a study on politeness strategies in requests by the characters in the novel twilight by stephenie meyer = nghiên cứu chiến lược lịch sự trong lời thỉnh cầu của các nhân vật trong tiểu thuyết chạng vạng

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES TRẦN THỊ PHƯƠNG LINH A STUDY ON POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN REQUEST

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ PHƯƠNG LINH

A STUDY ON POLITENESS STRATEGIES

IN REQUESTS BY THE CHARACTERS IN

THE NOVEL “TWILIGHT” BY

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60.22.15

Supervisor: Dr Hà Cẩm Tâm

Hanoi- 2012

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ PHƯƠNG LINH

A STUDY ON POLITENESS STRATEGIES

IN REQUESTS BY THE CHARACTERS IN

THE NOVEL “TWILIGHT” BY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration ……… ….…… i

Acknowledgements……… ii

Table of contents……… … iii

Abbreviations……… ….… vi

List of tables ……… … vii

List of figures……… … viii

Abstract……… ix

PART A: INTRODUCTION ……….… 1

1 Rationale of the study……… … 1

2 Aims of the study……… … … 2

3 Objectives of the study……… …… 3

4 Research questions……… …… 3

5 Scope of the study……… … 3

6 Significance of the study……….………… 3

7 Methods of the study……… … 4

8 Organization of the study……… …… 4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT……… ……… 5

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW……… 5

1.1 The speech act theory……….… 5

1.1.1 Speech acts……… ………….… 5

1.1.2 The speech act of request……… 6

1.2 Politeness……… ……….… 8

1.2.1 Politeness theory……….… 8

1.2.2 Social variables affecting politeness……… 10

1.2.3 Politeness and indirectness ……… 10

1.2.4 Politeness and indirectness in requests……… 11

1.2.5 Modification……… ….… 14

1.3 Previous studies on requests……….… 14

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY……… 16

2.1 Research questions ……….… 16

2.2 Data collection ……….…… 16

2.3 Data analysis ……… 16

2.4 Analytical framework……….……… … 17

2.4.1 Alerters……….……… 17

2.4.2 Perspective……… 17

2.4.3 Request strategies……….………… 17

2.4.3.1 Direct requests- Category 1……….……… 17

2.4.3.2 Conventionally indirect requests- Category 2…… …… 18

2.4.3.3 Non- conventionally indirect requests- Category 3…… 19

2.4.4 Internal modifications……… 19

2.4.4.1 Syntactic downgraders……… 20

2.4.4.2 Lexical/phrasal downgraders……… 20

2.4.4.3 Upgraders……… 21

2.4.5 External modification……… 22

CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS……….……… 23

3.1 Overview of “Twilight” ……….……… 23

3.2 Politeness strategies in request by the characters in “Twilight”………… 23

3.2.1 The utilization of strategies …… ……… 23

3.2.2 The utilization of internal and external modifications……… …… 28

3.3.3 Politeness strategies in requests in “Twilight”, seen from S-H relationships………

31 PART C: CONCLUSION……… ……….……… 40

1 Major findings and concluding remarks……… 40

2 Implications ……….……… 41

3 Suggestions for further study……….……….… 42

REFERENCES……… ……….……… 43

APPENDIX A: The coding system……… ……… I

APPENDIX B: Sample of the coding procedure……….……… II

APPENDIX C: The use of internal modifications by types in “Twilight” IV

APPENDIX D: The polite request strategies in each group of speakers in

UD : Upgrader :

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 1: The balance of direct, conventionally indirect, and non-

conventionally indirect polite request strategies in “Twilight”

24

Table 2: Polite request strategies by types in “Twilight” 25 Table 3: The use of internal modificationsin “Twilight” IV Table 4: The use of external modifications in “Twilight” 31 Table 5: The use of direct, conventionally indirect, and non-

conventionally indirect strategies in requests in “Twilight” seen

from the characters‟parameters

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 1: The balance of direct, conventionally indirect, and non-

conventionally indirect polite request strategies in “Twilight”

VII

Figure 2: Polite request strategies by types in “Twilight” 25 Figure 3: The use of internal modifications in “Twilight” 29 Figure 4: The use of external modifications in “Twilight” VII Figure 5: The use of direct, conventionally indirect, and non-

conventionally indirect strategies in requests in “Twilight” seen

from the characters‟ parameters

32

Figure 6: The use of internal modification in “Twilight” seen from S-H

relationship

VII

ABSTRACT

The speech act of request is a face-threatening act in human‟s communication because

it challenges the mutual face of both the speaker and the hearer The current study aims

to uncover how politeness strategies in requests are employed in the novel “Twilight” by Stephenie Meyer All the requests carrying the illocutionary force of getting somebody to

do something serve as the data source The coding system is based on Blum-Kulka et al (1989) and Trosborg (1995)‟s coding manual The findings show that the characters in

“Twilight” overwhelmingly chose the Direct Strategies in formulating their requests, in which the Imperative Strategy or Mood Derivable was the most preferable strategy On the choice of Internal Modifications, the speakers in “Twilight” used a wide range of

mitigating devices within the Head Act to reduce the requestive force, mostly the

