Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese

Saeko Fukushima

Peter Lang

Requests and Culture

This page intentionally left blank

Saeko Fukushima

Requests and Culture

Politeness in British English and Japanese

PETER LANG
Bern Berlin Bruxelles Frankfurt am Main New York Oxford Wien

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de. British Library and Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: A catalogue record for this book is available from The British Library, Great Britain, and from The Library of Congress, USA

Cover design: Thomas Jaberg, Peter Lang AG

ISBN 3-03910-045-9 US-ISBN 0-8204-6851-7

3rd printing, 2003

Peter Lang AG, European Academic Publishers, Bern 2000, 2002, 2003 Hochfeldstrasse 32, Postfach 746, CH-3000 Bern 9 info@peterlang.com, www.peterlang.com, www.peterlang.net All rights reserved. All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. Printed in Germany

To the memory of my father

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank many people who have supported me, encouraged me and helped me in many ways. First of all, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Ronald V. White, my supervisor, since this is based on my Ph.D. thesis. He has shown a deep understanding to my work and has never failed to help me. I was inspired by his stimulating discussion and trained to put my thought into words by his strict attitude on writing style. Similarly, I would like to express my deep appreciation to Kenneth P. Turner, who has been supportive and has encouraged me to publish my work. I also would like to give my special thanks to Hansmartin Zimmermann, who has been always on my side and has helped me to make my work go out into the world. My gratitude from the bottom of my heart also goes to Mami Kasai, who has always guided me with her great love. I also would like to thank all the people who contributed to my work in giving data.

This page intentionally left blank

Table of Contents

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 CHAPTER 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Contextualising This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Structure of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

CHAPTER 2 Politeness Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.2. Definitions of Politeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.3. Four Views of Politeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.3.1. The Social-norm View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.3.2. The Conversational-maxim View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.3.2.1. Grice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.3.2.2. Lakoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.3.2.3. Leech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.3.3. The Face-saving View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.3.3.1. Face, Universality and Politeness Strategies . . . . 36 2.3.3.2. Variables determining Politeness Strategies . . . . 41 2.3.3.3. Cross-cultural Variation and Distribution of Politeness Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.3.4. The Conversational-contract View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.3.5. The Theoretical Position of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.4. Criticisms of Brown and Levinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 2.4.1. Face and Universality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 2.4.1.1. Japanese Criticisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 2.4.1.2. Chinese Criticisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 9

2.4.2. Evaluation of Criticisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2.1. Japanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2.2. Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53 53 59 60

CHAPTER 3 Requests and Responses to Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Requests and Speech Act Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indirectness in Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Payoffs of Different Types of Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structures, Forms and Categories of Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . Variables Affecting Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.1. Relationship of Variables and Requesting Strategies . . . 3.7.2. Components of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.2.1.Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.2.2.Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.2.3. Imposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.3. Variables Included in This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.3.1. Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.3.2. Social Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.3.3. Imposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8. Responses to Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8.1. Types of Responses to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . 3.8.2. Definitions of Solicitousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8.3. Conditions of Solicitousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8.4. Status of Solicitousness in Politeness Strategies . . . . . . 3.8.5. Interpretations of Solicitousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8.6. Solicitousness and Face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 63 64 66 68 72 74 76 76 79 79 81 84 85 85 86 88 89 91 92 94 95 96 98 99

CHAPTER 4 Cultural Dimensions of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.2. What is Culture? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.2.1. Definitions of Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 10

4.2.2. The Anthropological View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4.2.3. Problems Concerning Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4.3. Collectivism-Individualism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 4.3.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 4.3.2. Criticisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 4.3.3. Features of Collectivism and Individualism . . . . . . . . . 113 4.3.3.1. The Concept of Group/Individual . . . . . . . . . . 113 4.3.3.2. Communication Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 4.3.4. A Brief Summary of Collectivist Cultures and Individualist Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 4.3.5. Japanese Culture and British Culture: Collectivist or Individualist? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 4.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 CHAPTER 5 Research Design and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.2. Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.3. Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 5.3.1. Hypotheses of Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 5.3.2. Hypotheses of Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 5.3.2.1. Hypotheses of Requesting Strategies by British and Japanese Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . 130 5.3.2.2. Hypotheses concerning the Correlation between the Situational Assessment and the Choice of Requesting Strategies . . . . . 131 5.3.3. Hypotheses of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 5.3.3.1. Hypotheses of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests by British and Japanese Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 5.3.3.2. Hypotheses concerning the Correlation between the Situational Assessment and the Choice of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 5.4. Review of Methods for Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 5.4.1. Naturally Occurring Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 5.4.2. Elicited Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 11

5.4.2.1. Role Plays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 5.4.2.2. Written Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 5.4.2.2.1.Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs). . 138 5.4.2.2.2.Multiple-Choice Questionnaires (MCQs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 5.5. Data Collection and Research Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 5.5.1. Method of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 5.5.1.1. Previous Stages of the Present Study . . . . . . . . 141 5.5.1.1.1.Project 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 5.5.1.1.2.Project 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.5.1.1.3.Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.5.1.1.4.Changes Made as a Result . . . . . . . . 145 5.5.1.1.5.Situational Assessment (SA 96) . . . . 146 5.5.1.2. The Method for the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . 150 5.5.2. Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 5.5.2.1. Names used in the Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 5.5.2.2. Request Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 5.5.2.3. Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 5.5.2.4. Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 5.5.2.5. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 5.5.3. Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 5.5.4. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 5.5.4.1. Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 5.5.4.2. Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 5.5.4.3. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . 158 5.5.5. Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 5.5.6. Translation of the Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 5.5.6.1. Translation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 5.5.6.2. Problems and Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 5.6. Data Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.6.1. Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.6.2. Requesting Strategies and Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 5.6.3. Correlation between Situational Assessment and Requesting Strategies and Correlation between Situational Assessment and Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . 164 5.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 12

CHAPTER 6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Results of Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Results of Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Results of Correlation between Situational Assessment and Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 6.5. Results of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . 173 6.6. Results of Correlation between Situational Assessment and Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . 175 6.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 CHAPTER 7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 7.2. Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 7.2.1. Power Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 7.2.2. Social Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 7.2.3. Imposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 7.3. Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 7.3.1. The Choice of Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 7.3.1.1. Requesting Strategies employed by British and Japanese Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 7.3.1.2. Categorisation of British and Japanese Cultures from the Perspective of Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 7.3.2. The Relationship between the Choice of Requesting Strategies and the Three Variables . . . . . . . 196 7.4. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 7.4.1. The Choice of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 7.4.1.1. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests employed by British and Japanese Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . 199 7.4.1.2. Categorisation of British and Japanese Cultures from the Perspective of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . 204 13

7.4.2. The Relationship between the Choice of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests and the Three Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 7.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 CHAPTER 8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 8.2. Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 8.2.1. Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 8.2.2. Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 8.2.3. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . 213 8.3. Evaluating This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 8.3.1. Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 8.3.2. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 8.4. Implications of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 8.5. Suggestions for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 8.6. Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Appendices Appendix 1. Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 1.1. Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 1.2. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . 255 Appendix 2. Questionnaires in English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 2.1. Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 2.2. Situational Assessment (SA 96) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 2.3. Main Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

14

List of Tables

Table 1. Brown and Levinsons Dyads and Politeness Strategy Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Labels and Glosses for Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Labels and Glosses for Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Labels and Glosses for Imposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Robinsons View of Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 A Summary of Features of Collectivist Cultures and Individualist Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Classification of Twelve Situations in SA 96 . . . . . . . . . 148 Category of Twelve Situations in SA 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Situations in SA 96 and Situations in This Study . . . . . . 149

Table 10. A Summary of Previous Stages of This Study . . . . . . . . . 149 Table 11. Taxonomy developed in Takahashi (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Table 12. Problems and Solutions of Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Table 13. A Summary of Data Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Table 14. Mean Scores of Three Variables by British and Japanese Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Table 15. The Number of the Subjects who Selected Each Choice of Requesting Strategies and the Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Table 16. The Number of the Subjects (In-group and Out-group) who Selected Each Choice of Requesting Strategies and the Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Table 17. Spearmans rank-order Correlation Coefficients between the Choice of Requesting Strategies and the Three Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 15

Table 18. Spearmans rank-order Correlation Coefficients between the Choice of Requesting Strategies by British and Japanese Subjects and Power Difference . . . 173 Table 19. The Number of the Subjects who Selected Each Choice of Responding Strategies and the Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Table 20. Spearmans rank-order Correlation Coefficients between the Choice of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests and the Three Variables . . . . . . . 175 Table 21. A Summary of the Results of Situational Assessment, Requesting Strategies, and Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Table 22. Features of British and Japanese Cultures and Requesting Strategies by British and Japanese Subjects in This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

16

List of Figures

Figure 1. Leechs Maxims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 2. Possible Strategies for Doing FTAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 3. How Wakimae Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure 4. Constituents of Face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Figure 5. Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Figure 6. Social Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Figure 7. Imposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Figure 8. Categories of Responses to Off-record Requests . . . . . . 92 Figure 9. Mechanisms of Solicitousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Figure 10. Status of Solicitousness in Politeness Strategies . . . . . . . 96 Figure 11. Interpretation of Solicitousness in the Sequence of Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Figure 12. Solicitousness and Face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Figure 13. Solicitousness and Face Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Figure 14. Influences of Culture on Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Figure 15. Three Levels of Uniqueness in Human Mental Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Figure 16. Individualism and Collectivism: An Integrated Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Figure 17. Methods of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

17

This page intentionally left blank

18

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1. Introduction
The present study is concerned with the study of politeness in the context of cross-cultural pragmatics. Specifically, the investigation reported here may contribute to cross-cultural pragmatics by applying and developing Brown and Levinsons politeness theory (Brown and Levinson, 1978; 1987), notably with respect to requests and responses to off-record requests. Brown and Levinson have made a significant contribution to theory, but as they themselves acknowledge (Ibid.: 11), they have not provided an equally sound methodology, and in this study, I attempt to put their politeness theory on to a more secure methodological footing, to be discussed in more detail in chapter 5. Since its first publication in 1978, Brown and Levinsons theory of politeness has been subject to many criticisms. Taking account of such criticisms, and considering their theory in more detail, I will attempt to argue that: 1. the variables determining politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson are valid; and 2. Brown and Levinsons framework is still valid for cross-cultural comparison. More detailed discussion will be provided in chapter 2, where I will examine the following features of their politeness theory: 1. the variables determining politeness strategies; and 2. the politeness strategies in relation to their classification of British and Japanese cultures, i.e., that both are classified as negative politeness cultures, and the politeness strategies used in the two cultures are distributed under Dyad II in their scheme.

19

More specifically, I will examine: 1. whether there are cross-cultural variations in the assessment of power difference and social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act between British and Japanese subjects; and if so, in what kind of situations cross-cultural variations occur; 2. whether the three variables, power difference, social distance and the degree of imposition, are influential in deciding politeness strategies; and 3. whether their categorisation of British and Japanese cultures within negative politeness cultures (the politeness strategies of British and Japanese cultures are located in Dyad II) is valid. I will discuss requesting strategies in Dyad II and the three variables in further detail in chapters 2 and 3 respectively. I will also attempt to develop further the area of responses to offrecord strategies, based on Brown and Levinsons theory. Such strategies have not been developed in their account, although they (1987: 71) have briefly mentioned a response to an off-record request when discussing offrecord strategies. I will try to incorporate responses to off-record strategies within their framework, while also establishing a theoretical connection between responding strategies to off-record requests and face, which is a central component of their theory. I define one type of response to offrecord requests, in which H preempts Ss request, as solicitousness, to be discussed in detail in chapter 3, and investigate displays of solicitousness by British and Japanese subjects. Since displays of solicitousness appear to be culturally relative, the cultural dimensions of this study will be reviewed in chapter 4. In sum, I will attempt: 1. to examine Brown and Levinsons theory; and 2. to contribute to the development of their theory with regard to responses to off-record strategies, by conducting an empirical study in contrasting cultural settings, focusing on requests and responses to off-record requests in the contexts of contemporary Britain and Japan. In conducting the study, I will attempt to devise an appropriate methodology for a cross-cultural comparison, which will be discussed further in chapter 5.

20

Politeness strategies in British and Japanese cultures were chosen as the focus of this study because, although there have been quite a few studies comparing communication in a negative politeness culture (Japan) with a positive politeness culture (America) (see for example, Barnlund and Araki, 1985; Barnlund and Yoshioka, 1990; Beebe and Takahashi, 1989a & b; Beebe, et al., 1990; Hill, et al., 1986; Nomura and Barnlund, 1983), to my knowledge, there have not been previous studies comparing two negative politeness cultures, i. e., Japanese and British cultures in the present case.

1.2. Contextualising This Study

As politeness is an aspect of pragmatics, the present study is intended to make a contribution to this field. Basically, pragmatics is concerned with explaining areas not covered by syntax or semantics, which is why pragmatics is often called the waste-basket of linguistics (Mey, 1993: 12), but in thirty years pragmatics has advanced from the proverbial wastebasket to a full grown academic field (Biletzki, 1996: 455). Leech (1983: 6) redefines pragmatics for the purposes of linguistics as the study of meaning in relation to speech situations, while Blum-Kulka (1997: 38) explains that:
In the broadest sense, pragmatics is the study of linguistic communication in context. Language is the chief means by which people communicate, yet simply knowing the words and grammar of a language does not ensure successful communication. Words can mean more or something other than what they say. Their interpretation depends on a multiplicity of factors, including familiarity with the context, intonational cues and cultural assumptions. The same phrase may have different meanings on different occasions, and the same intention may be expressed by different linguistic means. Phenomena like these are the concern of pragmatics.

She also points out the difference between early pragmatics and contemporary pragmatics:
much of early pragmatics research (especially speech act theory ) tended to focus on isolated utterances. In contrast, contemporary pragmatics bases its analyses mainly on discourse extended sequences of actual text and talk and sets as its goal the development of a comprehensive theory of the relations between language use and sociocultural contexts. (Ibid.: 38)

21

In contemporary pragmatics, there has been a growth of interest in crosscultural features, and the study of differences in expectations based on cultural schemata is part of a broad area of investigation generally known as cross-cultural pragmatics (Yule, 1996: 87). Among the most extensive pieces of research in this area is CCSARP (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984; Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper, 1989), comparing requests and apologies in eight languages and language varieties. According to Blum-Kulka (1997: 55), in cross-cultural pragmatics there are two approaches to analysis, which, to use the terms employed by Leech (1983), are: 1. pragmalinguistic; and 2. sociopragmatic. Leech (1983: 1011) explains the difference as follows:
socio-pragmatics is the sociological interface of pragmatics. The term pragmalinguistics, on the other hand, can be applied to the study of the more linguistic end of pragmatics where we consider the particular resources which a given language provides for conveying particular illocutions.

And he (Ibid.: 18) makes the point that:

socio-pragmatics would involve the assignment of variant values to the principles and maxims.

According to Blum-Kulka (1997: 5556), in pragmalinguistic studies, the focus is on examining the linguistic realisations in a particular language for conveying a specific pragmatic function, whereas in sociopragmatic studies, the focus is on the choice of strategies across different situations, examining the way in which pragmatic performance is subjected to social and cultural conditions. This study falls in the area of cross-cultural pragmatics in that it compares politeness strategies in British English and in Japanese, following a sociopragmatic approach.

22

1.3. Structure of This Study

In order to establish a theoretical position, I review the major politeness theories and the criticisms of Brown and Levinsons theory in chapter 2, while in chapter 3 I review requests and the responses to requests to find a basis for the research instrument. In chapter 4, I review cultural features related to this study, because there appears to be some relationship between these features on the one hand and the choice of strategies in requesting and responding to off-record requests on the other. In chapter 5, I describe the research design, after reviewing methods for data collection. The results of the data are presented in chapter 6, and discussed in chapter 7. The conclusions, including the implications for further studies, are presented in chapter 8.

1.4. Conclusion
With pragmatics, the study of cross-cultural realisations of politeness phenomena has extended and challenged existing theories of politeness, notably that of Brown and Levinson. Among the gaps in their theory is the area of requesting strategies in their Dyad II, and of responses to offrecord requests, especially what I have defined as solicitousness. This gap provides an opportunity to apply, extend and test their model of politeness in two-cultural settings, using comparable sets of subjects, and comparable situations. My study focuses on the variables determining politeness strategies; the requesting strategies; and the responding strategies to off-record requests.

