the other hand, were used most frequently toward equal acquaintances [ = P, = D] in both languages. The direct strategies were also adopted more in natural conversations, with high distribution in Korean because its honorific system can “mitigate the illocutionary force of a direct request act” (297).
Chapter 7 examines sequential turn-taking in different scenarios. Observation suggests that Chinese used longer, more complex negotiation sequences than Koreans. Overall, the Chinese were more indirect in negotiations.
The last chapter restates the findings about the similarities and differences between the two languages. Similarities exist, including using more indirect strategies in role-play than in conversations. Speakers in both languages also favored external modifications, regardless of power or familiarity. A major difference between them involved internal modifications. The Koreans used honorific devices extensively (60%), while the Chinese used far fewer (16%), but used other internal modifications more. In conclusion, the book offers a thorough linguistic analysis of request strategies in the Chinese and Korean work place, and promotes better understanding of cross-cultural communication.