Question forms, Downtoners, and Past tense With reference to External Modifications, the speakers mostly chose Grounders to give reasons for their requests The findings also

show that the choice of request strategies and mitigating devices was influenced by the relationships between the characters

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale of the study

Language, as stated by Crystal (1992:212), is “the systematic, conventional use

of sounds, signs, or written symbols in a human society for communication and self-expression” If communication is to be effective, both the speaker and the hearer need to have shared knowledge; i.e., the same perception of what they are talking about In other words, people need to have communicative competence Hymes (1967, cited in Tam, 2005) asserts that communicative competence includes not only knowledge of the linguistic forms of a language but also knowledge of when, how and to whom it is appropriate to use these forms In other words, linguistic components; i.e grammatical, lexical, phonologicalare not enough for a language learner to avoid cultural shock, miscommunication or even communication breakdown Language learners thereforeshould acquire pragmatic competence, i.e., the ability to perform language functions appropriately in social contexts Being aware of the importance of pragmatic ability, a lot of researchers have drawn their attention to its crucial role, highlighted the significance of social context, and made suggestions for appropriateness in communication

The teaching and learning of foreign languages, including English has shifted from linguistic forms of the target language to the communicative approach with more emphasis on communicative competence in order to meet the demand of global development In line with this, the teaching and learning of English in Vietnam has witnessed a great effort in improving learners‟ communicative competence More attention has been paid to oral skills and practice which stress on the pragmatic meanings of utterances in contexts Nevertheless, the traditional ways

of teaching and learning, which mainly focused on the development of linguistic competence seem to hold its position as the prominent method This leads to the fact that Vietnamese learners appear to fail to communicate naturally and appropriately in English These learners may possess relatively good linguistic knowledge to understand the structures and the words literally, but they fail to achieve communicative goals because they may not be aware of the hidden or unsaid meanings of utterances under certain settings, and lack social appropriateness and linguisticrealization rulesfor performing and

respondingcommunicative acts Unfortunately, while grammatical errors are likely

to be accepted by native speakers, English learners‟ pragmatic incompetence seems

to be much less tolerated, and is often consideredrude This again highly appreciates the importance of mastering saying the right thing at the right time to avoid unintentional impoliteness, misunderstandings, or communication breakdown

The speech act of request has been regarded as one of the face-threatening acts (FTAs) in communication, since it intrinsically threatens the hearer‟s face and

is affected by social parameters (Brown and Levinson, 1987) Requests occur in everyday life and play a leading role in human interaction as a vital part of successful communication Hence, many interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatic studies within different language backgrounds have widely examined the speech act

of request such as House & Kasper (1981, 1987), Blum-Kulka (1987), Blum-Kulka

et al (1989), Trosborg (1995), Hassall (1999), Tam (2005) Most of those studies focused on examining the use of pragmalinguistic formulae employed to express the request head act and the modification devices that accompany it Obviously, these studies have investigated numerous aspects of the Head Act of request and provided

a relatively full understanding in single language, interlanguage, and cross-culture pragmatics However, there seems to remain gaps in literary genre that need to be bridged since literature, as being judged, plays a significant role in our life, especially the spiritual one It has worked as a reflection of society and culture (Thao, 2010); as a matter of fact, language, especially daily language used in a literary works appears to be presented truthfully and naturally

A long with the researcher‟s special personal interest in the topic, these factors

have created an urge for her to choose the minor thesis, namely “A study on politeness strategies in requests used by characters in the novel“Twilight” by Stephenie Meyer” The study aims to investigate English native speakers‟ use of

polite request strategies and modification devices via the language employed by the characters in the novel It is an attempt to support the aforementioned studies and to fill the gap in the area

2 Aims of the study

The study aims at exploring how polite request strategies are appropriately manifested in the English language Specifically, the study attempts to examine the

choice of politeness strategies and modification devices in requests employed by the characters in the novel “Twilight” by Stepheanie Meyer

3 Objectives of the study

The objectives of the study are:

- To uncover the use of politeness strategies in requests employed by the characters in the novel “Twilight”

- To uncover the use of modification devices in requests employed by the characters in the novel “Twilight”

4 Research questions

The study seeks to answer the following research questions:

 What politeness strategies are employed by the characters in “Twilight” in their requests?

 What mitigation devices are employed by characters in “Twilight” in their requests?

5 Scope of the study

The study focuses entirely on the verbal aspect related to speech acts Other non-verbal aspects such as facial expressions and eye contact are beyond the scope

of the study Theories of speech acts and politeness are applied The study uses the theoretical framework which is based on Blum- Kulka et al.‟s (1989) and Trosborg‟s (1995) coding system All requests made by the characters in “Twilight” are the data source

6 Significance of the study

The study would hopefully be of theoretical and practical significance in the area of pragmatics where the use of linguistic acts should be taken into account Theoretically, the study would contribute to a better understanding of speech acts in general and the speech act of request in particular