23

This page intentionally left blank

24

CHAPTER 2

Politeness Theories

2.1. Introduction
In this chapter, I outline the theoretical position of this study. In 2.2., I will consider politeness, a major concern in pragmatics (Blum-Kulka, 1997: 50), and in 2.3., I will review politeness theories using Frasers (1990) four views. Since this study is concerned with politeness in the context of cross-cultural pragmatics and since it involves an empirical study with British and Japanese subjects, it will be necessary to find a theoretical basis which is sufficiently robust for a cross-cultural comparison and empirical testability. A review of all four views of politeness reveals that the face-saving view of Brown and Levinsons is the only one among the four which satisfies the criteria for empirical theories, such as explicitness, parsimony, and predictiveness, (Kasper, 1994: 3208) and with respect to the issue of empirical testability, it is important to realize that Brown and Levinsons framework ultimately represents, analyzes and accounts for highly reduced, idealized, models of speech activities (Janney and Arndt, 1993: 19) (italics in original). Brown and Levinson also offer a framework for comparing cross-cultural differences in politeness. Therefore, it would be appropriate to take Brown and Levinsons view as a theoretical basis in this study. Since the publication of Brown and Levinson (1978; 1987), many criticisms of Brown and Levinson have been made. As I am adopting Brown and Levinsons politeness theory as a basis for this study, it is necessary to review these criticisms and to attempt to argue that their theory is both valid and appropriate for this study, which involves making a crosscultural comparison. In 2.4.1., I will review the criticisms concerning face and universality, most of which have been made by non-Western researchers. Among these non-Western researchers, Nwoye (1992) criticises Brown and Levinsons notion of face from the viewpoint of egalitarian Igbo society, in which gregariousness rather than atomistic individuals is the norm and where people are still to a large extent their brothers keepers so that 25

very few acts are considered as impositions. However, this simply means that the boundaries of negative politeness have been redrawn in Igbo society. As there are many acts which can be impositions in Japanese and British societies, I will discount Nwoyes criticism. Among other non-Western researchers, Japanese and Chinese pragmaticists have extensively criticised the Brown and Levinson concept of face. de Kadt (1998: 173) notes that:
a number of authors working with languages from the Far East, with Chinese and especially Japanese, have recently argued that face is applicable only to (some) Western languages and is not appropriate for the analysis of Eastern languages (Gu, 1990; Ide, 1989; Matsumoto, 1988, 1989; Mao, 1994).

I will focus on their criticisms, because they are significant, and because this study deals with Japanese culture. In 2.4.2., I will attempt to evaluate these criticisms, and also try to clarify my ideas on politeness strategies in Japan, after having considered the criticisms made by the Japanese researchers.

2.2. Definitions of Politeness

As Thomas (1995: 149) points out, there has been a great deal of interest in politeness in pragmatics, and just as definitions of pragmatics vary, so too do definitions of politeness. Not only is the term used in different ways, but the term itself is not defined. Indeed, as Watts, Ide and Ehlich (1992a: 3) observe:
one of the oddest things about politeness research is that the term politeness itself is either not explicitly defined at all or else taken to be a consequence of rational social goals such as maximising the benefit to self and other, minimising the face-threatening nature of a social act, displaying adequate proficiency in the accepted standards of social etiquette, avoiding conflict, making sure that the social interaction runs smoothly, etc.

Another difficulty is pointed out by Kasper (1994: 3206), noting the different meanings of the term in ordinary parlance and pragmatics. In the former,
politeness refers to proper social conduct and tactful consideration for others.

26

whereas in the latter,

politeness as a technical term in linguistic pragmatics refers to a broader, substantially more democratic concept. Since the object of pragmatic inquiry is linguistic action, politeness as a pragmatic notion refers to ways in which linguistic action is carried out more specifically, ways in which the relational function in linguistic action is expressed.

LoCastro (1990: 252) points out that the term politeness is frequently confused with related folk terms like etiquette and manners and it has folk meanings that are not clearly distinguishable from its more technical or formal meanings. Indeed, the definition of polite in Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (1987) is in line with the folk meaning of the term, in the sense of referring to good manners and social correctness.
Someone who is polite has good manners and behaves in a way that is socially correct and considerate of other peoples feelings. Polite describes things that you say or do simply because it is socially correct to do or say them, rather than because you mean them sincerely. (Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary, 1987: 1109)

In Britain politeness is typically used to describe negative politeness, which is presumed to be a good thing. In this respect, I believe that the Japanese translation of politeness, teinei, also has a similar connotation. According to Hori (1986), the Japanese concept of being polite includes only negative politeness. These views of politeness coincide with what Watts et al. (1992a) have termed first-order politeness in their scheme in which they distinguish between the folk and pragmatic definitions of the term, the latter being second-order politeness in their classification. Second-order politeness is located within a theory of social behaviour and language use, and is not equated with any moral or psychological disposition towards being nice to ones interlocutor. It is in this pragmatic sense that I will use the term. For the purpose of this study, I take politeness to refer to the use of communication strategies intended to maintain mutual face and to achieve smooth communication, taking into account human relationships. The promoting and maintaining of politeness calls for displays of appropriate behaviour. What is considered to be appropriate varies from situation to situation and culture to culture, while personal values and tastes may also influence judgements of appropriateness. 27

2.3. Four Views of Politeness

Fraser (1990) reviews four current approaches to politeness: (1) the socialnorm view; (2) the conversational-maxim view; (3) the face-saving view; and (4) the conversational-contract view. In this section, these four views are used as a basis of reviewing theories of politeness.

2.3.1. The Social-norm View

According to Fraser (1990: 220), the first approach to politeness is the social-norm view which assumes that each society has a particular set of social norms consisting of more or less explicit rules that prescribe a certain behavior, a state of affairs, or a way of thinking in a context. A positive evaluation (politeness) arises when an action is congruent with the norm, a negative evaluation (impoliteness-rudeness) when an action is not. The social-norm view includes etiquette, manners, or social rules, i.e., what to do and what not to do. This normative view considers politeness to be associated with speech style, whereby a higher degree of formality implies greater politeness (Fraser, 1990: 221). The social-norm view corresponds to first-order politeness suggested by Watts et al. (1992a). According to them (1992a: 3), first-order politeness corresponds to the various ways in which polite behaviour is perceived and talked about by members of socio-cultural groups. It encompasses, in other words, commonsense notions of politeness. According to Fraser (1990: 221), the socialnorm approach has few adherents among current researchers. This may be because, as Watts et al. have pointed out, it is a commonsense notion, different from second-order politeness, which is a theoretical construct. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to take the social-norm view as a theoretical basis for this study.

2.3.2. The Conversational-maxim View

The second view of politeness is the conversational-maxim view which relies principally on the work of Grice (1975) and his foundation of the 28

Cooperative Principle (CP). Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983) have adopted and elaborated Grices Cooperative Principle. I will review Grices view in 2.3.2.1., Lakoffs view in 2.3.2.2., and Leechs view in 2.3.2.3.

2.3.2.1. Grice Grices (1975) paper Logic and conversation gave rise to the study of linguistic politeness within the framework of Anglo-American pragmatics and the ensuing attempt to develop second-order politeness concepts (Watts et al., 1992a: 3). It aims at representing and accounting for a certain subclass of nonconventional implicatures (also known as conversational implicatures) as essentially connected with certain general features of discourse (Grice, 1975: 45). These general features he embodied in what has become known as the Cooperative Principle. It is based on the following assumption:
Our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks, and would not be rational if they did. They are characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction. (Grice, 1975: 45)

On the basis of the above, Grice labels the following as the Cooperative Principle (CP).
Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.

The Cooperative Principle entails four maxims, each of which further entails submaxims. Grice named these maxims after Kants categories: Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner, each of which is as follows (Grice, 1975: 4546):
1. Quantity (1) Make your contribution as informative as required (for the purpose of the exchange). (2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. 2. Quality (1) Do not say what you believe to be false. (2) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

29

3. Relation Be relevant. 4. Manner (1) Avoid obscurity of expression. (2) Avoid ambiguity. (3) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). (4) Be orderly.

Discussing the CP and its maxims, Grice (1978: 113114) says that:
I have suggested a Cooperative Principle and some subordinate maxims, with regard to which I have suggested: (i) that they are standardly (though not invariably) observed by participants in a talk exchange; and (ii) that the assumptions required in order to maintain the supposition that they are being observed (or so far as is possible observed) either at the level of what is said or failing that, at the level of what is implicated are in systematic correspondence with nonconventional implicata of the conversational type.

The cooperative principle and its associated conversational maxims constituted a part of a systematic philosophical theory of language which was predicated upon the assumption that the primary purpose of conversation is the maximally effective exchange of information (Turner, 1997: 5). Grice (1975: 48) expressed the desire to have a rational basis for the standard type of conversational practice:
I would like to be able to think of the standard type of conversational practice not merely as something that all or most do IN FACT follow but as something that it is REASONABLE for us to follow, that we SHOULD NOT abandon.

The important notion that Grice is trying to explicate is conversational rationality, although Grice (1989: 369) admits that:
some refinement in our apparatus is called for. First, it is only certain aspects of our conversational practice which are candidates for evaluation, namely those which are crucial to its rationality it is the rationality or irrationality of conversational conduct which I have been concerned to track down rather than any more general characterization of conversational adequacy.

Grice admits some limitations, because in practice language does not always aim at a maximally effective exchange of communication. Some researchers have criticised the CP for this reason (e.g. Sifianou, 1992: 16). The CP has also been criticised from the viewpoint of the universality of the maxims, Hymes (1986: 73) noting that: 30

It can reasonably be assumed that any community will have some orientation to the dimension of quality (truthfulness), of quantity (informativeness), of relevance, of manner (clarity). What the orientation will be, and how complexly articulated in relation to kinds of person and context, would be an empirical question.

Keenan (1976), Eades (1982), and Loveday (1983) argue against the universality of the maxims of quality, quantity, and manner respectively, while Wierzbicka (1985: 175) argues convincingly that the attested universality of the logic of conversation seems ethnocentric. It is worth noting Attardos (1998: 631) comment on Keenans criticism:
Keenan (1976), a widely quoted apparent counterexample to the CP has been refuted repeatedly; It is an interesting fact that despite the overwhelming amount of evidence against Keenans claim of falsification her article is still quoted as a refutation of Grices claims (e.g., Du Bois, 1994: 3260).

Another kind of criticism is that the very term cooperation is misleading, since what in every day terms would be seen as highly uncooperative behavior, such as arguing, lying, hurling abuse, may yet be perfectly cooperative according to some interpretations of Grices (1975) term (Thomas, 1994: 760). The existence of the confusion about the terms conversation and cooperation has also been noted by Sarangi and Slembrouck (1992: 119), while Kingwell (1993: 390391) notes a troubling ambiguity with respect to the conversational tactics associated with politeness. Although there are some limitations in Grices CP as shown by the above criticisms, I prefer to align myself with Thomas (1994: 762), who concludes that despite its flaws, no one else, in the view of this writer, has yet come up with anything better with which to replace it. Likewise, Sifianou (1992: 19) points out that:
It is important, , not to underestimate the significance of Grices work, one major asset of which is the flexibility to describe the violation and not just the observance of the postulates. None of the scholars who have criticized various aspects of his views fails to acknowledge his significant contribution to the study of conversation and utterance interpretation.

Brown and Levinson (1987: 5) also admit the importance of Grices maxims, which
are not merely statements of regular patterns in behaviour; they are background presumptions, which by virtue of that special status are robust to apparent counterevidence.

31

And they assign Grices theory the status of a general theory of communication (Sarangi & Slembrouck, 1992: 120). To sum up, although Grices work has been subject to criticism, it has provided a basis for a conversational-maxim view, and has provided a foundation for Brown and Levinsons politeness theory to be discussed in 2.3.3., because as Brown and Levinson (1987: 3) note,
The original essay presumes that Grices theory of conversational implicature and the framework of maxims that give rise to such implicatures is essentially correct.

2.3.2.2. Lakoff Lakoff (1973), adopting Grices construct of Conversational Principles in an effort to account for politeness (Fraser, 1990: 223), suggested that Grices maxims should be reformulated as pragmatic rules according to which utterances could be classified as well-formed or non-well-formed (Watts et al., 1992a: 3). Lakoff (1973: 296) proposes two rules of Pragmatic Competence:
1. Be clear. 2. Be polite.

Lakoff (Ibid.: 297298) points out when Clarity conflicts with Politeness, in most cases Politeness supersedes: it is considered more important in a conversation to avoid offense than to achieve clarity. She (Ibid.: 298) lists the rules of politeness:
1. Dont impose. 2. Give options. 3. Make A feel good be friendly.

The first rule is associated with distance and formality. Lakoff (Ibid.: 298) states that it can also be taken as meaning, Remain aloof, dont intrude into other peoples business. The second rule operates sometimes along with the first rule, sometimes in cases where the first rule would be inappropriate. Lakoff (Ibid.: 299) explains that certain particles may be used to give the addressee an option about how he is to react. The ultimate effect of the third rule is to make the addressee feel good: that is, it produces a sense of equality between Sp and A, and (providing Sp is actually equal or better than A) this makes A feel good (Ibid.: 301). It accounts 32

for the cases in which the speaker employs devices which will make the addressee feel wanted, or feel like a friend. In a later development of her theory, Lakoff (1975: 65) reformulated these rules as follows:
1. Formality: keep aloof. 2. Deference: give options. 3. Camaraderie: show sympathy.

Lakoffs rules of politeness have also been criticised, mainly on the grounds of theoretical weakness. Fraser (1990) points out that Lakoff does not explicitly say what she understands politeness to be, while Sifianou (1992: 22) states that Lakoff does not define the terms she uses so that they are susceptible to misinterpretation. Turner (1996: 6) also points out that her account (i) leaves these rules in this state of imprecision and, in spite of her numerous appeals to the importance of context and situation for linguistic description, (ii) makes no attempt to theorise the notion of context. Yeung (1997: 506) criticises Lakoffs position on the grounds that she never goes into the question of how the choice is made. Overall, Lakoffs view does not seem to be sufficiently well-formulated to provide a basis of this study.

2.3.2.3. Leech Leech (1983), also elaborating the framework initially set out by Grice, formulates a Politeness Principle (PP) as a necessary complement to the CP. He (1983: 82) notes that:
The CP enables one participant in a conversation to communicate on the assumption that the other participant is being cooperative. In this the CP has the function of regulating what we say so that it contributes to some assumed illocutionary or discoursal goal(s). It could be argued, however, that the PP has a higher regulative role than this: to maintain the social equilibrium and the friendly relations which enable us to assume that our interlocutors are being cooperative in the first place.

Essentially, as Kingwell (1993: 395) notes, Leechs PP clarifies what is obscured in Grice Leechs framework consists of (1) Interpersonal Rhetoric and (2) Textual Rhetoric. (Figure 1.) 33

Cooperative Principle (CP)

Maxim of Quantity Maxim of Quality Maxim of Relation Maxim of Manner Maxim of Tact Maxim of Generosity Maxim of Approbation Maxim of Modesty Maxim of Agreement Maxim of Sympathy

Interpersonal rhetoric

Politeness Principle (PP)

Irony Principle Processibility Principle Textual rhetoric Clarity Principle Economy Principle Expressivity Principle Figure 1. Leechs Maxims (Modified version of Leech, 1983: 16)

Leech (1983: 132) proposes six maxims of the politeness principle, which are stated as pairs:
(1) Tact Maxim (a) Minimize cost to other [(b) Maximize benefit to other] (2) Generosity Maxim (a) Minimize benefit to self [(b) Maximize cost to self] (3) Approbation Maxim (a) Minimize dispraise of other [(b) Maximize praise of other] (4) Modesty Maxim (a) Minimize praise of self [(b) Maximize dispraise of self] (5) Agreement Maxim (a) Minimize disagreement between self and other [(b) Maximize agreement between self and other] (6) Sympathy Maxim (a) Minimize antipathy between self and other [(b) Maximize sympathy between self and other]

34

Leech (1983: 123) further proposes that each of these maxims has a set of scales which must be consulted by the hearer in determining the degree of application of the maxim required in a given speech situation. These scales are as follows:
(1) The cost-benefit scale on which is estimated the cost or benefit of the proposed action A to s or to h. (2) The optionality scale on which illocutions are ordered according to the amount of choice which s allows to h. (3) The indirectness scale on which, from ss point of view, illocutions are ordered with respect to the length of the path (in terms of means-ends analysis) connecting the illocutionary act to its illocutionary goal.

In addition to the above scales, Leech (1983: 126) proposes two further scales which are highly relevant to politeness.
(4) Authority scale (5) Social distance scale

The authority and social distance scales are roughly equivalent to power and solidarity respectively in Brown and Gilmans (1960) terms. Leech (1983: 126) considers them as vertical and horizontal axes respectively. The vertical axis measures the degree of distance in terms of the power or authority of one participant over another, and it is an asymmetric measure. The horizontal axis measures solidarity, or social distance. The overall degree of respectfulness, for a given speech situation, depends largely on relatively permanent factors of status, age, degree of intimacy, etc., but also, to some extent, on the temporary role of one person relative to another (Leech, 1983: 126). Leech (1983: 127) summarises the way these various parameters influence tact as follows:
(i) the greater the cost of A to h, (ii) the greater the horizontal social distance of h from s, (iii) the greater the authoritative status of h with respect to s, (iv) the greater will be the need for optionality, and correspondingly for indirectness, in the expression of an impositive, if s is to observe the Tact Maxim.

Leech (1983: 83) proposes a distinction between absolute and relative politeness. The former can be analysed as a scale with a positive and a negative pole in that some acts are inherently polite (e.g. offers) or impolite (e.g. orders). Relative politeness depends on the context and the situation. 35

Leechs Politeness Principles have also been criticised. One of the criticisms is that politeness is never explicitly defined (Watts et al., 1992a: 6). There are criticisms concerning the difficulty of application of his principles to actual language usage or of testing them empirically (e.g. Fraser, 1990; Watts et al., 1992a: 7; Yeung, 1997: 506). Another criticism is that the number of the maxims is unconstrained (e.g. Thomas, 1995: 167; Turner, 1996: 6; Yeung, 1997: 506). Considering the above criticisms, it would not be appropriate to take Leechs framework as a basis for the current study.

