 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Apologies | Complaints | Compliments | Refusals | Requests | Thanking Request Strategies Across LanguagesBy making a request, the speaker infringes on the recipient’s freedom from imposition. The recipient may feel that the request is an intrusion on his/her freedom of action or even a power play. As for the requester, s/he may hesitate to make requests for fear of exposing a need or out of fear of possibly making the recipient lose face (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989, p. 11). In this sense, requests are face-threatening to both the requester and the recipient. Since requests have the potential to be intrusive and demanding, there is a need for the requester to minimize the imposition involved in the request Above passage from Blum-Kulka et al.(1989); Brown & Levinson (1987). One way for the speaker to minimize the imposition is by employing indirect strategies rather than direct ones (see below for levels of indirectness). The more direct a request is, the more transparent it is and the less of a burden the recipient bears in interpreting the request. The scale of directness can be characterized according to the following three strategies:
Above passages from Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1989), pp. 201-202. Both situational and cultural factors influence use of these request strategies. Different cultures seem to agree on general trends of situational variation. For example, a big favor usually comes with more indirect and/or polite strategies than a low-imposition request. Friends use more casual requests than acquaintances provided that the content of the request is the same. However, the specific directness levels appropriate for given situations might differ cross-culturally. A certain language (like German) may tend to use more direct-level requests than other languages (like Japanese) equally in an appropriate manner within the culture (see below for more information). Conventional indirectness may be universal and in fact, generally the most commonly employed level of directness, occurring over half of the time in Hebrew and in Argentinean Spanish, and much more often in Australian English. [ Distribution of main request strategy types by language... ] [ Sub Levels of Strategy Types (scale of indirectness)... ] Above passages from Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984), Blum-Kulka et al. (1989). Request PerspectivesRequests usually include reference to the requester, the recipient of the request, and/or the action to be performed. The speaker can manipulate requests by choosing from a variety of perspectives (Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G., 1989) in making requests:
Above passages from Blum-kulka & Olshtain (1984), p. 203. In Australian English, Hebrew, Canadian French, and Argentinean Spanish, the most popular approach to requests is to make them hearer-oriented. The next most popular choice varies across these languages. While for English and French, it is speaker-oriented requests, the second most commonly used strategy in Hebrew is a conventionalized impersonal construction (ef_ar + infinitive ‘is it possible to’). Speaker-oriented requests are often by appearance a request for permission which implies that the recipient of the request has control over the speaker. Hence, speaker-oriented requests avoid the appearance of trying to control or impose on the hearer and are therefore perceived as being more polite. Above passages from Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984), Blum-Kulka et al. (1989). [ Distribution of perspectives in requests by language... ] Request SegmentsThe request sequence in English (Australian/American/British), French (Canadian), Danish, German, Hebrew, Japanese, and Russian has been divided in the literature into the following three segments:
Request Mitigators/UpgradersMitigating the face-threatening nature of requests can also be achieved by use of downgraders. The speaker might indicate being pessimistic with regard to the outcome of the request (negative usage) or hesitant about making the request (interrogative and modal usage ‘might’). Use of the past tense or embedded if-clause might also serve as distancing elements.
Some examples of other softening downgraders are:
On the other hand, the speaker may wish to increase the compelling force of the request. This function of aggravating the request can be achieved through upgraders.
[ Further classification of downgraders and upgraders... ] Above passages from Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984), p. 204. Supportive MovesIf there is a Supportive Move, it appears either before or after the head act and affects the context in which the request is embedded, and thus indirectly modifies the request. Some examples are: [ Further classification of supportive moves... ] Above passages from Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984), pp. 204-205. Conventionally Indirect SubstrategiesThe following substrategies of indirect request are commonly found in Australian English, Canadian French, Hebrew, and/or Argentinean Spanish. Note that these substrategies vary as to how conventionalized the form is and how obvious the meaning is: 1. Reference to the hearer’s ability (used in all of the four languages):
2. Reference to the hearer’s willingness
3. Predicting the hearer’s doing the act
4. Formulaic suggestions
Above passages from Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), pp. 52-57. Non-conventionally Indirect Strategies (Hints)Requestive hints are opaque or obscure in nature and the speaker exploits their opacity while getting the hearer to carry out the implicitly requested act. In other words, they tend to lack transparency and clarity. There is a gap between the speaker’s intended meaning and the literal meaning; the hearer should not take the speaker’s utterance word-for-word but should infer the hidden intended message. The hearer identifies an utterance as a hint when the speaker does not appear to be intentionally conveying the meaning that the utterance actually has in reality. Opacity leaves the hearer uncertain as to the speaker’s intentions, and at the same time leaves the speaker the possibility to deny the requestive interpretation. The recipient of the request also has the potential to opt out, rejecting the interpretation that the speaker have made a request. Some examples of hints are:
[ Research Notes on the section above... ] Above passages from Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), p. 73. Social/Situational Variability of RequestsRequests in any languages are made in consideration of a number of social and situational factors. Although it may not so overt at times, cultures have been found to differ as to which factors count more than others, and languages vary in the extent to which they switch directness levels by situation (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). Some of the social/situational factors include:
Above passages from Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), p. 40. Australian English speakers are found to prefer conventional indirectness strategies most often and switch levels of directness less often than Hebrew, German, French, and Spanish speakers. On the other hand, speakers of Hebrew and Argentinean Spanish tend to be highly sensitive to social/situational factors. For example, they employ a high level of directness in asking a low-imposition request, but a high level of indirectness in a high-stake request (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989).
|
|
||||
|
||||||