Practically, findings of the study would heighten Vietnamese learners and teachers‟ awareness of native speakers‟ use of request strategies As a result, Vietnamese learners of English could probably adopt appropriate tones of polite requests in the English language to improve their pragmatic competence More importantly, the research findings would be a reference source for those who have

deep concerns about the utilization of politeness strategies in requests as well as

other speech acts

7 Method of the study

The method employed in this study is mainly the Quantitative method which stresses more on the collection and analysis of numerical data and statistic The study makes use of utterances in “Twilight” as the major data source, thus counting and measuring are commonly used The research findings are generally presented in tables and charts or figures

8 Organization of the study

The study comprises three parts

Part A is “Introduction” which presents the rationale, aims and objectives,

research questions, scopes, significance, method and organization of the study

Part B entitled “Development” consists of three chapters

Chapter 1 reviews the literature on speech acts, the speech act of request, and

politeness theory which play a role of basis for the analysis work

Chapter 2 is “Methodology” which outlines the data collection, data analysis,

and analytical framework

Chapter 3 is “Data Analysis”, which consists of two sections: the 1st one gives

an overview on “Twilight”, and the 2nd

one is an investigation of polite request strategies which provides a collection of examples and detailed analysis to uncover how the characters in “Twilight” manage their requests politely on their choice of strategies and modifications

Part C, “Conclusion”, presents the conclusion of the study, implications, and

suggestions for further research

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter, divided into three sections, provides an overview of the theoretical background of the research Section 1.1 discusses the theory of speech act and the speech act of request Section 1.2 discusses the main issues of politeness theory and indirectness in requests, and section 1.3reviews some previous studies conducted on the speech act of request

1.1 The speech act theory

1.1.1 Speech acts

The theory of speech act has become one of the most central aspects in the study of language use since its initiation by Austin (1962) Many other philosophers and linguistics such as Searle (1969, 1975, 1976, 1979), Grice (1957, 1975), Leech (1983), and Yule (1996) had special interests in the notions of speech acts

Austin (1962) observed that when people use language they do not only produce a set of correct sentences in isolation, they produce them in action; i.e., people do things through the use of language and thus utterances could be regarded as speech acts Speech acts are, as generally claimed by Yule (1996: 47), the actions performed via utterances in people‟s attempting to express themselves in communication and in everyday life are specifically labeled as, for example, apology, complaint, compliment,

or request These speech acts are regarded as the basic or minimal units of linguistic communication and are performed in actual situations of language use (Searle, 1969:16) According to Austin (1962), a speech act could at the same time constitute

three kinds of acts A locutionary act (or locution) “includes the utterance of certain

noises, the utterance of certain words in a certain construction and the utterance of them with a certain „meaning‟” (ibid: 94) In other words, it is the actual syntax and

lexicon that the speaker (S) uses to convey literal meaning An illocutionary act (or

illocution) is viewed as S‟s intention or force behind the words or sentences It is produced via utterances with communicative purpose in mind and thus establishes what

is called the “illocutionary force” of the speech act A perlocutionary act (or

perlocution) is the effect the utterance has on the hearer (H) or the change caused by

the utterance For example, when producing the meaningful utterance “It‟s cold in here” (locutionary act), S may make a request (illocutionary act) which may get H to

close the window (perlocutionary act) Yule (1996:49) claims that the same utterance can potentially have quite different illocutionary forces when we use different Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs) under different conditions Apart from IFIDs, each type of illocutionary acts requires appropriate conditions called felicity conditions identified by Searle (1979:44): (1) Preparatory conditions (Hearer is able to perform Action), (2) Sincerity conditions (Speaker wants Hearer to do Action), (3) Propositional content conditions (Speaker predicates a future Action), (4) Essential conditions (Speaker‟s attempt to get Hearer to do Action)

Concerning the classification of speech acts, Searle (1976: 1-16) presents one of the most influential systems consisting of five types of general functions:

1 Representatives: describe states or events By using representatives, S makes the words match the world (e.g a statement of facts, an assertion, or a report)

2 Directives: S gets someone else to do something (e.g a request or an order)

3 Expressives: state what S feels (e.g a complaint or a compliment)

4 Commissives: express what S intends (e.g a promise or a refusal)

5 Declarations: S changes the world via words (e.g sentencing at a court of law)

In speech act theory, a distinction between direct and indirect speech acts is also made A direct speech act involves cases in which “the speaker utters a sentence and means exactly and literally what he says” (Searle, 1979: 30) Conversely, an indirect speech act is the one in which “one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way

of performing another” (ibid.: 33) In other words, indirect speech acts carry an underlying pragmatic meaning different from the apparent surface meaning Therefore,

in direct speech acts, S says what s/he means exactly, while in indirect speech acts, S performs one illocutionary act implicitly when performing another illocutionary act

explicitly (Yule, 1996) For instance, the declarative “It‟s cold in here” may function

as a direct speech act if it is used to make a statement of facts about the weather, but it can also function as an indirect speech act if it is used to make a request which may get

H to close the window

1.1.2 The speech act of request

Among the numerous speech acts, the speech act of request has continually

attracted much attention in the study of pragmatics

A request is defined as “a directive speech act which counts as an attempt to get the hearer (H) to do an act which the speaker (S) wants H to do, and which S believes that

