General Research on Intercultural Facework Competence of Non—English Major Postgraduates

黃馨兒

【Abstract】This paper examines different intercultural facework competence in various intercultural conflicts between English major and non-English major postgraduates based on S.Ting-Toomeys face-negotiation theory. Data were collected by questionnaire called DCT and analyzed with Mean Comparison and ANOVA. The results show that （1） the facework competence of non-English major postgraduate students is lower than English major students in genera； （2） gender difference has been found to be a significant factor.

【Key words】face-negotiation theory； facework competence； intercultural conflicts

Introduction

Postgraduate students， as major members of future elites， are more likely to interact with foreigners. Therefore， it's significant to assess their intercultural communication competence， in which the most tough one is conflict-management capacity for face， which refers to projected image of a persons self in a relationship network （Ting-Toomey， 1988） is the most crucial factor for Chinese people.

Facework Competence Model

Facework competence is conceptualized as an optimal integration of knowledge， mindfulness and communication skills in managing selfs and others face-related concerns （Ting-Toomey， 1997）. There are three core dimensions in facework competence model： knowledge， mindfulness and communication skills.

Knowledge refers to the process of in-depth understanding of certain phenomenon via a range of information gained through conscious learning and personal experiences （Ting-Toomey & A-Kurogi， 1998）. Knowledge plays a fundamental role in formulating individuals intercultural competence.

Mindfulness （Thich， 1991） means attending to ones internal assumptions， cognitions and emotions and simultaneously attuning attentively to the others assumptions， cognitions and emotions. That is individuals have to have the access or ability to empathy via concerning others feeling and adapt ones own behavior to handle or avoid worse situations.

Interaction skill refers to our abilities to communicate appropriately， effectively and adaptively in a given situation （Ting-Toomey & A-Kurogi， 1998）. There are five interaction skills that can apply the knowledge and mindfulness to practice： mindful listening， mindful observation， facework management， trust-building and collaborative dialogue （Ting-Toomey， 1997）.

Facework Competence Criteria

Facework competence can be evaluated through four criteria： appropriateness， effectiveness， adaptability and interaction satisfaction （Cupach， 1997）.

Appropriateness refers to the degree to which behaviors are regarded as proper and match the expectations generated by the culture （Ting-Toomey & A-Kurogi， 1998）. It includes norms， beliefs， rituals， etc. in target culture. Effectiveness refers to the degree to which the disputants achieve their personal interests or goals in a given conflict episode （Ting-Toomey & A-Kurogi， 1998）. It describes the degree of optimal outcome one can achieve in conflicts. Interaction adaptability is our ability to display adaptive verbal and non-verbal behaviors in the actual facework negotiation process （Ting-Toomey & A-Kurogi， 1998）. Lastly， interaction satisfaction refers to the affective reactions of the conflict parties （Ting-Toomey & A-Kurogi， 1998）. The interaction satisfaction will be achieved only both parties positive expectation are satisfied.

Methodology

Research Questions

1. whats the difference between English major students and non-English major students in facework competence？

2. Whether female students facework competence is higher than the male？

Participants

The study is conducted with two groups， the experimental group are （Group1， non-English majors students， 22 women and 44 men） and the control group （Group2， English major learners， 9 men and 30 women）. All of them are typical Chinese students who have no experience in living abroad.

Questionnaire Description

There are sixteen multiple questions and thirteen of which are conflict situations and the rest of which are about basic information. There are four choices in each question with corresponding scores. To make the results more convincing， the questionnaire was sent to two foreign teachers respectively for checking.

Analysis and Results

After collecting all the questionnaires and calculating the final scores， some tables are made. The total score is 52 and the qualified score is 39 （S=situation）.

From this chart， we can conclude that the average score of Group2 is higher than Group1. Besides， 74.36% English major students are qualified， higher than Group1（46.05%）. In terms of facework competence model， S7 （cant go to friends knowledge； S5 （say an American is fat）， S6 （argue with a foreign professor） and S8 （be late） are to test interaction skills； S11 （ask private questions）， S12 （adapt to local customs）， S14 （be stared） are to test ones ability to help deal with embarrassed situations； finally， S4 （step on ones feet）， S7 （mess ones dress）， S9 （religious problem）， S13 （racial problem） are integrated questions.

For knowledge， Group1 is lower for they lack systematic study of intercultural communication. As for mindfulness， Group2 is higher， perhaps there are higher rate of women than in Group1. Chen （2011） said women are more likely to give or maintain face of both interlocutors. However， Group2 is lower in intercultural skills so this part is carried out specifically. We can see womens scores are higher than men in Table3. To further find reasons， the author interviewed 3 non-English major students （female） with the highest scores in this part and 3 English major students with the lowest. Their judgment is from interaction with foreign teachers but its not typical.

In S5， three English major students thought it was OK to wait for 5 minutes. However， three students in the other group are all boys and they thought the same way as female students！ So it has no business with major or gender.

The third part is mindfulness， so QQ message was sent to ask if they know the meaning of empathy. The total number is 115 and 80 students gave feedback in which 75% （12） English major students and only 30.8% （20） non-English major students know it.

Conclusion

Both two groups need to improve their interaction skills， teachers could give some skill training in classroom. It seems that the overall competence is satisfactory， but non-English major postgraduate students should enlarge their knowledge and learn to empathize during intercultural communication.

Findings from this study lead to several implications for future research on facework competence. Firstly， it seems necessary to use additional instruments such as interview to do further analysis. Secondly， larger samples should be used to improve accuracy and to achieve generalizability. it's hoped that replications of such studies will lead to a better understanding of facework competence and give reflection to English teachers in China.

Reference：

[1]Chen， Yanhui. 2011. Quantitative research on face negotiation behavior in intercultural conflicts. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching. 5： 35-38.

[2]Cupach， W. and Canary， D. 1997. Competence in interpersonal conflict. New York： McGraw-Hill.

[3]Thich， N. H. 1991. Peace is every step： The path of mindfulness in everyday life. New York： Bantam Books.

[4]Ting-Toomey， S. 1988. Intercultural conflict style： A face negotiation theory. Newbury Park， CA： Sage.

[5]Ting-Toomey， S. 1997. Intercultural conflict competence. In W. Cupach and D. Canary （Eds.）， Competence in interpersonal conflict. New York： McGraw-Hill.

[6]Ting-Toomey， S. and Askuto Kurogi. 1998. Facework competence in intercultural conflict： an updated face-negotiation theory. Int. J. Intercultural Rel. 22（2）： 187-225.