2.3.3. The Face-saving View

The third approach to politeness is the face-saving view, of which the best known is that of Brown and Levinson (1978; 1987). In contrast to Leech, they maintain that Grices CP has a very different status in their theory from any so-called politeness principles. Brown and Levinson assert that linguistic politeness constitutes a message, a conversational implicature of the sort proposed by Grice (Fraser, 1990: 228), and they propose a politeness model that aims to account for the deviations from Grices Cooperative Principle. In other words, as noted in 2.3.2.1., Grices CP has provided a foundation for Brown and Levinsons politeness theory, but Brown and Levinsons theory is different from that of Grice, as they (1987: 5) explain that while the CP defines an unmarked or socially neutral presumptive framework for communication and the essential assumption is no deviation from rational efficiency without a reason, politeness principles are just principled reasons for deviation.

2.3.3.1. Face, Universality and Politeness Strategies Brown and Levinson (1987) postulate a Model Person (MP), who is endowed with the properties of rationality and face, the latter being central to their theory of politeness.
All our Model Person (MP) consists in is a wilful fluent speaker of a natural language, further endowed with two special properties rationality and face. By rationality we mean something very specific the availability to our MP of a precisely definable mode of reasoning from ends to the means that will achieve those ends. By face we mean something quite specific again: our MP is endowed with two particular wants

36

 roughly, the want to be unimpeded and the want to be approved of in certain respects. (Ibid.: 58)

Brown and Levinson (Ibid.: 64) further define rationality as the application of a specific mode of reasoning which guarantees inferences from ends or goals to means that will satisfy those ends. Their notion of face is derived from that of Goffman (1967) who defines face as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes Goffman (Ibid.: 7) sees face not as a private or an internalized property lodged in or on an individuals body, but as an image located in the flow of events, supported by other peoples judgments, and endorsed by impersonal agencies in the situation. Goffman (Ibid.: 1523) specifies two kinds of face-work: the avoidance process (avoiding potentially face-threatening acts) and the corrective process (performing a variety of redressive acts). Another source of Brown and Levinsons notion of face is the English folk concept of face, which is linked to notions like being embarrassed or humiliated, or losing face. Mao (1994: 454) points out that such notions of face seem to be Chinese in origin. Thomas (1995: 168) also states that the term face in the sense of reputation or good name seems to have been first used in English in 1876 as a translation of the Chinese term diu lian in the phrase Arrangements by which China has lost face. Brown and Levinson (1987: 61) define face as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, and state that face is something that is emotionally invested and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. They propose two kinds of face: positive and negative face. Positive face refers to an individuals desire to be accepted and valued by others, and negative face pertains to ones want to have the freedom to act without being impeded. They maintain that the notion of face constituted by these two basic desires is universal, although they recognise that the content of face is culture-specific and subject to much cultural elaboration (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 13).
Central to our model is a highly abstract notion of face which consists of two specific kinds of desires: the desire to be unimpeded in ones actions (negative face), and the desire (in some respects) to be approved of (positive face). This is the bare bones of a notion of face which (we argue) is universal, but which in any particular society we would expect to be the subject of much cultural elaboration.

37

On the one hand this core concept is subject to cultural specifications of many sorts what kinds of acts threaten face, what sorts of persons have special rights to face-protection, and what kinds of personal style (in terms of things like graciousness, ease of social relations, etc.) are especially appreciated. On the other hand notions of face naturally link up to some of the most fundamental cultural ideas about the nature of the social persona, honour and virtue, shame and redemption and thus to religious concepts (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 13)

Brown and Levinson (Ibid.: 62) also assume that the mutual knowledge of members public self-image or face, and the social necessity to orient oneself to it in interaction, are universal. In Kaspers (1990: 195) words, interactants ensure the different kinds of face wants postulated by Brown and Levinson, positive and negative face, which they claim to be universally valid social needs. This claim to universality has been contested by other researchers (See 2.4.1.). Brown and Levinsons key concept regarding face is Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs), which means that certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face, namely those acts that by their nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/or of the speaker (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 65). Thomas (1995: 169) explains face-threatening acts as follows:
An illocutionary act has the potential to damage the hearers positive face (by, for example, insulting H or expressing disapproval of something which H holds dear), or Hs negative face (an order, for example, will impinge upon Hs freedom of action); or the illocutionary act may potentially damage the speakers own positive face (if S has to admit to having botched a job, for example) or Ss negative face (if S is cornered into making an offer of help).

In order to either avoid or minimise such face-threatening activities, participants in interaction usually select from a set of strategies. Brown and Levinson posit possible strategies for doing FTAs (See figure 2.). (I will review these strategies further in 3.4. with regard to requests.)
1. without redressive action, baldly on record 2. positive politeness with redressive action Do the FTA 4. off record 5. Dont do the FTA Figure 2. Possible Strategies for Doing FTAs (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 69) 3. negative politeness

38

The difference between on record and off record lies in whether the communicative intention is clear to participants (on record) or whether there is more than one unambiguously attributable intention so that the actor cannot be held to have committed himself to one particular intent (off record) (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 6869). On record is subcategorised into: 1. Without redressive action, baldly; and 2. With redressive action. Doing an act baldly, without redress, involves doing it in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible (for example, for a request, saying Do X!) (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 69). To speak on record without redressive action is to speak with strict Gricean rationality (Turner, 1996: 3). Bald-on-record strategies are used in circumstances where:
(a) S and H both tacitly agree that the relevance of face demands may be suspended in the interests of urgency or efficiency; (b) where the danger to Hs face is very small, as in offers, requests, suggestions that are clearly in Hs interest and do not require great sacrifices of S (e.g., Come in or Do sit down); and (c) where S is vastly superior in power to H, or can enlist audience support to destroy Hs face without losing his own. (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 69)

Thomas (1995: 170171) rephrases the above, also adding her own view as another possible occasion to use bald-on-record strategies as follows. Bald-on-record strategies are used when there is a demand for speaking with maximum efficiency (e.g. in emergencies); when the overall weightiness of the FTA is very small (e.g. when making a trivial request of someone you know well and who has no power over you); when the FTA is perceived as being in the Hs interest; when the power differential is great (the powerful participant will often employ no indirectness at all); and when the speaker has deliberately chosen to be maximally offensive. (This is Thomass addition to Brown and Levinson.) Redressive action attempts to counteract the potential face damage of the FTA by doing it in such a way, or with such modifications or additions, that indicate clearly that no such face threat is intended or desired, and 39

that S in general recognizes Hs face wants and himself wants them to be achieved (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 6970). Redressive action is subcategorised into: 1. positive politeness; and 2. negative politeness. Positive politeness is oriented toward the positive face of H, the positive self-image that he claims for himself. Negative politeness, on the other hand, is oriented mainly toward partially satisfying (redressing) Hs negative face, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination. Positive politeness is approach-based and negative politeness is avoidance-based (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 70). Brown and Levinsons fourth strategy is off record, by which they mean that a communicative act is done in such a way that it is not possible to attribute only one clear communicative intention to the act (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 211). Explaining how off-record strategies help S avoid the responsibility of doing an FTA, Brown and Levinson (Ibid.) say that:
the actor leaves himself an out by providing himself with a number of defensible interpretations; he cannot be held to have committed himself to just one particular interpretation of his act. Thus, if a speaker wants to do an FTA, but wants to avoid the responsibility for doing it, he can do it off record and leave it up to the addressee to decide how to interpret it.

They (Ibid.) further explain that:

Such off-record utterances are essentially indirect uses of language: to construct an off-record utterance one says something either more general (contains less information in the sense that it rules out fewer possible states of affairs) or actually different from what one means (intends to be understood). In either case, H must make some inference to recover what was in fact intended.

They (Ibid.) suggest that there is essentially a two-stage process to arrive at the intended meaning of off-record strategies:
(i) A trigger serves notice to the addressee that some inference must be made. (ii) Some mode of inference derives what is meant (intended) from what is actually said, this last providing a sufficient clue for the inference.

In connection with Grice, Brown and Levinson (Ibid.) note that a very plausible candidate for the trigger is some violation of a Gricean Maxim. 40

The detailed strategies of off-record strategies are based on the violation of each of four maxims (See Brown & Levinson, 1987: 214). For example, by violating the relevance maxim, giving hints is an off-record strategy. Many cases of off-record speech acts are accomplished by hints that consist in raising the issue of some desired act A, for instance, by stating motives or reasons for doing A (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 214215). Here is an example: Its cold in here. (c. i. Shut the window.) (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 215) Brown and Levinsons fifth strategy is Dont do the FTA. In this strategy, nothing is said because the risk of face loss is extremely great. Brown and Levinson argue that not only face, but also the strategies of face redress, are universal. They further claim that the underlying rational, motivational, and functional foundations of politeness are assumed to be, to some extent, universal, and are assumed to influence, and be reflected by, speech in many different languages and cultures (Janney and Arndt, 1993: 14). In Brown and Levinson, as in Leech, scales are involved in assessing the degree of politeness required. A speaker must determine the seriousness of a face-threatening act in terms of three independent and culturallysensitive variables: (1) social distance; (2) power; and (3) absolute ranking of imposition, which I will review in the next section.

2.3.3.2. Variables determining Politeness Strategies Brown and Levinson (1987: 74) argue that the assessment of the seriousness of an FTA involves the following factors in many and perhaps all cultures:
1. the social distance (D) of S and H (a symmetric relation); 2. the relative power (P) of S and H (an asymmetric relation); 3. the absolute ranking (R) of imposition in the particular culture.

They (Ibid.: 76) present a formula to calculate the weightiness of an FTA, using the above three variables:
Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx where Wx is the numerical value that measures the weightiness of the FTAx, D(S, H) is the value that measures the social distance between S and H, P(H,S) is a measure of the power that H has over S, and Rx is a value that measures the degree to which the FTAx is rated an imposition in that culture.

41

They note that all three dimensions P, D, and R contribute to the seriousness of an FTA, and thus to a determination of the level of politeness with which, other things being equal, an FTA will be communicated (Ibid.: 76). According to them (Ibid.: 7677), in many cases D is based on an assessment of the frequency of interaction and the kinds of material or non-material goods (including face) exchanged between S and H. They (Ibid.: 77) define P as the degree to which H can impose his own plans and his own self-evaluation (face) at the expense of Ss plans and selfevaluation. According to them, the sources of P are twofold: (1) material control (over economic distribution and physical force) and (2) metaphysical control (over the actions of others, by virtue of metaphysical forces subscribed to by those others. They (Ibid.: 17) also use the term hierarchy to mean P. They (Ibid.: 78) further note that P is a value attached not to individuals at all, but to roles or role-sets. Thus in the roleset manager/employee, or parent/child, asymmetrical power is built in. R is defined as a culturally and situationally defined ranking of impositions by the degree to which they are considered to interfere with an agents wants of self-determination or of approval (his negative- and positiveface wants) (Ibid.: 77). They contend that the ranking of impositions is related to (1) services (including the provision of time) and (2) goods, as well as actors rights and obligations. They (Ibid.: 79) also state that impositions can still situationally vary in value; to ask for a dollar is generally to ask for more than to ask for a dime, yet to ask for a dime just outside a telephone booth is less than to ask for a dime for no apparent reason in the middle of the street. Concerning the factors of the above variables, Brown and Levinson (1987: 76) note that:
We are not interested in what factors are compounded to estimate these complex parameters; such factors are certainly culture-specific.

I think culture-specificity of factors of each variable may result in the cultural differences in the perceptions of situations which I will review in the next section.

2.3.3.3. Cross-cultural Variation and Distribution of Politeness Strategies In 2.3.3.1. and 2.3.3.2., I reviewed Brown and Levinsons theory with respect to face, universality and politeness strategies, and variables determin42

ing politeness strategies respectively. According to Kasper (1994: 3206), The face-saving view of politeness, proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987), has been the most influential politeness model to date. I am going to use their model as a basis of the present study which attempts an empirical cross-cultural comparison between British and Japanese cultures. By now, it is clear that Brown and Levinsons theory is well formulated for such an empirical study, but there seems to be a need to consider further how it can explain cross-cultural variation. Brown and Levinson (1987: 242) claim that their quite specific universal principles can provide the basis for an account of diverse cultural differences in interaction. In Holtgraves and Yangs (1992: 247) words, Brown and Levinsons theory is significant in providing a comprehensive framework for explaining cultural similarities and differences in language use.
Similarities arise from the assumption of a universal concern with face and the linguistic means for conveying face concerns. It is important to note that the theory also includes mechanisms for explaining cultural differences in language use.

The basic resources Brown and Levinson (1987: 242) use to show cultural differences are:
(i) parameters and variables within the scheme itself; (ii) differential distribution of the various strategies across a social population.

Holtgraves and Yang (1992: 247) paraphrase the above as follows: 1. cultural differences in the perceptions of situations on the power, distance, and imposition dimensions; and 2. cultural differences in the weighting of these three variables (italic in original) which can explain why there might be cultural differences in politeness in the same situation. Brown and Levinson (1987: 244245) list the following as the apparatus with which to describe cross-cultural variations:
(i) The general level of Wx in a culture, as determined by the sum of P, D, and R values. (ii) The extent to which all acts are FTAs, and the particular kinds of acts that are FTAs in a culture. (iii) The cultural composition of Wx: the varying values attached to P, D, and Rx, and the different sources for their assessment.

43

(iv) Different modes of assignment of members to the sets of persons whom an actor wants to pay him positive face, and the extent to which those sets are extended (v) The nature and distribution of strategies over the most prominent dyadic relations in a particular society

With reference to dimension (i), Brown and Levinson (Ibid.: 245) note that they can distinguish between positive-politeness cultures and negativepoliteness cultures. According to them (Ibid.), both British and Japanese, which are dealt in this study, are characterised as negative politeness cultures. (This is also claimed by Blum-Kulka (1987: 140) and Scollon and Scollon (1983)). Brown and Levinson (1987: 245) explain that in positive politeness cultures:
the general level of Wx tends to remain low; impositions are thought of as small, social distance as no insuperable boundary to easy-going interaction, and relative power as never very great. These are the friendly back-slapping cultures, as in the western U.S.A., some New Guinea cultures, and the Mbuti pygmies, for example.

And they (Ibid.) explain negative cultures as

those lands of standoffish creatures like the British (in the eyes of the Americans), the Japanese (in the eyes of the British), the Malagasy (as reported by E.O. Keenan, personal comm.) and the Brahmans of India.

According to Brown and Levinson, individuals in a negative politeness culture should show a greater preference for the two more polite strategies (negative politeness and off-record strategies) than individuals in a positive politeness culture (Holtgraves and Yang, 1990: 721). Noting that subcultural differences can be captured by dimension (i), Brown and Levinson (1987: 245) say that they
have a hunch that all over the world, in complex societies, dominated groups (and sometimes also majority groups) have positive politeness cultures; dominating groups have negative-politeness cultures. That is, the world of the upper and middle groups is constructed in a stern and cold architecture of social distance, asymmetry, and resentment of impositions, while the world of the lower groups is built on social closeness, symmetrical solidarity and reciprocity. (Ibid.)

Referring to dimension (ii), it is possible to explain differences between debt-sensitive cultures (e.g., Japan) and non-debt-sensitive cultures (e.g., England and U.S.A.) (Ibid.: 247). 44

In dimension (iii), the varying importances attached to P, D, and R, and the different scales for their assessment, seems to be similar to dimension (ii), Brown and Levinson (Ibid.: 248) noting that these observations (those in dimension (ii)) overlap with our third dimension of cross-cultural variation. Concerning dimension (iv), Brown and Levinson (Ibid.: 249) note that:
the different ways in which positive-face wants are distributed over an egos social network allow us to capture an important variable: in some cultures (or subcultures) there is a dramatic distinction between those whom you really want to be similar to and appreciated by as a more or less whole person and those whom you wish to value some special trait or ability that you possess, but nothing more.

In considering some patterns resulting from the fifth dimension, the distribution of strategies (from bald on record through positive and negative politeness to indirectness), they (Ibid.: 250251) formulate a set of four kinds of dyads (or generalized social relationships) specified by two polar values (high and low) attributed to S and H, on the two dimensions P and D. Table 1 is a brief summary of their dyads and distribution of politeness strategies
Dyad I Features The majority of public relations are dominated by high P relations Politeness Strategies Bald on record (to inferiors) Negative politeness/ off record (to superiors) High-numbered strategies Countries/ Societies India

II

High D relations dominate in public encounters Low D is the emphasis and P is minimized Low P relations prevail without high D

Japan; Madagascar; England

III

Symmetrical use of bald on record Positive politeness Symmetrical lownumbered strategies

western U.S.A.

IV

between men; between women; in an egalitarian society

Table 1. Brown and Levinsons Dyads and Politeness Strategy Distribution

45

Brown and Levinson (1987: 251) consider that Japan and England belong to the same dyad, although they note that there is a difference in the degree to what extent Japan and England belong to Dyad II, saying, In societies where high D relations dominate in public encounters (of which Japan by all accounts is one, Madagascar another, and England to a lesser degree yet another), one would expect symmetrical use of high-numbered strategies1 to be most evident (Ibid.). This means that in Dyad II, negative and offrecord strategies will prevail in social encounters (Sifianou, 1992: 96). A question is raised concerning the validity of categorising British and Japanese cultures together as negative politeness cultures (e.g. Matsumoto, 1988: 408409). I will take Brown and Levinsons view of categorising British and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures as a general hypothesis, and I will investigate the validity of Brown and Levinsons categorisation of British and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures, their politeness strategies being distributed in Dyad II, by analysing the results of the requesting strategies selected by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects. If Brown and Levinsons categorisation is valid, it can be hypothesised that the requesting strategies selected by British and Japanese subjects will be similar. That is, the high-numbered requesting strategies, i.e., negative politeness strategies and off-record strategies, will be employed by both British and Japanese subjects.