H is able to do; and which it is not obvious that H will do in the normal course of events or H‟s own accord.” (Searle, 1969: 66) Specifically, a request consists of an illocutionary act in which S desires to perform an action which is for the benefit of S (Trosborg, 1995: 187) Therefore, this speech act has been regarded as one of the most sensitive FTAs in communication, since it intrinsically threatens H‟s face (Brown and Levinson, 1987) Blum-Kulka et al (1989) broadens the term “request” as a pre-event act that expresses S‟s expectation toward some prospective action on the part of H Requests require mitigation and compensation to reduce pressure or imposition on H

by means of a polite and tactful behavior.Sharing the same view with Blum-Kulka, Yule (1996: 56) acknowledges that a request is not usually made by means of a single speech act suddenly uttered Requesting is typically a speech event In most cases, to avoid losing face, S will first produce what can be described as a “pre-request”, which can elicit a “go ahead” or “stop” response Consider the following example:

Her: Check over this memo (= request)

performed in a wide range of linguistic forms (Sifianou, 1992) such as declaratives(e.g

“It‟s cold in here” as a request to close the door), interrogatives (e.g “Can you close the door?”), imperatives (e.g “Close the door, please.”), and elliptical forms (e.g The door, please.) Also, it is generally noted that performing a request depends on the

issues of politeness and social variables, which will be discussed below

1.2 Politeness

1.2.1 Politeness theory

Politeness, as defined by Yule (1996:60), is “a number of different general principles for being polite in social interaction within a particular culture.” Yule also acknowledges the term “face”, which means “the public self-image of a person”, and thus, politeness in an actual communication can be “the means employed to show awareness of another person‟s face.” Lakoff (in Tam, 2005) proposes three different rules that S might follow to be polite in an interaction: (1) Don‟t impose (Distance), (2) Offer options (Deference), (3) Be friendly (Encourage Feelings of Camaraderie) Grice (1975) postulates the theory of “Cooperative Principle” (CP), which can be understood

as the way participants in a conversation manage to achieve a workable balance of contributions The principle can be characterized by four underlying maxims: Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner However, Grice‟s CP fail to account for the reason why the participants in a talk-exchange frequently use indirect way to convey what they mean and what relation governs sense and force (Leech, 1983) In an attempt to elaborate and fulfill Grice‟s theory of CP, Leech (1983) proposes Politeness Principles (PP) that might help maintain “the social equilibrium and the friendly relations which enable us to assume that our interlocutors are being cooperative in the first place.” Leech claims that PP might be generally formulated as “minimize” the effects of impolite expressions and “maximize” the polite beliefs He also articulates six maxims

of PP where he identifies the participants in conversations as “self” (the speaker) and

“other” (the addressee and the third parties): (1) Tact Maxim: minimize cost and maximize benefit to other, (2) Generosity Maxim: minimize benefit and maximize cost

to self, (3) Approbation Maxim: minimize dispraise and maximize praise of other, (4) Modesty Maxim: minimize praise and maximize dispraise of self, (5) Agreement Maxim: minimize disagreement and maximize agreement between self and other, and (6) Sympathy Maxim: minimize antipathy and maximize sympathy between self and

other He asserts that expressions may vary in their levels of indirectness, and that different levels of indirectness are associated with different degrees of politeness Brown and Levinson‟s (1987) theory is based on the three basic notions of face, face-threatening acts, and politeness strategies Face refers to “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself,” (ibid: 61) consisting of two aspects: positive and negative A person‟s positive face “is the need to be accepted, even liked,

by others, to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by others”, and negative face means “the need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others.” (Yule, 1996:61-62)Both

of these two faces could be threatened by some certain acts which are conceptualized

as “face-threatening acts” (FTAs) These FTAs can be defined as acts that infringe on H‟s need to maintain his/her self-esteemand be respected

In social interaction, it is general to the mutual interest of the participants to reduce face-threatening to a minimum because of the mutual vulnerability of face Participants therefore can decide either to avoid doing an FTA entirely or softening it by choosing

an appropriate politeness strategy Brown and Levinson‟s (1987) propose five politeness strategies ordered in terms of the degree of face-threat to the addressee The strategies are presented as follows:

To conclude, although different in the wording and focuses, the perspectives to politeness proposed by these scholars do supplement one another at great deal (Tam, 2005: 18) The choice of politeness strategies depend on S‟s estimation of risk of face loss, and the importance of an FTA is analysed by means of the three social factors that will be discussed in the following section

with redressive action

2 Positive politeness

3 Negative politeness

1.2.2 Social variables affecting politeness

According to Brown and Levinson (1987:76-77), there are three social variables that determine the choice of felicitous polite expressions

The relative power relationship between S and H (P) is “an asymmetric social

dimension.” It is the degree to which H can “impose his own plans and his own evaluation (face) at the expense of S‟s plans and self-evaluation.” Generally speaking, there are two sources of P, namely material and metaphysical control The former concerns economic distribution and physical strength, and the latter concerns the

self-institutionalized roles given to individuals and accepted in society The social distance

between S and H (D) is “a symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference within which S and H stand for the purposes of this act In many cases (but not all), it is based

on an assessment of the frequency of interaction and the kinds of material or material goods (including face) exchange between S or H.” In effect, it is the degree of familiarity, solidarity or social closeness between S and H as represented through in-

non-group and out-non-group membership The absolute ranking of impositions (R) can be

culturally and situationally defined by “the degree to which they are considered to interfere with an agent‟s wants of self-determination or of approval (his negative- and positive-face wants.”

