请大家帮忙翻译一段话 死活没有看懂

请大家帮忙翻译一段话 死活没有看懂
There are two important points to note in connection with this finding. First, the circumstances surrounding the Michael-Meihua conversation provide a natural explanation for the relative preponderance of backchannel behavior in Michael's talk as compared with Meihua's. If frequency were the only factor we were concerned with, we could explain the difference between Michael's and Meihua's backchannel behavior in terms of the interview-like nature of the conversation without regard to any superstratum influence. This also explains the fact that Michael produced more backchannels in talking with Meihua than Walter did in talking with Wenyi, since Meihua talked more in the Michael-Meihua dyad, while Walter talked more in the Walter- Wenyi dyad.
The several other respects in which Michael's and Waiter's backchannel behavior is similar, however, have led us to consider the effect of superstratum
influence as a major (and heretofore unexplored) factor in explaining the differences between the backchannel activities of Michael and Walter, on the
one hand, and Meihua and Wenyi, on the other.
Another factor which several commenters have suggested to us is the possible influence of status differences between Michael and Walter, on the one hand, and Meihua and Wenyi, on the other. We noted in section 3 that both Michael and Walter were professors and Meihua and Wenyi were students at the time the respective conversations took place. Could it be that this status difference, rather than the difference in language history, is the primary factor influencing the differences in frequency of backchannel use? Our answer to this question is 'probably not', for two reasons. The first reason is that if status differences were the primary factor responsible for the differences in backchannel behavior, we would expect that they would have the opposite effect. That is, we would expect that persons of lower status would backchannel more than those of higher status (for some discussion of this point, see Erikson and Shultz 1982 and Cheepen 1988). But this is just the opposite of what we have found: in our data, it is the persons of higher status who produce more backchannel responses that those of lower status. The second reason to doubt that status plays a major explanatory role is that, just as in the case of the interview factor, frequency is not the only parameter along which the backchannel behavior of the English-dominant speakers differed from that of the Mandarin-dominant speakers. The four other factors which we are considering in this section add up to an effect from superstratum influence, in addition to the clear effect from the interview-like nature of Michael and Meihua's interaction.
后天presentation报告要评论的文章。。。但是觉得作者逻辑混乱，不知是我没看懂还是真的混乱。。。奇怪这样的文章也能发表。他说的frequency到底是不是主要参数啊。。。backchannel可以译作反馈语，就是答话时”是嗯啊对啊是啊“之类，是一篇语用学的论文。请大家指教!!拜谢拜谢！！

看了几遍.终于看了大概懂,但其中的backchannel一直无法与上下文交互,大概翻译如下：
有很重要的两点与这次发现有关：一,Micheal-Meihua交谈所处的环境提供了一个很自然的解释,对于在经过Michieal和Meihua的谈话比较后,backchannel行为占据的关系优势.如果频率是我们唯一涉及的,不考虑任何上层（语言）影响,根据会见自然交谈,我们可以解释Micheal和Meihua的backchannel行为的差异.这样同样可以解释为什么Micheal在和Meihua的交谈中发出的backchannel,比Walter在于Wenyi的交谈中发出的要多,既然Meihua在Micheal—Meihua这对中说的比较多,而Walter在Walter—Wenyi这对中说的多.
另外一些方面,Micheal和Walter的backchannel行为有些相似,仍然让我们认为上层（语言）的作用,对于解释Micheal和Walter的backchannel行为的差异,是主要的因素.
评论家门给我们建议了另一种可能的影响,一方面 Micheal和Walter的身份差异,另一方面是Meihua和Wenyi的身份差异.我们注意,在第3 节的各自得谈话中,Micheal和Walter都是教授,而Meihua和Wenyi都是学生.是身份差异,而不是语言历史差异,影响backchannel频率不同的主要因素吗?我们的回答“有可能是否定”,原因有二,一,如果身份差异食影响backchannel行为的主要因素,我们可以期待看到他们有相对的作用.就是说,身份低的人比身份高的人发出backchannel的要多.但是恰恰相反的是,我们发现在我们的数据中,身份高的人比身份低的人发而发出更多backchannel.第二个原因起更大的说明作用,如同会见作用异样,频率并不是唯一的因素,影响着以英语为主的与一官方语言为主backchannel行为的不同.在这节中,我们考虑的其他四个因素合计成一个从上层（语言）而来的作用,作为对MIcheal和Meihua类自然会见交互的补充.