2.3.4. The Conversational-contract View

The fourth approach to politeness is the conversational-contract view which has been presented by Fraser (1975) and Fraser and Nolen (1981) and
1 Brown and Levinson did not explain what the high-numbered strategies were when they discussed dyads and politeness strategy distribution, but when they (1987: 69) explained possible strategies for doing FTAs (See figure 2 in 2.3.3.1.), they have numbered their strategies as follows: 1. Bald-on-record strategies; 2. Positive politeness strategies; 3. Negative politeness strategies; 4. Off-record strategies; and 5. Dont do the FTA. Therefore, what they mean by the high-numbered strategies are negative politeness and off-record strategies, as Sifianou (1992: 96) notes.

46

elaborated by Fraser (1990). Adopting Grices (1975) notion of the Cooperative Principle in general, it recognises the importance of Goffmans notion of face, but differs from Brown and Levinsons face-saving view. Fraser (1990: 232) explains the conversational-contract view as follows:
We can begin with the recognition that upon entering into a given conversation, each party brings an understanding of some initial set of rights and obligations that will determine, at least for the preliminary states, what the participants can expect from the other(s). During the course of time, or because of a change in the context, there is always the possibility for a renegotiation of the conversational contract: the two parties may readjust just what rights and what obligations they hold towards each other.

As Fraser suggests, in actual settings, rights and obligations may change during the course of time, and a renegotiation of rights and obligations may be necessary. However, I do not think that the conversational-contract view has provided a concrete methodology to judge how the changes of rights and obligations occur. This is where the conversational-contract view has been criticised by Thomas (1995: 177) who says that Frasers model of politeness is very sketchy compared with that of Leech and Brown and Levinson and it is difficult to judge how it might operate in practice. Therefore, the conversational-contract view would not be suitable as a theoretical basis for this study.

2.3.5. The Theoretical Position of This Study

In this section, I have reviewed four major approaches to politeness: the social-norm view, the conversational-maxim view, the face-saving view and the conversational-contract view. The social-norm view is more like an everyday view of etiquette or manners, rather than a theory of politeness, and this fails to provide a theoretical base. The conversational-maxim view has some limitations and it is not sufficiently well formulated to be tested empirically, although Grices work has provided a foundation for Brown and Levinsons politeness theory. The face-saving view, proposed in Brown and Levinsons theory provides a precise formulation of politeness and a basis for making cross-cultural comparison. The conversationalcontract view is not yet sufficiently well formulated for empirical research. Since this is an empirical study, dealing with cross-cultural pragmatics, it 47

requires a theoretical base, which is well formulated for a cross-cultural comparison and testability. As Brown and Levinsons view is the only one which satisfies these among the four major approaches, theirs will be taken as the theoretical basis for the present study.

2.4. Criticisms of Brown and Levinson

As Thomas (1995: 176) points out, Brown and Levinsons work has been extraordinarily influential and very widely discussed. It is not surprising, therefore, that a number of criticisms have been made of their model of politeness. Since I am taking Brown and Levinsons theory as the basis for this study, it is necessary to consider such criticisms, and in this section, I will review these which are mainly concerning face and universality. There have been criticisms of Brown and Levinsons three variables, too, some studies having shown different results from Brown and Levinsons prediction, i.e., a positive correlation between the weight of contextual factors (social distance, power, and imposition) and politeness investment (Kasper, 1994: 3209). I will not consider the criticisms concerning the variables in this section, but I will discuss this issue in 3.7.1. My purpose in this section is to show that Brown and Levinsons theory is valid as a theoretical basis for this study, despite all the criticisms, which are not without some weaknesses of their own.

2.4.1. Face and Universality

2.4.1.1. Japanese Criticisms One of the key concepts of Brown and Levinson (1987) is face but the notion that politeness is motivated by the desire to maintain face is problematical for many scholars (Janney and Arndt, 1993: 17). Japanese researchers, Matsumoto (1988; 1989) and Ide (1989), criticise Brown and Levinson from this perspective. 48

Matsumoto (1988) claims that the Japanese notion of face is different from Brown and Levinsons, which provides wrong predictions for Japanese politeness phenomena. Matsumoto gives examples from formulaic expressions (e.g. Doozo yoroshiku onegaishimasu. (lit.) I ask you to please treat me well/take care of me.), honorifics (e.g. different ways of expressing eat according to the subject) and the verbs of giving and receiving. She (Ibid.: 405) maintains that the notion of negative face wants as the desire to be unimpeded in ones actions is alien to Japanese culture. According to her, this notion of individuals and their rights has long been acknowledged as playing an increasingly dominant role in European and American culture, but such a notion cannot be considered as basic to human relations in Japanese culture and society (Matsumoto refers to Nakane, 1967, 1972; Doi, 1971, 1973; Lebra, 1976). What is important for a Japanese is understanding where s/he stands in relation to other members of the group or society, and acknowledging his/her dependence on others. Matsumoto (1988) also argues that the concept of imposition in Japanese culture is different from the one proposed by Brown and Levinson. She (Ibid.: 409) gives an example, Doozo yoroshiku onegaishimasu, which is literally translated as I ask you to please treat me well/take care of me. The speaker is making a direct request embodying an unveiled imposition. The imposition on the addressee here is the one in which the speaker expresses deference by humbling him- or herself and placing himor herself in a lower position (Ibid.: 410). According to Matsumoto (Ibid.), deferent impositions can enhance the good self-image (that is, the face) of the addressee. This is because the acknowledgement of interdependence is encouraged in Japanese society. The concept of imposition as defined by Brown and Levinson is considered to be something to be avoided; indeed, the concept of imposition in Japanese society, according to Matsumoto, even enhances the face of the addressee. Observing the use of honorifics in Japanese, Matsumoto (1989: 219) explains why honorifics are obligatory in Japanese, even in the absence of FTAs, and further argues that:
Brown and Levinsons theory of politeness fails in Japanese not because the strategies for achieving politeness are different but because the postulated motivation underlying politeness phenomena seems unsuited to Japanese culture and language. A close relation between politeness and ones desire to save face is likely in any culture. Yet, evidence from Japanese makes it questionable to assume that the given universal definition of face can provide the right predictions of Japanese politeness phenomena.

49

She (Ibid.: 209) demonstrates that it is impossible in Japanese to avoid marking the relationship between speaker and hearer, giving an example, Today is Saturday. In Japanese the copula would be plain, polite, or super polite, according to the status of the addressee. By giving this example, she attempts to show that in Japanese it is not possible for speakers to construct a sentence that can be used in all situations. In sum, Matsumoto (1989) asserts that Brown and Levinsons claim, that politeness strategies are used to minimise FTAs, does not apply to the Japanese language, in which honorifics are necessary even in the absence of FTAs. Ide (1989) also argues that Brown and Levinsons claim for the universality of politeness principles is questionable from aspects of language and usage which are distinctly relevant to linguistic politeness in Japanese. Those are (1) formal linguistic forms among varieties with different degrees of formality; and (2) discernment: the speakers use of polite expressions according to social conventions rather than interactional strategy. Ide (1989: 226227) objects to the way Brown and Levinson treat some formal forms:
Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) treat some of those formal forms as expressions of negative politeness strategies. However, they should not be categorized as strategies, since there are some fundamental differences between the choices of formal forms and the use of strategies. Formal forms are 1) limited in choice, 2) socio-pragmatically obligatory, 3) grammatically obligatory, and 4) made in accordance with a person who is not necessarily the addressee, the referent or the speaker him/herself.

She (Ibid.: 239) further objects to Brown and Levinsons strategy, Give deference:
honorifics are found under the strategy Give deference: the speaker humbles and abases him/herself, or the speaker raises the hearer (Brown and Levinson, 1978: 183). However, as mentioned above, the choice of honorifics or non-honorifics is obligatory even for a non-FTA utterance in Japanese. Thus, the primary use is for showing discernment.

According to Ide (1989: 230), another aspect which Brown and Levinson neglected is wakimae.
The practice of polite behavior according to social conventions is known as wakimae in Japanese. To behave according to wakimae is to show verbally and non-verbally ones sense of place or role in a given situation according to social conventions.

50

Ide (Ibid.) chooses discernment as used by Hill et al. (1986) as the closest equivalent term for wakimae. By discernment, Hill et al. (Ibid.: 348) mean that:
once certain factors of addressee and situation are noted, the selection of an appropriate linguistic form and/or appropriate behavior is essentially automatic.

Ide (Ibid.: 231) further explains discernment as being:

oriented mainly toward the wants to acknowledge the ascribed positions or roles of the participants as well as to accommodate to the prescribed norms of the formality of particular settings. The speaker regulates his or her choice of linguistic forms so as to show his or her sense of place. The sense of proper place is determined by what Brown and Levinson termed the weight of power (P), distance (D), and rank (R). The weight is perceived by the speaker against the background of the social norm.

Ide (1989: 223) subscribes to the view that discernment rather than face is the motivating force behind Japanese politeness. The choice of forms is made in order to show discernment. Ides claim is the same as Matsumotos (1989) in the sense that in the Japanese language (1) the choice of forms is obligatory according to the formality of the setting and the relationship among the participants; and (2) the choice of forms is not always related to FTAs, stating that honorifics are used even for a non-FTA utterance, i.e., even where neither the speakers nor the addressees face has anything to do with the utterance (Ide, 1989: 242).

2.4.1.2. Chinese Criticisms In criticising Brown and Levinsons theory, some Chinese researchers, Gu (1990) and Mao (1994), have a similar perspective to that of Matsumoto and Ide, in the sense that they place more importance on the group than the individual. A contrast between private versus public face views of politeness is made by Gu (1990), although indirectly. If Brown and Levinsons theory represents a private face view that implicitly elevates the individual over the group, Gus approach represents a public face view that emphasizes group rather than the individual (Nwoye, 1992: 312). Gu (1990: 241242) claims that Brown and Levinsons model is not suitable for Chinese data for two reasons. 51

The Chinese negative face is not threatened by the speakers impeding the hearers freedom to act, but it is threatened when self cannot live up to what s/he has claimed, or when what the self has done is likely to incur ill fame or reputation. Brown and Levinson see politeness as an instrumental system of means to satisfy individual face wants, while the Chinese view politeness as exercising a normative function in constraining individual speech acts as well as the sequence of talk exchanges. Failure to observe politeness will incur social sanctions. Mao (1994) also criticises Brown and Levinsons claim for the universality of face, pointing out that in Chinese, notions of face refer to prestige or reputation, i. e., mianzi, and the respect of the group for a man with a good moral reputation, i.e., lian. Mao (Ibid.: 459462) states that there are two major differences between the Chinese and Brown and Levinsons use of the term, which undermine Brown and Levinsons claim for universality. Those differences are (1) the overall conceptualization of face and (2) the content of face. Concerning the first, Brown and Levinsons face is a self-image in which they center their definition upon the individual rather than the communal aspect of face, whereas the Chinese concept of face emphasizes not the accommodation of individual wants or desires but the harmony of individual conduct with the views and judgement of the community (Ibid.: 459460). What Mao (Ibid.: 450460) claims is that Brown and Levinsons concept of face is defined in terms of individualism, whereas Chinese face is defined in communal terms. Chinese face encodes a reputable image that individuals can claim for themselves as they interact with others in a given community, and emphasises the harmony of individual conduct. Concerning the second difference, the content of face, Mao (Ibid.: 460) argues that Brown and Levinsons negative face refers to, and values, an individuals need to be free of external impositions. But mianzi identifies a Chinese desire to secure public acknowledgement of ones prestige or reputation (Ibid.). Mao (Ibid.: 471473) regards the Chinese and Japanese concept of face to be similar. According to him (Ibid.: 471), the Chinese and Japanese concept of face may be regarded as centripetal force, and the concept of face by Brown and Levinson may be regarded as centrifugal. Chinese and Japanese face gravitates toward social recognition and hierarchical interdependence, and Anglo-American face spirals outward from individual desires or wants, and sees the self as the initiating agent. 52

While Mao claims that Chinese face is different from that defined by Brown and Levinson, he (Ibid.: 461) admits lians resemblance to positive face.
In varying degrees, both lian and positive face identify an individuals desire to be liked and to be approved of by the others. However, the distinctive moral overtone evidenced in lian is not registered in positive face.

The discussions by the Chinese researchers are based on the distinction of mien-tsu and lien by Hu (1944) and Ho (1976). Hu explains mien-tsu and lien as follows:
Mien-tsu stands for the kind of prestige that is emphasized in this country: a reputation achieved through getting on in life, through success and ostentation. This is prestige that is accumulated by means of personal effort or clever maneuvering. Lien is the respect of the group for a man with a good moral reputation: the man who will fulfill his obligations regardless of the hardships involved, who under all circumstances shows himself a decent human being (Hu, 1944: 45). Lien refers to the confidence of society in the moral character of ego. Mien-tsu differs greatly from lien in that it can be borrowed, struggled for, added to, padded, all terms indicating a gradual increase in volume (Ibid.: 61).

Mien-tsu is face that has to be achieved, and lien is that to which every individual is entitled as a member of society. Therefore, it can be said that mien-tsu is acquired face, and lien is ascribed face.

2.4.2. Evaluation of Criticisms

2.4.2.1. Japanese As noted in 2.4.1.1., the Japanese researchers, Matsumoto (1988; 1989) and Ide (1989), have argued that Brown and Levinsons theory does not apply to Japanese language or society; so that the universality claimed by Brown and Levinson is not considered to be valid. Their criticisms are mainly concerned with the following. 1. The concept of face in Japan is different from that of Brown and Levinson, especially that of negative face. The notion of negative face wants as the desire to be unimpeded in ones action is alien to Japanese 53

culture. Instead of the desire to be unimpeded, the relation to other members of the group or society is important in Japan (Matsumoto, 1988) and factors of addressee and situation are important in the selection of appropriate linguistic forms (Ide, 1989). They demonstrate that language choices in Japanese are obligatory. Consequently, politeness strategies are used even in the absence of FTAs in Japanese, whereas, according to Brown and Levinson, politeness strategies are employed in order to minimise FTAs. 2. Ide (1989) claims that it is not face in Brown and Levinsons sense, but it is discernment, or wakimae, which is the motivating factor of politeness in Japan. 3. Matsumoto (1988) believes that the concept of imposition in Japan is different from that of Brown and Levinson, the former even enhancing the face of the addressee, the latter being something to be avoided. Although Matsumoto and Ide have tried to refute Brown and Levinsons theory by showing that some linguistic choices are obligatory in the Japanese language according to situations, this does not amount to a total refutation. What they have done is simply explaining some characteristics of the Japanese language. Because of these features, a choice of appropriate forms is obligatory, and is thus more obvious than in other languages. One important thing to note is that both Matsumoto and Ide focus on the level of syntax. They simply explain how polite forms work in the Japanese language. It is true that the language choice is determined by the relationship between the addresser and the addressee, and one has to be sensitive to the group, as Matsumoto suggests, and one has to discern ones place, as Ide claims. However, politeness is not manifested by those obligatory linguistic choices alone. And those features pointed out by Matsumoto and Ide are a sociolinguistic aspect of Japanese language, which can be summarised as follows: The study of discernment politeness is thus predominantly a sociolinguistic, rather than a pragmatic concern (Kasper, 1994: 3207). In fact, Matsumoto and Ide seem to confuse sociolinguistics with pragmatics, and to confuse deference with politeness. How then does pragmatics differ from sociolinguistics? According to Thomas (1995: 185), while there are areas of overlap,
sociolinguistics is mainly concerned with the systematic linguistic correlates of relatively fixed and stable social variables (such as region of origin, social class,

54

ethnicity, sex, age, etc.) on the way an individual speaks. Pragmatics, on the other hand, is mainly concerned with describing the linguistic correlates of relatively changeable features of that same individual (such as relative status, social role) and the way in which the speaker exploits his/her (socio)linguistic repertoire in order to achieve a particular goal.

Thomas (Ibid.: 150154) also discusses the difference between deference and politeness, which are sometimes mixed in the discussion of pragmatics, especially in Matsumoto (1988; 1989) and Ide (1989).
Deference is frequently equated with politeness, particularly in discussions of Japanese. Deference is connected with politeness, but is a distinct phenomenon; it is the opposite of familiarity. It refers to the respect we show to other people by virtue of their higher status, greater age, etc. Politeness is a more general matter of showing (or rather, of giving the appearance of showing) consideration to others. Deference is built into the grammar of languages such as Korean and Japanese. (Thomas, 1995: 150)

Thomas (Ibid.: 152) claims that it is not significant pragmatically, if the use of a particular form is obligatory in a particular situation. She points out that deference has little to do with pragmatics, because:
the speaker has no choice as to whether to use the deferent form or not usage is dictated by sociolinguistic norms. (Ibid.)