In brief, P, D, and R are context-dependent and culture-related parameters For

example, in Vietnamese culture, the request of a wife to her husband “Anh đánh (lái) ngay cái xe của anh ra chỗ khác đi” (my example), which means “Move your car right now” in Englishcan be acceptable, but at a public car park, this request to a stranger

might be seen as inappropriate and not very polite It is apparent that the parameters P,

D, R contribute to the seriousness of an FTA and determine the degree of politeness with which an FTA will be performed

1.2.3 Politeness and indirectness

Indirectness can be seen as “those cases in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another.” (Searle, 1975:60) In the literature

on politeness, there exist two points of view Some scholars argue that participants say things indirectly to be polite and that indirectness and politeness are closely related, while some others challenge this perspective

In reference to politeness, Leech (1983:108) suggests that it is possible to increase the degree of politeness by using more indirect illocutions and giving H more choices Brown and Levinson (1987), in accordance with Leech‟s perspective, posit a hierarchy

of five strategies based on estimation of risk of face loss (See section 1.2.1) If S goes

on record, his/her act is directly addressed to H in two ways: without redressive (baldly), i.e the act will be performed in the most direct, concise, and unambiguous manner; or with redressive, i.e, “giving face” to H to counteract the face damage of the FTA Redressive strategies consist of positive politeness, oriented toward H‟s positive face by indicating some solidarity; or negative politeness, oriented toward H‟s negative face by providing the feeling of non-coerciveness and freedom from imposition In off record strategy, S produces a statement which is indirectly addressed to H and avoids

unequivocal impositions, and thus this strategy is used when the need for politeness is

rather extreme The “don‟t do the FTA” strategy is applied when the risk is too great to

perform an act, accordingly nothing is said It is not justifiable, however, to always choose the most polite strategy For Brown and Levinson (1987), the relationship between directness/indirectness and politeness is affected by three aforementioned social variables P, D, R Accordingly the choice of strategies is made These scholars believe that indirectness and politeness are closely related, and that to be polite can be understood as to be indirect Unlike Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson (1987), Blum-Kulka (1987) and House (1986, cited in Tam, 2005:23) find that the most indirect strategy in requests is not acknowledged by language users as the most polite one Though these researchers approve that politeness and indirectness are related, they argue that indirectness does not always imply politeness because if a speaker is too indirect, there will be a lack of clarity Thus, indirectness is sometimes considered a marker of impoliteness (Blum-Kulka, 1987)

In summary, it cannot be denied that indirectness and politeness seem to be closely related Indirectness is generally used as a means to achieve politeness although it may vary in different social contexts

1.2.4 Politeness and indirectness in requests

As discussed, indirectness and politeness in speech acts including requests may be different in particular contexts, yet they seem to be closely related

Blum-Kulka (1987) argues that the scale of indirectness is based on the levels of illocutionary transparency Hence, the more indirect the mode of realization of a request is, the higher the interpretive demands on the hearer The Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) on requests and apologies by Blum-Kulka

et.al (1989) distinguishes the three levels of indirectness in requests In direct strategies,

the illocutionary force of the utterance is indicated explicitly by grammatical, lexical, or

semantic means Conventionally indirect requests express the illocution via fixed

linguistic convention of means (choice of semantic device, ask about H‟s ability) or convention of forms (the wording of the request) established in the speech community

as a form to realize requests Non-conventionally indirect requests rely seriously on the

context and tend to be “open-ended, both in terms of propositional content and linguistic form as well as pragmatic force.” A scale consisting of nine request strategies ranked in order of increasing degree of indirectness has been identified by Blum-Kulka

et al (1989:275), as follows:

1 Mood derivable: Clean up the kitchen!

2 Performatives: I ask/request you to clean u the kitchen

3 Hedges Performatives: I‟d like to ask you to clean up the kitchen

4 Locution Derivable: You should/have to clean up the kitchen

5 Want statement: I‟d like/want/wish you to clean up the kitchen

6 Suggestory Formulae: How about cleaning up the kitchen?

7 Query Preparatory: Can/Could you/we clean up the kitchen?

8 Strong Hints: The kitchen is in a mess

9 Mild Hints: Whose duty is it today?

In this scale, strategies 1 to 5 are the most direct, strategies 6 and 7 are referred to

as conventionally indirect, and strategies 8 and 9 are termed as non-conventionally indirect

Trosborg (1995:205) identified a similar scale with 8 request strategies ranked in order of increasing directness, as follows:

Cat I: Indirect request

Str 1 Hints (Mild) I have to be at the airport in half an hour

(Strong) My car has broken down

Will you be using your car tonight?

Cat II Conventionally indirect (hearer-oriented conditions)

Str 2 Ability Could you lend me your car?

Willingness Would you lend me your car?

Permission May I borrow your car?

Str 3 Suggestory formulae How about lending me your car?

Cat III Conventionally indirect (speaker-based conditions)

Str 4 Wishes I would like to borrow your car

Str 5 Desires/Needs I want/need to borrow your car

Cat IV Direct request

Str 6 Obligation You must/ have to lend me your car

Str 7 Performatives (Hegded) I would like to ask you to lend me your car

(Unhedged) I ask/ require you to lend me your car Str 8 Imperatives Lend me your car

Elliptical phrases Your car (please)

Regarding the degree of politeness in requests, many researchers have asserted that higher levels of indirectness may result in higher levels of politeness.Thomas (1995: 119-122) sees indirectness as a means to achieve communicative goals and a face-saving one which is equivalent to politeness The link between indirectness and politeness in requests is supported by Searle‟s (1975: 76) observation that “politeness is the most prominent motivation for indirectness in requests, and certain forms tend to become the conventionally polite ways of making indirect requests.” Similarly, Leech (1983) suggests that it is possible to “increase the degree of politeness by using a more and more indirect kind of illocution Indirect illocutions tend to be more polite (a) because they increase the degree of optionality, and (b) because the more indirect an illocution is, the more diminished and tentative its tends to be.” However, Blum-Kulka (1987) in her study finds that indirectness does not always mean politeness because it may contain a lack of clarity and therefore mark a sign of impoliteness According to her, the most indirect strategy (hints) is not considered as the most polite but the conventionally indirect strategies

In conclusion, the relationship between indirectness and politeness are important in English requests While the scale of indirectness appears to follow similar pattern in all language, the specific proportion in the choices of more polite or less polite strategies

in requests are culture-determined (Tam, 2005: 28) Generally, indirectness is usually used as a form associated with greater politeness and in certain contexts is increased when more options are given to the addressee

1.2.5 Modification

In addition to strategy types and levels of directness, modification also functions as one of the dimensions with which speakers can vary the politeness value of their requests Modification can be understood as an additional element that is introductory

or subsequent to the Head Act This element may tone down the impact of an utterance

or have the opposite effect of increasing the impact on H (Blum-Kulka, 1985) Modifications include internal modification and external modification

Internal modification is that occurring within the Head Act, including syntactic downgraders, lexical downgraders, and upgraders that modify the head act of request

by mitigating or intensifying the illocutionary force (Wang, 2001) Leech (1983) points out that by using internal modification, S might give H more optionality and distances her/himself from a request, thus is more polite He also suggests that the use of lexical items makes H feel free from imposition hence the requestive act is more tentative and tactful

External modification includes supportive moves which are external to the Head Act, standing before or after it These elements are those used to mitigate or aggravate S‟s request that can help to reduce the imposition on H House & Kasper (1987) concedes that to “persuade” H to perform the desired action, supporting statements need to be made use of Trosborg (1995:215), in agreement with House & Kasper, states that a request has been characterized as an act that has high imposition on the

requestee, hence it is important that “the request appears plausible and justifiable to the

person who is to perform it.”

In conclusion, modification does make requests more polite either internally or externally Since a request is face-threatening and inherently imposing, interlocutors, in formulating requests, can choose suitable supporting devices to mitigate the possibility

of mutual face damage in conversations and therefore to be more polite

1.3 Previous studies on requests

The literature on indirectness and politeness related to requests has empirically examined The most frequently concerned are requests by native speakers of English,

speakers of other languages, pragmatic transfer and failure by learners of the second language; for example, House & Kasper (1981, 1987), Blum-Kulka et al (1989),

Weizman (1989, 1993) Faerch & Kasper (1989), Gu (1990), and Trosborg (1995)

In relation with the present study, the researcher takes a more careful look at the following research The first one is a cross-cultural study conducted by Sifianou (1992), investigating politeness phenomena in English and Greek Sifianou mainly made use of drama for data collection of the study The findings reveal that speakers of English prefer negative politeness strategies while Greeks use more positive ones Another study carried out by Cenoz & Valencia (1996) used DCT as a tool for data collection and codified the data according to the CCSARP coding manual (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) The study aimed to describe the request strategies and the use of mitigating supportive by European and American speakers in English and Spanish The findings reveal that Americans use more direct strategies and fewer conventionally indirect strategies than European speakers in English Fewer mitigating devices both in English and Spanish are used by Americans There are also pragmatic transfers by American and European learners of Spanish The third study to be mentioned was conducted by Farahat (2009), examining the concept of politeness in Australian and Palestinian Arabic plays based on the framework by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) Five Australian and five Palestinian Arabic plays were analysed to identify requests A supplementary questionnaire was also used to determine the concept of

“face” by the two cultures The findings reveal that Australian speakers indirectly perform their requests while Palestinian speakers prefer giving reasons First name is commonly used among Australian speakers whereas Palestinian speakers only use first name to address young people The two cultures also shared the same concept of “face” such as “honor”, “respect”, “dignity”

In sum, the aforementioned studies have investigated numerous aspects of the Head Act of request and provided a relatively full understanding in single language, interlanguage, and cross-culture pragmatics However, there seems to remain gaps in literary genre that need to be bridged This study is an attempt to support these studies and to fill the gap in the area

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

This chapter consists of four main sections Section 2.1 revises the research questions whereas section 2.2 presents the data collection Section 2.3 discusses the data analysis, and the last section provides the study‟s analytical framework

2.1 Research questions

The study seeks to answer the following research questions:

 What polite request strategies are employed by the characters in “Twilight”?