As noted in 2.4.1.1., Matsumoto (1989: 209) demonstrates that it is impossible in Japanese to avoid marking the relationship between speaker and hearer, giving examples of the choice of different form of copula according to the status of the addressee. Since the choice of the form of copula, as Matsumoto shows, is obligatory, according to Thomas (1995), it is not significant pragmatically. Matsumoto and Ide seem to emphasise the uniqueness of the Japanese language, and, taking the obligatory choices, they have tried to refute Brown and Levinsons universality, but as Thomas points out, all they have done is to demonstrate sociolinguistic aspects of the Japanese language. Next, I will consider the second point which I summarised above. Ide (1989) criticises Brown and Levinson, because they have neglected the aspect of discernment, and formal linguistic forms to show discernment, as noted in 2.4.1.1. Although she criticises Brown and Levinsons theory, she (Ibid.: 231) uses Brown and Levinsons three variables as the basis to recognise proper place. I find her argument to be contradictory because although she criticises Brown and Levinsons variables of power, distance 55

and imposition on the grounds that it is not clear how these variables can help a speaker choose an expression or a strategy (Ibid.: 240), yet she claims that the speaker regulates his or her choice of linguistic forms to show his or her sense of place by reference to these three variables. So, while claiming that there is a lack of clarity in the way these three variables operate, she nonetheless uses them as a basis for regulating the choice of linguistic form or showing discernment. I am also doubtful about Ides (1989) claim that in the Japanese language, honorifics are used in order to show discernment, and face is not involved. In fact, speakers who misuse honorifics are regarded as people who do not wakimaeru their place, and consequently it is they who lose face. As Mao (1994: 469) points out, face is related to acknowledging and maintaining role or status in relation to others, which is important in a society in which the group is emphasised. Thus, despite Ides claim that face applies only to societies in which individualism is important, the loss of face which occurs when an individual displays lack of discernment in the choice of honorifics suggests that Ides claim cannot be sustained. Ide (1989) argues that in Japanese society wakimae is important, giving the impression that wakimae is something unique to Japanese society. I find it difficult to accept that claim. In every society, one is expected, or would like to act according to the norms of that society, unless someone deliberately intends to violate those norms for a certain purpose. In order to act according to the norms of each society, one has to wakimaeru his/ her own position in society. Therefore, I think wakimae applies universally, even though there may be differences in the norms of each society, or the degree to which one may have to conform to those norms. As Kasper (1990: 196) states, While to date no language has been shown to entirely fall short of forms for social indexing, nor to lack contexts where social marking is mandatory, the extent to which social indexing is obligatory varies greatly across languages. Because of the characteristics of the Japanese language, the degree to which social indexing is obligatory may be stronger than in English, for example, but that does not mean wakimae applies only to Japanese society. Indeed, Hill et al. (1986: 351) hypothesised that all human speakers use language according to politeness, which we believe is fundamentally determined by Discernment, and their results showed that Discernment was a factor in the polite use of both Japanese and American English, from which it can be said that discernment, or wakimae is not the prerogative of Japanese society. 56

Concerning the third point as summarised above, Matsumotos (1988) claim that the concept of imposition in Japanese culture is different from the one proposed by Brown and Levinson, can be counter argued by the multifunctionality of utterances, as suggested by Turner (1996), who (Ibid.: 4) cites an example, Could you look after the baby for half an hour? and considers the multifunctionality of the utterance, such as 1. threatening the addressees negative face (because it may prevent the addressees freedom of action); 2. undermining the speakers positive face (because he or she is seen to not be able to act without assistance); and 3. anointing the addressees positive face (because the speaker is selecting the addressee as a reliable and responsible person to undertake this particular important task). The third function appears to be identical with that which, Matsumoto (1988) insists, is a unique feature of Japanese imposition, i.e., the imposition enhances the good self-image of the addressee since the acknowledgment of interdependence is encouraged in Japanese society. However, as Turners example shows, the function of interdependence is also found elsewhere. So, I suggest that the concept of imposition in Japanese society, as described by Matsumoto, cannot be considered to be uniquely Japanese. I have further doubts about Matsumotos claim, because the anthropological studies on which it is based, were published some decades ago (Nakane, 1967, 1972; Doi, 1971, 1973; Lebra, 1976). It is doubtful that Japanese society has remained unchanged after so many changes, especially in values (See chapter 4). I believe that in contemporary Japanese society the concept of Japanese face does not involve only the relation to others, as Matsumoto claims, but also the rights of individuals. Consideration of the criticisms of Brown and Levinson by the Japanese researchers shows that they have some important limitations, and that they are far from refuting Brown and Levinsons theory, which can also be applied to Japanese language or society. Next, I would like to clarify my idea on politeness strategies in Japan, taking a different position from Matsumoto and Ide. First of all, I believe that the notion of face is important in Japanese society. Sasagawa (1994b) also claims that communication in Japanese can be strongly accounted for by Brown and Levinsons concept of face. While admitting the importance of context or situation, and the necessity of acknowledging ones position in relation to others in Japanese society, 57

I believe that the importance of these factors is much related to face, because people try to acknowledge their position in a context and select appropriate politeness strategies so as not to threaten others face, and not to lose ones own face. Secondly, I believe that in contemporary Japan, in which individualism has also developed as the economy has grown (See chapter 4), the aspect of negative face wants in Brown and Levinsons sense is important. Thirdly, wakimae is not the prerogative of Japanese society, but it applies universally. In figure 3, I have tried to clarify my idea concerning the role or the function of wakimae. Appropriate behaviours, the behaviours manifested as an outcome of considering situation, would be politeness strategies (e.g. going off-record), linguistic choices (e. g. using honorifics), or the consideration of interaction, such as considering how we carry on a conversation, as Ikuta (1997) explains, or a combination of those.
context situation -----> process wakimaeru -----> outcome appropriate behaviours

Figure 3. How Wakimae Works

When people wakimaeru their own position or place in society, they consider some elements which are included in a situation, such as, power, distance and imposition. Components of those variables include closeness, authority, status, class, age, sex, role, rights and obligations, etc. (See 3.7.2.). There may be cultural differences in the degree of importance of a particular element (e.g. status of S or H) when acknowledging ones own position, but I believe that wakimae applies universally. Fourthly, positive face wants are quite strong in Japan. Neither Ide nor Matsumoto have discussed positive face as defined by Brown and Levinson, but I believe that the desire to be approved by others is a strong motivation for people to conform to social conventions in collectivist Japan as well as in individualist America or Britain. I believe that people try to act according to the norm in order to satisfy their own positive face wants. The Japanese researchers imply that Brown and Levinsons concept applies only to individualist societies. However, the satisfaction of positive face wants in conformity with social conventions by acknowledging ones position in a group would appear to be an example of positive face in a collectivist society. This suggests that the concept of positive face exists not only in 58

individualist societies, but also in a collectivist society like Japan. From this I conclude that the desire to conform to social conventions, acknowledging ones position in a group, is a subcategory of positive face. In other words, by acting according to the norm, one can gain the approval of others in the group. These constituents of face are summarised in figure 4.
the desire to be approved by others (positive face) the desire to conform to social conventions

the desire to be unimpeded by others (negative face) Figure 4. Constituents of Face

So far, I have attempted to counter argue Japanese researchers criticisms of Brown and Levinson. Their criticisms have some weaknesses. One of them is that they have simply shown the obligatory choices of the Japanese language, which can be considered as a sociolinguistic aspect of the Japanese language. Another weakness is that they emphasise the uniqueness of Japanese society, using such a concept as wakimae (Ide), and the concept of imposition in Japanese culture (Matsumoto), but both wakimae and the concept of imposition in Japanese culture can be found elsewhere. Therefore, their criticisms of Brown and Levinsons do not amount to a refutation. I have also attempted to show the importance of both negative and positive face in Japanese society, and I have noted that Japanese researchers have not considered the role of positive face.

2.4.2.2. Chinese As noted in 2.4.1.2., the Chinese researchers, Gu (1990) and Mao (1994), have argued that Brown and Levinsons theory does not apply to Chinese society; so that the universality claimed by Brown and Levinson was not considered to be valid. Their criticisms of Brown and Levinson can be summarised as follows: the Chinese concept of politeness and face, which emphasises the group, cannot be accounted for by Brown and Levinsons concept of politeness and face, which puts more importance on the individual. 59

What the Chinese researchers claim concerning face is similar to that claimed by the Japanese researchers, as noted in 2.4.1.1., both emphasising the importance of the group rather than the individual. They stress the importance of harmony, and the exercise of social sanctions if appropriate politeness is not displayed. I think people try to conform to social conventions in order to avoid such social sanctions, which I suggested as a subcategory of positive face in 2.4.2.1., but the Chinese researchers, like their Japanese counterparts, have not fully discussed Brown and Levinsons positive face, although Mao admits lians resemblance to positive face. Instead, they have mainly criticised Brown and Levinsons negative face. It seems to me that they have discussed some features of positive face, when they were attacking Brown and Levinsons negative face. Therefore, I do not think that their claim amounts to a refutation of Brown and Levinsons theory in terms of face and universality. The criticisms by the Chinese researchers of Brown and Levinsons claim for universality are based on Ho (1976), but Ho (Ibid.: 867) admits that face behaviour is universal, and that there are two fundamentally different orientations in viewing human behavior:
the Western orientation, with its preoccupation with the individual, and the Chinese orientation, which places the accent on the reciprocity of obligations, dependence, and esteem protection. (Ibid.: 883)

Ho maintains that they are not mutually exclusive, but rather are complementary. The Chinese researchers criticisms of Brown and Levinsons negative face can be also countered by reference to Hos interpretation of face.

2.5. Conclusion
In this chapter, I have considered politeness, pointing out some problems of usage, and indicating that I will be using the term in a pragmatic sense in this study. In reviewing the four major views on politeness in 2.3., I have concluded that Brown and Levinsons face-saving view is the most appropriate for this study, which deals with cross-cultural pragmatics, because it is the only one among the four views which is well formulated for empirical study and cross-cultural comparisons. 60

In 2.4., I have reviewed and evaluated the main criticisms of Brown and Levinsons concept of face and universality which have been made by non-Western researchers. I paid a special attention to those by Japanese researchers, since this study deals with Japanese culture. Their main criticism was that Brown and Levinsons theory, especially their notion of negative face, is based on Western notions of individualism so that it does not apply to Japanese society, in which the group has priority. Matsumoto (1988) emphasises the importance of individual understanding where s/he stands in relation to other members of the group or society, and the importance of acknowledging his/her dependence on others; and Ide (1989) claims the importance of wakimae, acknowledging the factors of addressee and situation in selecting appropriate politeness behaviours. Matsumoto (1989) and Ide (1989) further claim that in the Japanese language, the choices of forms are obligatory according to the relationship between speaker and hearer, so that politeness strategies are used even in the absence of FTAs. In fact, Matsumoto and Ide have simply discussed some sociolinguistic characteristics of the Japanese language, which are not significant pragmatically. They have emphasised the uniqueness of the Japanese notion of imposition or wakimae, but I have argued that the notion of imposition or wakimae are not unique to Japanese culture. I have claimed that face, which was not given importance by Matsumoto and Ide, was important in Japanese society, and I have also argued that negative as well as positive face wants were important in Japan. Matsumoto and Ide have not refuted Brown and Levinsons universality of politeness, and Brown and Levinsons framework could be applied to Japanese society. While many criticisms have been made of Brown and Levinsons theory, it has not been refuted, and those who criticise their theory have not yet been successful in setting up a theoretical framework to replace it. And despite the criticisms, it is important to note that Brown and Levinsons approach provides a useful framework for investigating many different aspects of social interaction, as Holtgraves and Yang (1990: 727) note. And Brown and Levinsons theory provides us with a framework for a cross-cultural comparison, although Brown and Levinson (1987: 14) admit that their folk notion of tact perhaps reflects the bias of a culture obsessed with individual rights and wants as criticised by Wierzbicka (1985), for example. However, they (Ibid. 15) still maintain that for the purpose of cross-cultural comparison developed here, we consider that our framework provides a primary descriptive format within which, or in contrast to which, such differences can be described. 61

It seems to me that those who object to universality as claimed by Brown and Levinson overlook the fact that they have acknowledged cultural variations, as noted in 2.3.3.1., arguing that they would expect the notion of face to be the subject of much cultural elaboration (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 13), and their claim as noted in 2.3.3.3., i.e., that their universal principles can provide the basis for an account of diverse cultural differences in interaction. In short, they argue for the universality of politeness on an abstract level, but for cultural specificity in realisation (cf. Sifianou, 1992: 46). In sum, I have come to the following conclusion. Of the four theoretical approaches reviewed in 2.3., that of Brown and Levinson is the most applicable to the kind of cross-cultural comparison which forms the focus of the present research. Despite the limitations of their framework, as discussed by the critics reviewed above, it provides a means of specifying and comparing the variables involved in the selection of politeness strategy and linguistic forms. Furthermore, their framework provides a basis for cross-cultural comparison, since the categories they propose have widespread application, even to languages and cultures which are claimed to differ from English and Anglo-Saxon culture in respect of concepts of face and ranking of imposition. For the purposes of the present research, Brown and Levinsons framework provides the most workable means of analysing relationship between such variables as power, distance and imposition and the choice of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests. In particular, their model provides a basis for generating hypotheses to be tested empirically, and any limitations in the predictive power of their model will be revealed in the data which will form the basis of the current study.

62

CHAPTER 3

Requests and Responses to Requests

3.1. Introduction
In our everyday life, we make and respond to many requests. Making requests is inseparable from politeness strategies, mainly because of the need to avoid threats to Hs face, and to gain compliance from H. Requests are chosen as the focus of the study, because they are important in everyday life as well as in politeness theories. When considering requests, we cannot omit responses. Although research has been done on responses to direct requests and conventionally indirect requests (e.g. Clark, 1979; Clark and Schunk, 1980), to my knowledge, there are no studies concerning responses to off-record requests.1 Off-record requests can be interpreted in many ways, because S does not make explicit that the utterance is a request, so that different ways of interpreting off-record requests are possible. Because of this, there are many possibilities of responding to off-record requests, which can create misunderstanding between S and H, because Hs response sometimes does not match Ss expectation. This kind of misunderstanding is likely to occur when S and H do not share the same cultural background. Thus, a crosscultural comparison of responses to off-record requests is to be the focus of this study. In this chapter, I will consider requests and responses to requests. With regard to requests, I will review the conditions of requests in 3.2., indirectness in requests in 3.3., types of requests in 3.4., the payoffs of different types of requests in 3.5., and structures, forms and categories of requests in 3.6. I will also discuss the variables affecting requesting strategies in 3.7.

Holtgraves (1986) has conducted an experiment which asked the subjects to rate the questions (direct, conventional indirect, and nonconventional indirect questions), and the replies, but this is not exactly what I attempt to investigate.

63

As far as responses to off-record requests are concerned, I will consider some types of responses to off-record requests in 3.8.1., and define one type of response as solicitousness in 3.8.2. I will consider the conditions of solicitousness, the status of solicitousness in politeness strategies, some interpretations of solicitousness and solicitousness and face in 3.8.3., 3.8.4., 3.8.5. and 3.8.6. respectively.

3.2. Requests and Speech Act Theory

Speech act theory has also touched on the question of politeness, particularly as it has been advanced by Austin and Searle (Sifianou, 1992: 95). Requests are a type of speech act which has been the focus of discussion, beginning with Austins (1962) work on speech act theory and subsequent work by Searle (1969: 66), who states the rules of requesting as follows:
Propositional content: Future act A of H. Preparatory: 1. H is able to do A. S believes H is able to do A. 2. It is not obvious to both S and H that H will do A in the normal courses of events of his own accord. Sincerity: S wants H to do A. Essential: Counts as an attempt to get H to do A.

Searle (1979: 44) believes that:

the theory of speech acts will enable us to provide a simple explanation of how these sentences, which have one illocutionary force as part of their meaning, can be used to perform an act with a different illocutionary force. Each type of illocutionary act has a set of conditions that are necessary for the successful and felicitous performance of the act.

And he simplifies the conditions of requests:

Preparatory condition: H is able to perform A. Sincerity condition: S wants H to do A. Propositional content condition: S predicates a future act A of H. Essential condition: Counts as an attempt by S to get H to do A.

64

In discussing indirect speech acts, that is, cases in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another, Searle (1975: 6566) lists some of the sentences that could quite standardly be used to make indirect requests and other directives such as orders.
1. Sentences concerning Hs ability to perform A e.g. Can you reach the salt? 2. Sentences concerning Ss wish or want that H will do A e.g. I would like you to go now. 3. Sentences concerning Hs doing A e.g. Officers will henceforth wear ties at dinner. Will you quit making that awful racket? 4. Sentences concerning Hs desire or willingness to do A e.g. Would you be willing to write a letter of recommendation for me? 5. Sentences concerning reasons for doing A e.g. You ought to be more polite to your mother. This class also contains many examples that have no generality of form but obviously, in an appropriate context, would be uttered as indirect requests. e.g. Youre standing on my foot. I cant see the movie screen while you have that hat on. 6. Sentences embedding one of these elements inside another; also, sentences embedding an explicit directive illocutionary verb inside one of these contexts e.g. Would you mind awfully if I asked you if you could write me a letter of recommendation?