 What mitigation devices in requests are employed by the characters in

“Twilight”?

2.2 Data collection

The data of the study is the corpus of 683 requests collected from the novel

“Twilight” by Stephenie Meyer published by Little, Brown and Company in 2005

The request utterances in this study are identified as those carrying the illocutionary force of getting somebody to do something, ranging from ordering to begging Specifically, in “Twilight”, the illocutionary force and propositional content of a request can be realized through syntax and the choice of words within context The relationships among the characters also contribute to the realization of

the request utterances Such suggestory forms as “Why don‟t you sit with me today?” (p.87)or Elliptical phrases as “Esme?” (p.401, a request to help Bella

change her clothes) were accordingly coded as request utterances

2.3 Data analysis

For data analysis, the study made use of the framework proposed by Kulka et al.‟s (1989) and Trosborg‟s (1995) coding scheme Depending on the contexts and linguistic devices used, the strategies were classified under three categories: Category I- Direct, Category II- Conventionally Indirect, and Category

Blum-III- Non-Conventionally Indirect (See Appendix B for sample of coding procedure)

The number of requests in each category was calculated along with its relative frequency of occurrence in the data Request modifications were also discussed, mainly in two groups: Internal modifications and external modifications The result was then presented in tables and charts

performed For example, in “John, could I ask you a favor? Do you think you could

go to the presentation tomorrow? I really can‟t find the time to do it myself I promise I‟ll take care of the next presentation,” the Head Act is the underlined

section, and the remainder of the utterance contain a number of additional elements (Hendriks, 2002) These elements will be discussed in more detail below

2.4.1 Alerters

An alerter is utilized to alert or to draw H‟s attention to the forthcoming desired speech act There are three types of Alerters: Title/Role (e.g., Mr., Mrs.), First name (e.g Bella, Edward), and Attention- getter (e.g hey, listen)

2.4.2 Perspective

Blum-Kulka et al (1989: 278) distinguish the categories of perspective through the use of pronouns or the prominence given to either of the interlocutors

1 Hearer perspective: Could you show me your driving license, please?

2 Speaker perspective: Could I see your driving license?

3 Inclusive: Could we swap cars?

4 Impersonal: Can one as for a little quiet?

2.4.3 Request strategies

A strategy is referred to as the way the Head Act of the request is realized with respect to linguistic forms and means Eight request strategies belonging to three major categories in this study follow the frameworks by Blum-Kulka et al (1989) and Trosborg (1995) They are ranked in order of increasing indirectness Appendix

A is provided for the summary of the coding system

2.4.3.1 Direct requests (DR)- Category 1

Strategy 1: Imperative

The Imperative explicitly marks the illocutionary force of an utterance as a

request

1 Get out of here (Trosborg, 1995)

Elliptical phrases, in which only the desired object is mentioned, are used when the object is for sale, on distribution, in emergencies, etc., (Trosborg, 1995) or among in-groupers where there is symmetrical power relation between S and H and their social distance is low (Farahat, 2009)

2 Two coffees, please (Trosborg, 1995)

Strategy 2: Performative

The use of a performative verb conveying the requestive intent is explicitly stated

3 I ask/request/command/order you to leave (Trosborg, 1995)

Strategy 3: Statements of obligation and necessity

The strategy is characterized with some expression of obligation, often through

the use of “have to”, “ought to”, “must”, and “should”

4 You have to leave now (or you‟ll miss your train) (Trosborg, 1995)

2.4.3.2 Conventionally indirect requests (CI)- Category 2

CI contain clear linguistic indicators This category of request strategies specifies either semantic means or conventionalized forms by which an indirect request can be performed This category includes:

Strategy 4: Statements of speaker’s needs and demands

The request is realized in the form of a need and it implicitly states the need that

S wants H to satisfy

5 I‟ll need this book very badly (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989)

Strategy 5: Statements of speaker’s wishes and desires

The requestive intent can be expressed as a wish or desire The use of would like to, would prefer to, would rather makes the requestive force softer and more

tentative than that of the previous strategies

6 I would like to clean up that wine (Hendriks, 2002)

Strategy 6: Suggestory formulae

The illocutionary intent can be characterized as a suggestion S pretends to have H‟s interest in mind instead of his/her own wishes to test H‟s cooperativeness

7 Why don‟t you give me a hand for a minute? (Hendriks, 2002)

Strategy 7: Query preparatory

This strategy refers to preconditions which must be met in order to carry out the request In this study, Query preparatory strategy is divided into three subcategories:

a Reference to hearer’s ability

8 Can you help me with this math problem? (Tam, 2005)

b Reference to hearer’s willingness

9 I‟d be grateful if you‟d send me a parts list (Trosborg, 1995)

c Permission request

10 May/Can I have a match? (Trosborg, 1995)

2.4.3.3 Non- conventionally indirect requests (NCI)- Category 3

In NCI, the requestive force tends to be “open-ended” and hence has to be inferred

Strategy 8: Non-explicit requests

Non- explicit requests are termed as “Hints” in Blum-Kulka et.al (1989) and Trosborg (1995) The illocutionary force and/or propositional content in this type are implicitly conveyed (Weizman, 1993) In this study, non-explicit requests include:

a Stating potential grounders:

11 I‟m to be at the airport in half an hour, and my car has just broken down (Trosborg, 1995)

b Questioning the feasibility of the precondition for the requested act

12 Have you got you notes with you?(Weizman, 1993)

c Questioning the availability of the Hearer

13 I wonder if you can do me a favor (Tam, 2005)

2.4.4.1 Syntactic downgraders

Syntactic downgraders are devices used to mitigate the requestive force by

the choice of syntactic means Syntactic downgraders include:

Questions: These elements can be a mitigation device for CI but not always so for

NCI

14 Can/Will you do the cooking tonight? (Trosborg, 1995)

Negation: Negation implies that S is willing to accept non-compliance

15 I don‟t suppose you‟re free so that you can help me with this

problem (my example)

Past tense: The past tense forms with reference to present time can be used as

mitigation instead of the present ones without changing the meaning of the utterance

16 I wanted to ask for a postponement (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984)

Conditional clause: A conditional clause distances the request from reality

17 It would fit in much better ifyou could give your paper a week earlier than planned (Blum-Kulka et.al, 1989)

Embedding: S can preface his/her request with a clause carrying his/ her attitudes

or personal opinion and belief to the request; i.e., tentativeness, hope, delight, thoughts,…

18 I‟m afraid you‟ll have to leave now (Trosborg, 1995)

Modals: Somemodal verbs can be used to reduce S‟s authority on H

19 Mightn‟t I come with you? (Trosborg, 1995)

Non-conventional structures: The use of such structures as “able to…” can be

seen as mitigation

20 Are you able to find the document for me? (Tam, 2005)

Aspect (progressive)

21 I was wondering if you could lend me your jack (Tam, 2005)

2.4.4.2 Lexical/ Phrasal downgraders

In addition to syntactic downgraders, lexical/phrasal downgraders can function

as mitigating devices They include:

Politeness markers: please, kindly, be so kind as, etc

22 Could you close the window, please? (Trosborg, 1995)

Consultative devices: Would you mind, Do you think, Do you mind, Do you reckon,

Could I ask you, Is it all right, etc

23 Do you think I could borrow your lecture notes from yesterday?

(Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984)

Downtoners: consist of adverbials and modal particles such as just, simply,

perhaps, maybe, possibly, rather, etc

24 Just give me a ring, will you? (Trosborg, 1995)

Understatements: a second, a minute, some, any chance, a little bit, for a while,

etc

25 Any chance to borrow your car this Sunday? (Tam, 2005)

Hedges: kind of, sort of, somehow, and so on, more or less, etc

26 Could you kind ofwait for a moment? (my example)

Hesitators: S shows his/her qualm when performing the request via devices such as

er, erm, um, uh, hmmm

27 I, er, erm, er- I wonder if you‟d er… (Trosborg, 1995)

Interpersonal marker: This group includes phrases such as I mean, right?, okay?,

you know, you see, etc

28 Could you do that for me, okay? (Trosborg, 1995)

30 Oh, really, do come and see us We‟d be so pleased (Trosborg, 1995)

Commitment upgraders: include sentence modifiers such as I‟m sure, I‟m certain,

I‟m positive, it‟s obvious, surely, certainly, positively, obviously, unfortunately, etc

31 You surely wouldn‟t mind helping me (Trosborg, 1995)

Lexical intensification: S can be negative or positive by the choice of lexical items

In extreme cases, swear words may be used

32 You‟d be such a darling if you helped me just this one (Trosborg,

1995)

Time intensifiers:Time intensifiers are employed to emphasize the temporal aspect

of the speakers‟ request; for example, urgent, right now, immediately, etc

33 You‟d better move your car right now/ immediately (Blum-Kulka et

al., 1989)

2.4.5 External modifications

External modifications or supportive moves comprise elements that can be used to mitigate or aggravate S‟s request These elements are external to the Head act and can occur before or after it In formulating a request, S tends to use supportive moves such as justifications and explanations to make the request more convincing, less imposing and thus more likely to be successful The supportive moves include:

Preparators: S can make his/her request naturally fits the case with preparators

34 Are you busy right now? (Trosborg, 1995)

Grounders: Grounders explain why S needs to make a request

35 It‟s cold in here Could you please close the window? (my example)

Disarmers: Disarmers indicate that S does not wish to make a request but s/he is

forced by circumstances to do so

36 I don‟t want to trouble you but… (Trosborg, 1995)

Sweeteners: Sweeteners are used to flatter the requestee

37 Your collection of books is very interesting (Trosborg, 1995)

Promise of a reward: S can offer a reward to increase H‟s compliance

38 If you help me now, I‟ll help you later (Trosborg, 1995)

Cost minimizing: Moves in which S tries to mitigate the imposition on H

39 Would you give me a lift, but only if you‟re going on my way

(Blum-Kulka et al., 1989)

In summary, this chapter provides an overview on the methodology of the study with close reference to the analytical framework In the following chapter, the analytical framework will be used to analyze the data with detailed examples and illustrations