White (1993: 194), listing one to five of the above as the conditions for the speech act of making a request, notes that:
In fact, it is arguable whether all of these conditions need to be fulfilled.

I do not think all the conditions of requests suggested by Searle need to be fulfilled, either, and I suggest excluding a condition such as A request is a future act of H, because requests are always pre-event acts: requests are made in an attempt to cause an event or change one (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984: 206). In addition to excluding a condition, I would like to add some detail to the condition, S wants H to do A. If S does not believe that H can do A, S normally would not make a request. There has to be a particular reason for S to make a request, this being the same as one of Gordon and Lakoffs (1975: 90) reasonableness conditions, i.e., A request is reasonable only if 65

the speaker has a reason for wanting it done. Therefore, I would like to add for some reason to the condition S wants H to do A. As a consequence of the above discussion, I suggest the following as the conditions of requests:
1. S believes/assumes that H can do A. 2. S wants H to do A for some reason.

3.3. Indirectness in Requests

Indirectness, an important dimension of requests, has been discussed by many researchers (e.g., Dascal , 1983; Davison, 1975; Green, 1975; Grice, 1975; Gordon and Lakoff, 1975; Haverkate, 1988; Leech, 1980 & 1983; Morgan, 1978; and Searle, 1975). According to Searle (1975), indirect speech acts always have more than one meaning, or illocutionary force. Haverkate (1988: 6263), explaining indirect speech acts, cites Searles following examples: (1) Can you pass the salt? and (2) It is cold in here. According to Haverkate, the first example is a typical instance of an indirect speech act, because the speaker performs two illocutionary acts at the same time: he/she explicitly formulates a question, and, by implication, intends that question to be taken as a request. What distinguishes these two examples is whether there is an explicit reference to the hearer or not. As example (1) contains an explicit reference to the hearer, the hearer can understand that this question concerning the hearers ability is uttered as a request. Example (2) does not contain a formal reference to the hearer or a specific description of the action to be performed. So, the request to close the door, shut the window, or turn off the fan, is expressed implicitly. The hearer can only interpret example (2) as a request when the hearer has sufficient relevant background information to work out which particular action is prospected by the speaker. Haverkate (1988: 63) explains further that the pragmalinguistic difference between example (1) and example (2) derives from the speaker referring to particular preconditions underlying the performance of directive illocutionary acts, that is, a reference to the ability of the hearer to perform the act in the former case, and a reference to the reason the speaker has for having the act performed in the latter. 66

It must be assumed that indirectness is not unmotivated, and Dascal (1983: 158163) gives a good summary of the motivation of indirectness in interaction. He begins by pointing out that:
Indirect expression is costly and risky. It requires more processing time by both speaker and listener, it presupposes the mastery, by both, of a rather complex set of devices and the sharing of many specific assumptions, and consequently it increases the risk of misunderstanding. (Ibid.: 159)

And he concludes by posing the question,

Why should the speaker spend so much extra effort and risk so much, even when there is no clear advantage in efficacy of communication? (Ibid.: 159)

In answering this question, he (Ibid.: 159163) clarifies the motivation for indirectness. 1. There is no alternative. S can only express it indirectly. 2. S may have a quite precise thought to express, but the circumstances are such that they prevent him from conveying it directly to the listener (e.g., a social taboo). Indirectness is the best choice, because, given the circumstances, there is no other resource. 3. Indirect speech provides a means for the speaker to convey something while at the same time eschewing (full) responsibility for what he is conveying. 4. Indirectness is used to save face. One of the issues in indirect speech acts is the relationship between literal meaning and the conveyed meaning. Searle (1975) argues that there is a difference between literal sentence meaning and speaker utterance meaning. Morgan (1978) distinguishes conventions of language, which refer to the literal meanings of an utterance, from conventions of usage, which govern the use of utterances, and argues that both are necessary to understand what the speaker intends to convey. A study by Clark and Lucy (1975) reports the importance of literal meaning, indicating that the listener constructs the literal meaning before the conveyed meaning. By contrast, Gibbs (1979) emphasises the importance of situational context, rather than literal meaning, based on the results of his experiments which suggest that an individual understanding an indirect request in context need not construct the literal interpretation before deriving the conveyed request. 67

To sum up, both literal and conveyed meaning are important in interpreting a speech act. Interpreting conveyed or utterance meaning is fundamental to the interpreting of indirect speech acts, including indirect and off-record requests, to be discussed in the next section.

3.4. Types of Requests

S chooses appropriate requesting strategies in order to maintain the face of H and sometimes also the face of S, as well as to try to gain compliance from H, because there is a possibility that H will refuse the request. Tracy et al. (1984: 514) note this characteristic of a request which,
while seeking compliance, recognizes the hearers right not to comply. The hearers right not to comply distinguishes the request from a closely related speech act, the command.

Based on Brown and Levinsons (1987: 6870) strategies for doing FTAs as noted in 2.3.3.1., I will classify requests as follows: 1. On record without redress (Direct requests) e.g. Open the window. 2. On record with redress (Conventionally indirect requests) e.g. Would you mind opening the window please? 3. Off record e.g. Its hot in here. As noted in 2.3.3.1., Brown and Levinson distinguish between going on record and off record. An actor has gone on record when there is just one unambiguously attributable intention with which witnesses would concur; whereas when there is more than one unambiguously attributable intention an actor has gone off record in doing A (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 68 69). There are two ways of going on record: (1) without redressive action, baldly; and (2) with redressive action. Doing an act baldly, without redress, involves doing it in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible (for example, for a request, saying Do X!) (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 69). Following Brown and Levinson, I will call this type direct requests. 68

As also noted in 2.3.3.1., another category of on record strategies is with redress. By redressive action Brown and Levinson (1987: 6970) mean action that gives face to the addressee, showing that face threat is not intended. Such redressive action takes one of two forms, negative politeness or positive politeness, depending on which aspect of face (negative or positive) is being attended to. In negative politeness, there is a tension between (a) the desire to go on record as a prerequisite to being seen to pay face, and (b) the desire to go off record to avoid imposing. A compromise is reached in conventionalized indirectness, because whatever the indirect mechanism used to do an FTA, once it is fully conventionalized as a way of doing that FTA, it is no longer off record. Following Brown and Levinson, I will call this type conventionally indirect requests. According to Clark (1979), examples of conventionally indirect requests are Can you reach the salt? Are you able yet to pass the salt? and Is it possible for you to pass me the salt?, in which S requests H indirectly to do a particular act by questioning Hs ability to do that act. Examples of conventions of form are Can you pass the salt? and Could you pass the salt? (See also 3.2., in which more examples were cited from Searle.) Requests which are not on record I will call off-record requests, following Brown and Levinson (1987: 211), who explain that a communicative act is done off record if it is done in such a way that it is not possible to attribute only one clear communicative intention to the speaker. If a speaker wants to do an FTA, but wants to avoid the responsibility for doing it, s/he can do it off record and leave it up to the addressee to decide how to interpret the utterance. In order to consider the three types of requests more in detail, I will refer to Sifianous (1995a: 244) examples of on record and off record requests:
1. Give me an aspirin, please. 2. Can you give me an aspirin? 3. Ive got a splitting headache.

The above examples are respectively a direct request, a conventionally indirect request, and an off-record request in my terminology. Sifianou explains that direct utterances have one literal meaning, but indirect acts have both a literal and an implied meaning. Example (1) is a direct utterance, which has one literal meaning, whereas example (2) is a question concerning the addressees ability to perform the act but is intended as a request, while in example (3) the speaker has made a statement providing a piece of information which, nevertheless, is intended as a request. 69

In example (1), utterance meaning (literal meaning) is identical with conveyed or implied meaning, whereas it is not so in examples (2) and (3). Example (2) is a conventionalised request, i. e., it is obvious to anybody that it is not asking the addressees ability, but that the addresser is making a request. It is such conventions that link specific linguistic items with specific pragmatic functions. Example (3) is not conventionalised and the intended or conveyed meaning is different from the utterance meaning. Examples (1) and (2) have one interpretation, but example (3) could have more than one interpretation, depending on the inference made by H. The interpretation of example (3) is open-ended. In other words, example (3) can be interpreted as just a statement, or as a request, depending on the uptake by H. Explaining the difference between conventional and nonconventional indirectness, Blum-Kulka (1989: 42) says that:
For conventional indirectness, conventions of propositional content (means) and linguistic form combine to signal requestive force. Nonconventional indirectness, on the other hand, is in principle open ended, both in terms of propositional content and linguistic form as well as pragmatic force.

She (Ibid.: 45) further notes that:

Nonconventional indirectness is associated mainly with ambiguity at the speakers meaning level, displays a multiplicity of meanings and tends to be nonspecific (pragmatic vagueness).

Nonconventional indirectness in the above is identical with off-record strategies in Brown and Levinsons terminology. In summary, I would suggest that the features of off-record requests are as follows: 1. S does not make explicit that the utterance is a request, i. e., S does not use direct requests or conventionalised indirect requests. In other words, S does not make an explicit reference to H or a specific description of the action to be performed. 2. Due to feature (1), utterance meaning is not identical with intended meaning. 3. H has to make some kind of inference to arrive at the meaning intended by S. 4. Due to features (1), (2) and (3), more than one interpretation of the utterance is possible. The interpretation is left to H. 5. Due to feature (4), H does not lose face even if s/he interprets an off70

record request as just a statement, not as a request. Likewise, S does not lose face, either, if Hs interpretation or uptake does not match Ss intention. The process for off-record requests to be understood as requests will be as follows: 1. S utters an off-record request. 2. H notices that the intended meaning by S is different from the literal meaning. In Brown and Levinsons (1987: 211) term, A trigger serves notice to the addressee that some inference must be made. 3. H makes some inference, depending on mutual knowledge, context, etc. Thomas (1995: 140) clarifies how H understands Ss off-record request and complies with Ss request, by listing some stages between the initial state and the final, desired state, when S says Cold in here, isnt it?
Initial state: S feels cold. Action 1: S says Cold in here, isnt it? Intermediate state 1: H understands that S is aware that it is cold. Intermediate state 2: H understands that S wants the heater on. Action 2: H switches on heater. Final state: S feels warmer.

The processes I suggested above correspond to Thomas stages. Action 1 corresponds to the first process, S utters an off-record request. The second process, H notices that the intended meaning by S is different from the literal meaning was not included in Thomas stages, because in intermediate state 1, H understands the literal meaning of what S uttered. In intermediate state 2, H performs the third process, i.e., H makes some inference. For example, H knows that there is a heater H can operate and by switching on the heater, S will feel warmer. To switch on the heater may be the only or the best way to make S feel warmer in that circumstance. Thus, H understands that S wants the heater on. Realising that an off-record request is actually a request may also be related to cultural differences, as Holtgraves and Yang (1990: 727) point out:
If off-record strategies are used with someone from another culture who tends not to use off-record strategies (and does not expect others to use them), then the intended meaning of these remarks may be missed.

71

Off-record requests have common features with requestive hints suggested by Weizman (1985; 1989; 1993).
Requestive hints have the potential of letting both the speaker and the hearer opt out. This potential has to do with the fact that Hints are both indirect and nonconventional in form. (Weizman, 1989: 73)

These features are the same as the first, the fourth and the fifth features noted above, i.e., (1) S does not make it explicit that the utterance is a request; (4) More than one interpretation of the utterance is possible, the interpretation being left with H, and (5) H does not lose face even if s/he takes an off-record request as just a statement, not as a request. Likewise, S does not lose face, either, if Hs interpretation or uptake does not match Ss intention. Weizman further describes the features of requestive hints which are shared with off-record requests.
The interpretation of indirect meanings may require of the hearer an elaborate process, the major components of which are: computing an utterance meaning; detecting, in the context or in the co-text, some reason to believe that it diverges from the speakers meaning; computing an alternative utterance meaning; checking whether it may plausibly converge with an alternative speakers meaning; and, if so, assigning the alternative speakers meaning, involve the exploitation of all kinds of immediate and second-channel contextual clues. (Weizman, 1989: 74)

These features are the same as the second and the third features noted above, i.e., (2) Utterance meaning is not identical with intended meaning; and (3) H has to make some kind of inference to arrive at the meaning intended by S. Although off-record requests and requestive hints share common features, in this study, I will use the term off-record requests, not requestive hints, when referring to the third type of requests noted in this section.

3.5. Payoffs of Different Types of Requests

When making requests, we choose certain types of requests. The reason why some types of requests are used may have to do with the payoffs involved. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the payoffs of different 72

types of requests. I will now review the payoffs as explained by Brown and Levinson (1987: 7173). By going on record, S 1. 2. 3. 4. can get credit for honesty; can get credit for outspokenness; can avoid the danger of being misunderstood; and can have the opportunity to pay back in face whatever he potentially takes away by the FTA (Ibid.: 71).

By going on record with positive politeness, S 1. can minimize the face-threatening aspects of an act by assuring the addressee that S considers himself to be of the same kind, that he likes him and wants his wants; and 2. can avoid or minimize the debt implications of FTAs (Ibid.: 7172). By going on record with negative politeness, S 1. can pay respect, deference, to the addressee in return for the FTA; 2. can maintain social distance, and avoid the threat of advancing familiarity towards the addressee; 3. can give a real out to the addressee; and 4. can give conventional outs to the addressee as opposed to real outs, that is, pretend to offer an escape route without really doing so, thereby indicating that he has the other persons face wants in mind (Ibid.: 72). By going off record, S 1. can get credit for being tactful, non-coercive; 2. can run less risk of his act entering the gossip biography that others keep of him; 3. can avoid responsibility for the potentially face-damaging interpretation; and 4. can give (non-overtly) the addressee an opportunity to be seen to care for S (Ibid.: 71). The payoff for the fifth strategic choice, Dont do the FTA, is: S avoids offending H at all with this particular FTA (Ibid.: 72). 73

In summary, I would suggest the following payoffs for different types of requests used in this study (direct requests, conventionally indirect requests and off-record requests). 1. Payoffs for direct requests Efficiency; Clarity 2. Payoffs for conventionally indirect requests S can pay respect to H in return for the FTA, leaving H unimpeded. 3. Payoffs for off-record requests (a) S can evade the responsibility of damaging Hs face by leaving the option for H to interpret off-record requests. (b) S can give H an opportunity to be seen to care for S. In other words, H is given an opportunity to demonstrate solicitousness (See 3.8.2.). Sifianou (1993) regards Brown and Levinsons off-record strategies as the ones which minimise impositions by leaving the option for the addressee to interpret them, and she (1993: 71) claims that in Greek society, offrecord strategies are employed in order to provide an addressee with an opportunity to express their generosity and solicitude for the interlocutor by offering, rather than not to minimise the imposition. It should be noted, however, that Brown and Levinson (1987: 71) acknowledge that a speaker can give the addressee an opportunity to be seen to care for S, which, Sifianou (1993) claims, is a motivation for off-record indirectness in Greek society. Whereas Brown and Levinson (1987: 71) give this payoff for offrecord indirectness low priority, Sifianou (1993) gives it high priority for off-record indirectness. In other words, both Brown and Levinson (1987: 71) and Sifianou (1993) agree on the payoffs of off-record strategies, while prioritising them differently.

3.6. Structures, Forms and Categories of Requests

As far as the structures of requests are concerned, requests are made up of two parts: the core request and the various peripheral elements (Sifianou, 1992: 99). The core part is called the Head Act; and the peripheral elements are called alerters and supportive moves by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989). The core requests, or Head Acts, fulfill the function of requesting; and the 74

peripheral elements, or alerters and supportive moves mitigate or aggravate the force of requests. Requests can be realised only by the core parts, while the peripheral elements may precede or follow the core requests. In off-record requests, however, only the peripheral elements serve as requests. The following examples illustrate this.
1. The kitchen is in a terrible mess. 2. The kitchen is in a terrible mess, could you please clean it up? (Weizman, 1989: 7475)

The kitchen is in a terrible mess. in the first example is an off-record request, but The kitchen is in a terrible mess. in the second example is a supportive move, i.e., a peripheral element to a request Could you please clean it up? The peripheral element in the second example serves as an off-record request in the first example. Forms of requests are as follows:
1. Imperatives; 2. Interrogatives; 3. Negatives; 4. Declaratives; and 5. Elliptical constructions (Sifianou, 1992: 125156).

In Declaratives, there are two groups: (1) need statements; and (2) hints. There are two categorises in requests:
1. Requests for information; and 2. Requests for action (Sifianou, 1992: 121122).

Requests for action can be subcategorised into requests for goods, requests for help, and so on. Most of the request situations in this study fall into the category of requests for action.

75

3.7. Variables Affecting Requesting Strategies

I have reviewed Brown and Levinsons variables in 2.3.3.2. I will now consider these variables in this section from the two perspectives: (1) the relationship between those variables and requesting strategies; and (2) the components of those variables. In 3.7.1., I will consider the first; and in 3.7.2., I will review the components of the three variables used in the previous studies; and in 3.7.3., I will clarify the components of power, social distance, and imposition used in this study.

3.7.1. Relationship of Variables and Requesting Strategies

Brown and Levinson (1987: 76) argue that all three dimensions P, D, and R contribute the seriousness of an FTA, and thus to a determination of the level of politeness with which, other things being equal, an FTA will be communicated. That is, the bigger the face threat (computed by the three variables), the higher the number of the strategy is employed. In Holtgraves and Yangs (1992: 246) words,
increases in the hearers power, relationship distance, and degree of act imposition (e.g. asking for a loan is more imposing than asking for the time) will increase the weightiness of an act (i.e., the extent to which the act is face threatening). Increased weightiness is assumed to result in the use of greater politeness.

In Kaspers (1994: 3209) words, there is

a positive correlation between the weight of contextual factors (social distance, power, and imposition) and politeness investment.

Brown and Levinsons predictions have been both confirmed and contradicted by various studies, not all of which were concerned with requests. The variable of distance (D) is the one which has received the most contradictory results, as well as criticisms. In a review of some studies, Brown and Levinson (1987: 1516) themselves acknowledge that:
a number of experiments have shown opposing results to the predictions of our model for the D variable. For example, Holtgraves (1984) found that subjects judged a high degree of encoded politeness as indicating higher reciprocal liking between

76

speaker and addressee, and Baxter (1984) found that subjects prescribed that they would use greater politeness for close (i.e. friend) relationships.

Among the studies which produced results inconsistent with Brown and Levinsons predictions is that by Brown and Gilman (1989) who, having analysed the text of plays, concluded that social distance did not explain politeness behaviour. According to them, the two components of D, interactive closeness and affect, were not closely associated in the plays they examined. Affect strongly influenced politeness (increased liking increased politeness and decreased liking decreased politeness); interactive closeness had little or no effect on politeness. In a study of apologies in New Zealand English, Holmes (1990) results did not support Brown and Levinsons model in the distance variable, but supported Wolfsons (1988) bulge theory, i. e., the two extremes of social distance minimum and maximum seem to call forth very similar behaviour. However, Holmes results do not refute Brown and Levinsons model, because as she (1990: 186) notes, the elaboration of apologies depends much on the type of offense involved. Therefore, further investigation is needed on how the distance variable affects apologies. The main criticism on distance concerns affect. That is, some researchers claim that affect should be separated from distance. For example, Brown and Gilman (1989) claim that the variable of distance may need to be split into two dimensions, distance (or familiarity) and affect (or liking). Similarly, Slugoski and Turnbull (1988) argue that affect should be treated as a separate factor from distance. However, there is a lack of consensus on the status and relative importance of affect as a pragmatic variable, as Spencer-Oatey (1996) notes. As there must be some doubt as to the value of separating the affect and distance variables, those criticisms do not refute Brown and Levinsons theory on variables. I will discuss this issue further in 3.7.3.2. Only a few studies have contradicted Brown and Levinson on power and imposition. For instance, McLaughlin, Cody & OHair (1983) found that power did not predict the level of politeness in offender accounts, and Cherry (1988), examining a set of letters written by academics at several different ranks to the president of an American university, found that relative power did not predict the relative politeness of requests, while imposition provided no predictive force in accounting for politeness in the study of compliance-gaining (Baxter (1984)). Although Brown and Levinsons predictions have not been supported 77

by such studies, others have been more supportive. While the distance variable has produced the most contradictory results, Blum-Kulka, Danet & Gherson (1985) found greater politeness in more distant relationships. In other words, they found that there was more directness with an increase in familiarity in the context of requesting in Israeli society, which was in line with Brown and Levinsons predictions. Holtgraves and Yang (1992: 251) also found that distance contributed significantly to politeness in the context of requesting, i.e., increases in perceived relationship distance resulted in significant increases in the overall politeness of requests, which shows support for Brown and Levinson. Several studies also support Brown and Levinsons predictions on the power (P) variable. Baxter (1984) found that persons with power used less politeness than less powerful persons in the context of compliancegaining. Blum-Kulka, Danet & Gherson (1985) found that there was an increase in directness with an increase in power in the context of requesting. Brown and Gilman (1989) found the power variable was consistent with Brown and Levinsons theory in Shakespeares tragedies they examined. Holtgraves and Yang (1992) found the power variable to be consistent with Brown and Levinsons theory in the context of requesting. Cansler and Stiles (1981), Cody, McLaughlin & Schneider (1981), Holtgraves (1986), Holtgraves, Srull & Socall (1989), Lustig and King (1980) also found support for the power variable. It is often the case that the researchers have not defined what they meant by each variable (I will discuss this issue further in 3.7.2.), but if age and status can be considered as components of power, Adegbijas (1989) study also showed support for Brown and Levinsons power variable. Adegbija (1989) collected data in naturalistic settings, showing that in Nigerian English, Yoruba and Ogori, the greater the age and the higher the cultural and social status attained by an addressee, the greater the need the speaker feels to employ politeness strategies. The imposition variable has also been supported by a number of studies. It is predicted that greater politeness will be associated with greater imposition. In examining Shakespeares tragedies, Brown and Gilman (1989) found rating of imposition to be consistent with Brown and Levinsons predictions of politeness. Likewise, Holtgraves and Yang (1992) found the imposition variable to be consistent with Brown and Levinsons predictions in request strategies by Americans and Koreans. McLaughlin, Cody and OHair (1983) also found support for the weighting of imposition variable in managing failure events. 78

In this section, I have reviewed the previous studies from the viewpoint of the relationship between Brown and Levinsons three variables and politeness strategies. Although there were some studies which contradicted their predictions, there were many studies which supported Brown and Levinson. In 3.7.2., I would like to consider variables from the viewpoint of their components.

3.7.2. Components of Variables

It is often the case that researchers do not define what they mean by each variable. Spencer-Oatey (1996: 1) also points out that the authors of pragmatics studies often use the same terms with different meanings, or different terms with the same meaning, while the variables are rarely explicitly defined. I think this is one of the causes of confusion in the discussion of variables. As noted in 3.7.1., most of the studies which contradicted Brown and Levinsons variables were concerned with distance. I think one of the problems in those studies is that what distance meant was not consistent among the studies, as Holtgraves and Yang (1992: 246) note:
this may be because researchers have confounded familiarity and relationship affect (see Brown & Gilman, 1989; Slugoski & Turnbull, 1988).

Therefore, I think it necessary to clarify what the three variables, power, distance, and imposition, mean. I will review the components of power, distance and imposition as used in previous studies in 3.7.2.1., 3.7.2.2., and 3.7.2.3. respectively, and in 3.7.3. will clarify the way these terms are to be used in this study.

3.7.2.1. Power Spencer-Oatey (1996: 8) lists a number of studies that have investigated power, questioning whether the various terms are equivalent, or whether the different researchers conceptualise the vertical dimension of interlocutor relations in slightly different ways (Ibid.: 7). In table 2, I have added nine more studies (the last nine) to Spencer-Oateys table (1996: 8).

79

Author(s)

Main term

Alternative term/gloss
Status

Labels for scale extremities

Baxter (1984) Power Beebe & Takahashi (1989a) Status Blum-Kulka et al. (1985) Power Blum-Kulka & House (1989) Social power Brown & Gilman (1972 [1960]) Power Brown & Gilman (1989) Brown & Levinson (1987 [1978]) Cansler & Stiles (1981) Holmes (1990) Holtgraves (1986) Holtgraves et al. (1989) Holtgraves & Yang (1990) Leech (1983) Leichty & Applegate (1991) Lim & Bowers (1991) Olshtain (1989) Trosborg (1987) Vollmer & Olshtain (1989) Wood & Kroger (1991) Bargiela-Chiappini & Harris (1996) Becker et al. (1989) Bergman & Kasper (1993)

High/low High/low High/equal/low Dominance High/low Superiorsinferiors/Equals Power A higher station H higher than S/ S higher than H/Equals Power Degree to which H can impose own plans Status Social rank High/low Power H with more P/S with more P/Equals Status Equality/ Higher/lower inequality Status High/equal/low Power High/equal/low Authority Authoritative status, Power Power High/equal/low Power High/equal (Social) power S lower than H/ S & H equals/S higher than H Dominance Status equals/ Plus/minus dominance unequals (Social) status (Social) power High/low Status Subordinate/equal/ superordinate Status High-low Powerful-weak High-low High-low High-low High-low Elder-younger High-low Elder-younger Elder-younger

Status Status relationship Bilbow (1995) Relationship Power Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984) Dominance Fukushima (1990) Social status Hashimoto, et al. (1992) Age Social status Sasagawa (1994a) Age/generation difference Sasagawa (1995) Age/generation difference

Table 2. Labels and Glosses for Power

80

As is clear, a range of terms has been used in the literature for this dimension, and the terms are not always equivalent. Authors in the various studies have emphasised one or more of the following aspects in their interpretations of the vertical dimension of interlocutor relations (Spencer-Oatey, 1996: 11):
1. Power of control (e.g. Brown & Gilman, 1972; Brown & Levinson, 1987) 2. Social status or rank ( e.g. Cansler & Stiles, 1981) 3. Authority, or the legitimate right to exert influence (e.g. Leichty & Applegate, 1991) 4. A general notion of equality-inequality (e.g. Holtgraves, 1986)

It seems to me that the above aspects are not on the same level, i.e., the second aspect, social status or rank, is the basis of the others, in other words, the source of power. Power of control, authority or the legitimate right to exert influence, and a general notion of equality-inequality, do not exist by themselves, but depend on status or rank. I think this interpretation of power is supported by Spencer-Oateys (1992) definition of legitimate power: One person has the right to prescribe or request certain things by virtue of role, age or status. Thomas (1995: 127) states that legitimate power remains fairly constant within a relationship. One of the five bases of power proposed by French and Raven (1959: 156), legitimate power is based on the perception by P (person) that O (social agent) has a legitimate right to prescribe behavior for him.

3.7.2.2. Distance Among the three variables, distance is the one for which researchers of pragmatics seem to have given the most varied interpretations. SpencerOatey (1996: 3) lists a number of studies that have investigated the effect of distance on peoples use of language, and identifies the terms the authors used for labeling and describing this variable. In table 3, I have added eight more studies (the last eight) to Spencer-Oateys table (1996: 3).

81

Author(s) Baxter (1984) Blum-Kulka et al. (1985) Blum-Kulka & House (1989) Boxer (1993)

Main term Distance Social distance Social distance Social distance

Brown & Gilman (1972 [1960]) Distance

Brown & Levinson (1987 [1978]) Holmes (1990) Holtgraves (1986) Holtgraves & Yang (1990) Leichty & Applegate (1991) Lim & Bowers (1991) Olshtain (1989) Slugoski & Turnbull (1988)

Distance

Social distance 1. Closeness 2. Attraction Distance Familiarity

Alternative term/ gloss Labels for scale extremities Intimacy Close-distant Degree of familiarity High-low Familiarity High-low Degree of friendship/ intimacy Interactive Closeness, High-low Interactive intimacy, Interactive Distance Distant (e.g. strangers) High/great Close (e.g. known -low/small to each other) How well they know Close-distant each other High-low Liking for one another High-low Close-distant FamiliarUnfamiliar High-low Distant-intimate High-low

Relational intimacy Social distance Familiarity 1. Distance Teaching together for 10 years/ Virtually no contact

Positive-negative 2. Affect Like/dislike affect Trosborg (1987) Social distance Intimates/non-intimates Plus/minus social distance Vollmer & Olshtain (1989) Social distance Familiarity High-low Wood & Kroger (1991) Solidarity Solidary-nonsolidary Bergman & Kasper (1993) Distance Closeness Close-distant Bilbow (1995) Social distance Relationship closeness Close-distant Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984) Social distance Plus-minus Fukushima (1990) Social distance Familiarity Close-distant Hashimoto et al. (1992) Familiarity Close-distant Sasagawa (1994a) Social distance Familiarity Acquaintnon-acquaint Sasagawa (1995) Social distance Close-distant Tanaka & Kawade (1982) Psychological Like-dislike distance

Table 3. Labels and Glosses for Distance

82

As Spencer-Oatey (1996: 4) points out, definitions of distance varies among these authors. The major difference among the definitions in the above studies seems to be whether affect is included in distance or not. As noted also in 3.7.1., Slugoski and Turnbull (1988) do not include affect as a component of distance, but Baxter (1984) and Brown and Levinson (1978) do. Although Slugoski and Turnbull (1988) treat distance and affect as separate factors, they do not define those terms explicitly, as SpencerOatey (1996: 5) notes. Summing up the previous studies, Spencer-Oatey (1996: 5) states that distance/closeness and familiarity (italic in original) could potentially refer to one or more of the following:
1. 2. 3. 4. frequency of contact; length of acquaintance; amount of self-disclosure; and amount and type of affect.

Spencer-Oatey (1996: 7) concludes that distance has been interpreted as comprising one or more of the following (often overlapping) components:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Social similarity/difference (e.g. Brown and Gilman, 1972) Frequency of contact (e.g. Slugoski and Turnbull, 1988) Length of acquaintance (e.g. Slugoski and Turnbull,1988) Familiarity, or how well people know each other (e.g. Holmes, 1990) Sense of like-mindedness (e.g. Brown and Gilman, 1972) Positive/negative affect (e.g. Baxter, 1984)

Thomas (1995: 128) explains social distance as a composite of psychologically real factors (status, age, sex, degree of intimacy, etc.) which together determine the overall degree of respectfulness within a given speech situation.
In other words, if you feel close to someone, because that person is related to you, or you know him or her well or are similar in terms of age, social class, occupation, sex, ethnicity, etc., you feel less need to employ indirectness in, say, making a request than you would if you were making the same request of a complete stranger. (Thomas, 1995: 128)

There are some difficulties in assessing social distance. One of the difficulties is due to the fact that the relationships among speakers are dynamic and open to negotiation, as Wolfson (1988) and Aronsson and StterlundLarsson (1987) state. Another kind of difficulty lies in social changes. Berscheid et al. (1989: 64) point out that the traditionally assumed relation83

ship types need special scrutiny. It was assumed that marital relationships and parent-child relationships were regarded as exemplars of a close relationship, but with the increase of divorce and some other new social organizations, such as more variations in family patterns, it is risky to judge the relationship between people on the basis of these traditional assumptions.

3.7.2.3. Imposition There were few studies whose definitions of imposition differed from that of Brown and Levinson (1987), and it seems that the meaning of imposition does not vary very much among researchers. The only differences found in the literature are (1) the terminology; and (2) whether rights and obligations are included in imposition. As for the terminology, table 4 shows who uses which terms. Concerning the issue of whether rights and obligations are included in imposition or not, Brown and Levinson (1978; 1987) include them, but Thomas (1995: 130131) separates them. What Thomas (1995: 130) means by imposition subsumes the value of what is being asked for, citing Goffmans (1967) free and non-free goods. That is, the size of imposition becomes big when someone asks something of high value.
Author(s) Baxter (1984) Brown & Gilman (1989) Main term Labels for scale extremities not at all-a great deal Low-high Small-great Small-large Low-High +/-

Magnitude of the request Ranked extremity (R) of a face threatening act Brown & Levinson (1987 [1978]) Ranking (R) of imposition Leichty & Applegate (1991) Magnitude of imposition Sasagawa (1994a) Ranking of imposition Scollon & Scollon (1995) Weight (W) of imposition Thomas (1995) Size of imposition

Table 4. Labels and Glosses for Imposition

84

3.7.3. Variables Included in This Study

3.7.3.1. Power If somebody has power over someone else, s/he can control the other to some extent. S/he has authority or the legitimate right to exert influence. The components of power include such factors as social status, social class, institutionalised role, age, sex, wealth, physical strength, regional or ethnic identity. As a consequence of these, someone has power over someone else, so the notion of equality-inequality arises (See the discussion in 3.7.2.1.). The influence of the above components on power varies according to context. The degree of importance of each component may vary from culture to culture or from situation to situation, so that in an egalitarian culture, for example, social class may not be an important component, but in a culture which emphasises vertical relationships, social class, or social status may become important, as is evidently the case in Japan, previous studies having shown that the Japanese place more importance on status than the Americans in disagreement (Beebe and Takahashi, 1989a) and in refusal (Beebe et al., 1990). Figure 5 shows the structure of power. Components
social status social class institutionalised role age sex wealth physical strength regional/ethnic identities

Power

Control/ Authority, the legitimate right to exert influence

Figure 5. Power

Big-small has been used as the labels for scale extremities in this study. The term power difference is used to indicate differential in power. Big means the differential in power between interactants is large; and small means the differential in power is low. Big does not mean that H necessarily has power over S, but means that the power difference between S and H is big; while small does not mean that H has less power over S, but that the power difference between them is small. 85

Wetzel (1993) points out that in the West the term power is closely associated with domination and control, and so often has strong negative connotations, but in China and Japan, where Confucian philosophy has influenced peoples conceptions of social relationships, members of unequal dyads are somewhat analogous to a parent-child relationship. In such contexts, inequality is not regarded as bad. Wetzel (Ibid.) suggests vertical relationship as an alternative, which is neutral in connotation in a range of cultures. However, Spencer-Oatey (1996: 21) comments on the vagueness of vertical relationship, saying that it gives no indication as to the nature of the dimension. Therefore, in this study, the term power is used.

3.7.3.2. Social Distance What I mean by social distance2 in this study is degree of closeness. A role relationship given as an example in the rubric of the questionnaire used in this study was friends-not friends. (The relationship between friends will usually be close compared with that between people who are not friends.) Closeness is determined by one or more of the following factors: 1. Whether people are similar/different 2. How well people know each other 3. Whether people like each other The first may be defined in terms of age, social class, occupation, sex, ethnicity, beliefs, value systems, etc. Not all those components may be relevant in all cultures or in all situations. The second may consist of length of acquaintance, or frequency of contact. The third may be determined by the first two. There are cases in which the third factor is different, even though the conditions of the first two factors are the same. That is, even if both parties are similar in age, occupation, sex, for example, and they know each other well, they may or may not like each other. Whether someone likes another or not may vary situationally, individually or crossculturally. Take an example of colleagues. They are similar in occupation,
2 In 3.7.2.2., I have noted that it is difficult to assume social distance, i.e., the relationships among the speakers are dynamic, and the traditionally assumed relationship types need special scrutiny. However, since the written questionnaire is used in this study, I do not think there is a need to worry about the changes of the relationships among the interactants.

86

and they know each other. Even with the same conditions (the first factor and the second factor being the same), they may like or dislike each other for some reason, not related to either of these factors. Closeness can be determined by all three factors. Closeness may also be determined by the amount of self-disclosure as noted by Spencer-Oatey (1996: 5). According to Gallois (1994: 308), self-disclosures are used as a means of increasing intimacy. The appropriate amount of self-disclosure perceived by interactants, varies both with the level of acquaintance and relationship between them, and with the sex and social power of the discloser (Ibid.). That is, the amount of self-disclosures may be determined by all three factors included in this study, and it may also vary individually or cross-culturally. As noted in 3.7.1., there is a debate regarding the separation of affect from distance. Slugoski and Turnbull (1988) argue that affect should be treated as a separate factor from distance. Similarly, Brown and Gilman (1989) claim that the distance variable may need to be split into two dimensions, distance (or familiarity) and affect (or liking). However, I will include affect in social distance in this study for the following reason. Slugoski and Turnbull (1988) do not provide convincing evidence for the independent influence of distance, so it could well be that affect and distance did not function as independent variables, but rather that the affectual component of distance varied in importance (Spencer-Oatey, 1996: 13) (italic in original). The components of social distance are summarised in figure 6.
(1) Whether people are similar/different Components age social class occupation sex ethnicity beliefs value systems length of acquaintance frequency of contact amount of self-disclosure (3) Whether people like each other affect

Social DistanceCloseness (2) How well people know each other

Figure 6. Social Distance

87

As noted earlier, Big-small was used as the labels for scale extremities in this study. Big social distance means that people are not close, and small distance means that people are close.

3.7.3.3. Imposition Imposition arises when something is asked for. What is asked for may be material or non-material, and a value is attached to what was asked for. In order for H to pursue the request, one or more of the following may be involved: time; effort; financial burden; and psychological burden.

Imposition will be determined by how much of each of the above factors is included. For example, if S asks for something expensive, the financial burden on H may be big. In such a case, the degree of imposition of the requested act will be high. A burden may not be always financial, but may be psychological, as when the requested act requires much responsibility, or when the requestee does not want to perform the requested act for some reason. If what was asked for was non-material, and if it requires a lot of time or effort by H, the degree of imposition will be high, too. The value attached to what is asked for may vary culturally, individually and situationally. My standpoint toward imposition is to include rights and obligations, since imposition will also be influenced by whether the requester has a right to make a certain request and whether the requestee has an obligation to pursue the request. The degree of imposition of the requested act will be high if the requester does not have a right to ask a certain request, and the requestee does not have an obligation to pursue it. Whether a requester has a right or not is related to the power variable. This shows that the variables are not independent, but they are related to each other, as noted by Turner (1996: 5). Whether someone has rights or obligations may again vary culturally and individually. For example, in a certain culture, a teacher has a right to ask his/her student to do something which is not related to classroom activities, but in another culture, this may not be the case. 88

The degree of imposition of the requested act may also be influenced by situational reasonableness. The degree of imposition will be lower if the request is situationally reasonable than if the request is not situationally reasonable. Brown and Levinsons (1987: 79) examples, to ask for a dime just outside a telephone booth and to ask for a dime for no apparent reason in the middle of the street, indicate the relationship between the situational reasonableness and the degree of imposition. Situational reasonableness may be connected to standard/non-standard situations which were proposed by Hoppe-Graff et al. (1985: 90). Standard situations are oftenrecurring routine situations and non-standard situations are uncommon or rarely occurring ones. In standard situations there may be more situational reasonableness than in non-standard situations. My interpretation of imposition is summarised in figure 7.
What is asked for Material Non-material

Value What is required for H to pursue the request

Imposition <
<

Rights & Obligations Situational Reasonableness Figure 7. Imposition

High-low was used as the labels for scale extremities in this study.

3.8. Responses to Requests

In the past, politeness has been concerned with single utterances, but Brown and Levinson (1987: 1011) acknowledge the importance of analysing politeness as a constituent of conversational structure: 89

<

Time Effort Financial burden Psychological burden

Another framework that we would now rely on less heavily is speech act theory. For many reasons, we now think this not so promising ; speech act theory forces a sentence-based, speaker-oriented mode of analysis, requiring attribution of speech act categories where our own thesis requires that utterances are often equivocal in force. FTAs need not be realized in sentence-like units, and the upshot of all this is that we must now acknowledge that the speech act categories that we employed were an underanalysed shorthand, but one which, were we to try again today, would still be hard to avoid.

As requests and responses to requests form adjacency pairs, responses to requests are important elements in requests. Considering not only requests but also responses to requests may contribute to avoiding a sentence-based, speaker-oriented mode of analysis, because as Brown and Levinson (1987: 233) note:
One basic observation to be made is that FTAs do not necessarily inhere in single acts

To avoid focusing on isolated acts, in this study, I will consider responses to requests. As it is beyond the scope of the present study to investigate all types of responses to requests, I will confine myself to responses to offrecord requests. Responding to off-record requests was chosen as the focus of this study because it is more difficult or problematic to respond to offrecord requests than to respond to direct or conventionally indirect requests as noted below. 1. Making appropriate responses to requests is closely related to the explicitness of the intentions of S. Since the intention of the speaker to make a request is expressed explicitly in direct requests, it may not be difficult for H to interpret those as requests. Thus, it may not be problematic for H to respond to direct requests. 2. As noted in 3.3. and 3.4., indirect requests have both a literal meaning and an intended/conveyed meaning. If H interprets indirect requests as requests, i.e., H interprets an indirect/conveyed meaning of indirect requests, H can respond to indirect requests appropriately. 3. As noted in 3.4., off-record requests also have a literal meaning and a potential indirect meaning, and H has to infer a potential indirect meaning in order to understand the intention of S. There are some clues for H to infer an indirect meaning of conventionalised indirect requests, such as conventional forms, but there are not many clues for H to interpret an intended/conveyed meaning of off-record requests. 90

Therefore, more than one interpretation of the utterance is possible, as noted in 3.4., and it is more difficult or less likely for H to interpret off-record requests as requests than conventionalised indirect requests (e.g. Holtgraves, 1991). These factors mean that responding to offrecord requests appropriately is more difficult than responding to direct and indirect requests appropriately, and that the responses to off-record requests have more variation than the responses to direct and indirect requests. Misunderstanding is likely to occur in the interpretation of off-record requests. Despite the difficulty of responding to off-record requests as summarised above, responses to off-record requests have not been the focus of previous studies, which means that dealing with responses to off-record requests merits attention.

3.8.1. Types of Responses to Off-record Requests

When off-record requests are made, the intention of the speaker to make a request is not explicitly expressed. There are two ways of interpreting such requests: (a) H recognises that S made a request to H; or (b) H does not recognise that S made a request to H. When H recognises that S has made a request, I would propose that the following ways of responding are possible, based on the results of Fukushima (1997b): 1. H preempts the request (e.g. H does/offers something for S). (Solicitousness) (See 3.8.2.) 2. H takes an alternative means other than doing something him/herself for S (e.g. H makes a suggestion to S, or H gives S advice). 3. H refuses the request (e.g. H refuses the request by uttering an excuse very politely, or just responding to what S has said, or H ignores S by saying nothing, or by changing the subject). Figure 8 summarises possible interpretations and ways of responding to off-record requests. 91

[Interpretations by H] [Decisions by H] (1) H preempts Ss request. (2) H takes an alternative means other than doing something him/herself for S. (a) H recognises S made a request to H. (3) H refuses a request.

[Example actions by H] H makes an offer. (Solicitousness)

H makes a suggestion. H gives S advice.

H refuses politely. (e.g. Id love to, but) H just responds to what S said. He says nothing. H changes the subject.

S > H Off-record requests (b) H does not recognise S made a request to H.

H just responds to what S said.

Figure 8. Categories of Responses to Off-record Requests

In this study, the only responses to be considered will be Category (a), i.e., H recognises S has made a request to H. In the questionnaire used in this study, what S wants H to do, i.e., the intention of S (e.g. S wants H to write a letter of recommendation.) is made explicit in the prompt, so that there are no such cases as occur in Category (b).

3.8.2. Definitions of Solicitousness

As noted in 3.5., the payoffs of off-record strategies are (1) S can evade the responsibility of damaging Hs face by leaving the option for H to interpret off-record requests; and (2) S can give H an opportunity to be seen to care for S. Brown and Levinson (1987: 71) further comment on the case of (2): 92

 if H chooses to pick up and respond to the potentially threatening interpretation of the act, he can give a gift to the original speaker. Thus, if I say Its hot in here and you say Oh, Ill open the window then!, you may get credit for being generous and cooperative, and I avoid the potential threat of ordering you around.

I will term this gift by H solicitousness. Solicitousness is a means whereby H, in response to an off-record request, shows consideration for S, this being one way of responding to the off-record strategy employed by S. Since the performer of solicitousness does something for the beneficiary, there may be some kind of cost to the performer of solicitousness, but as the above explanation by Brown and Levinson shows, the performer of solicitousness can gain credit if the beneficiary takes solicitousness positively, i.e., the beneficiary appreciates what the performer has done (See 3.8.5.). The basic idea behind solicitousness is concern for someones wellbeing or consideration for others, and it is defined as follows:
someone who is solicitous shows an anxious or eager concern for someone else (COLLINS COBUILD English Language Dictionary, 1987)

For the purposes of this discussion, I would like to define solicitousness as follows: Solicitousness is a response to off-record requests which takes the form of offering. Solicitousness can be defined as preemptive responses to 1. circumstances or situations, 2. verbal cues or 3. nonverbal cues. (See figure 9.)
Circumstances Verbal cues by a beneficiary Nonverbal cues by a beneficiary Figure 9. Mechanism of Solicitousness Performer -----> Solicitousness

The following are examples of solicitousness which demonstrate responses to (1) circumstances, (2) verbal cues and (3) nonverbal cues. 93

1. Solicitousness responding to circumstances/situations Circumstances/situations: It is very hot. Your supervisee comes into your room for her supervision. Possible solicitousness: You switch on a fan. 2. Solicitousness responding to verbal cues by the beneficiary of solicitousness Verbal cue: Your supervisee said, Its hot in here. when she came into your room for her supervision. Possible solicitousness: You switch on a fan. 3. Solicitousness responding to nonverbal cues by the beneficiary of solicitousness: Nonverbal cue: Your supervisee was using a hand fan and she was perspiring. Possible solicitousness: You switch on a fan. When solicitousness is demonstrated, the performer of solicitousness has not been asked to act by the beneficiary. Solicitousness can be expressed both verbally and non-verbally, although solicitousness in the above examples is expressed non-verbally (e.g., switching on a fan).

3.8.3. Conditions of Solicitousness

In 3.2., I stated the conditions of requests as follows: 1. S believes/assumes that H can do A. 2. S wants H to do A for some reason. The above conditions are fulfilled by S of off-record requests. Responding to off-record requests, H in the above could choose to demonstrate solicitousness. There are also occasions when H could choose not to demonstrate solicitousness. What, then, are the conditions for H to demonstrate solicitousness? I propose that these are as follows: 1. H of off-record requests interprets that S wants him/her to do A. In other words, H of off-record requests interprets that a request has been made, and s/he infers Ss desires. 94

2. H of off-record requests assumes that s/he can perform A. 3. H of off-record requests wants to show care for S of off-record requests, thus gaining credit for being generous and cooperative, as noted in 3.8.2. 4. H of off-record requests wants to be of some help to S of off-record requests. H of off-record requests decides to demonstrate solicitousness under the above conditions, the first and the second conditions being necessary at all times, while the third and the fourth conditions are not. The following example of an off-record request is illustrative of the above conditions in application.
Damn, Im out of cash, I forgot to go to a bank today. (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 69)

If H interprets the above example as a request and s/he infers that S needs some money (the first condition), and if H has some money to lend (the second condition), solicitousness may be displayed. H may just want to show care for S and get credit (the third condition), or H just wants to be of some help to S (the fourth condition), or H wants to do both. The following are possible solicitousness responses to the above off-record request. 1. Shall I lend you some money? (Solicitousness expressed verbally) 2. How much do you need? (Solicitousness expressed verbally) 3. Offering some money without asking (Solicitousness expressed nonverbally)

3.8.4. Status of Solicitousness in Politeness Strategies

Since solicitousness is a response to off-record requests, I suggest that its status in Brown and Levinsons (1987: 60) politeness strategies will be that of responding to off-record strategies. (See figure 10.)

95

1. without redressive action, baldly on record 2. positive politeness Do the FTA with redressive action 3. negative politeness

4. off record

Solicitousness

5. Dont do the FTA Figure 10. Status of Solicitousness in Politeness Strategies

3.8.5. Interpretations of Solicitousness

Solicitousness can be taken positively or negatively by the beneficiary, even though the performer, by demonstrating solicitousness, is concerned with the well-being of the beneficiary (the fourth condition in 3.8.3.). For example, while some people may appreciate having an air conditioner turned on, others may feel too cold and so do not appreciate a display of solicitousness which involves turning it on. In terms of Conversation Analysis, interpretations of solicitousness can be classified as follow-up which ratifies the response (Stenstrm, 1994: 125) (See figure 11). That is, appreciation is ratified in a positive interpretation of solicitousness and annoyance is ratified in a negative interpretation. I will discuss further how positive/negative interpretations of solicitousness affect face in 3.8.6.
[Initiation] [Response] [Follow-up] (Off-record requests) (Solicitousness) (Interpretation of solicitousness)

Figure 11. Interpretation of Solicitousness in the Sequence of Exchanges

96

Solicitousness can be regarded as officious because of the frequency with which it is displayed. The degree to which the beneficiary feels solicitousness is excessive or insufficient may depend not only on personal tastes, but also cultural differences. This kind of mismatch between the expectation of the beneficiary and the display of solicitousness can cause problems, especially in cross-cultural communication, because it is likely that the values concerning solicitousness differ from culture to culture. For example, solicitousness may not be valued in an individualist culture as highly as in a collectivist one (See chapter 4). This may be because giving choices is a valued politeness strategy (e.g., Lakoff, 1973) in an individualist culture. Overuse of solicitousness reduces choice, however, violating individual freedom of action, while those towards whom solicitousness is offered may feel emotionally indebted. This does not mean that solicitousness will not be practised in individualist cultures, only that it will be realised in different ways. In a collectivist culture, solicitousness is displayed through preemptively satisfying peoples wants by inferring from context and shared knowledge what these wants might be. Freedom of choice is less highly valued in a collectivist culture than preemptive fulfillment of inferred wants whereby the actor also displays solidarity with the receiver. In an individualist culture, however, freedom of choice is more highly esteemed than displays of preemptive fulfillment of wants, since such preemptive behaviour is seen to reduce freedom of action, in other words, it is interpreted as an imposition. To display concern for freedom and to avoid imposition, the actor offers a choice. In both cases, solicitousness is being practiced, but in each case, it is being realised differently. Besides the cultural element noted above, social variables such as social distance are also linked to the interpretation of solicitousness, and in this context it is relevant to note Sifianous (1997: 68) point.
when there is social distance, doing things for other without being requested to could be perceived as an imposition, since these actions may require reimbursement.

Although she does not use the term solicitousness, doing things for other without being requested to is what I have defined as solicitousness, and if it is perceived as an imposition, it can be interpreted negatively.

97

3.8.6. Solicitousness and Face

Face is a central concept in Brown and Levinsons theory of politeness, as noted in 2.3.3. Since this study is based on Brown and Levinsons theoretical framework, I would like to consider the relationship between solicitousness and face. As noted in 3.8.2. and 3.8.3., the performer of solicitousness sometimes demonstrates solicitousness, because s/he wants to show care, thus getting credit for being generous and cooperative. When solicitousness is taken positively by the beneficiary (e.g. The beneficiary may think, How nice of him/her!), the performer of solicitousness may enhance his/her face (See figure 12).
Beneficiary <------------------ Performer Solicitousness Beneficiary regards solicitousness positively. Acceptance of solicitousness by the beneficiary Face -------------->Performer Figure 12. Solicitousness and Face

A display of solicitousness may cause face loss of the performer of solicitousness when it is taken negatively by the beneficiary. We have seen that a performer may demonstrate solicitousness by trying to be considerate, or attending to the well-being of the beneficiary. However, the beneficiary may not want what the performer has offered; indeed, the beneficiary may consider solicitousness to be officious. (e.g. This is not what I wanted.) And if the beneficiary makes that explicit, by refusing the performers offer verbally or nonverbally, the refusal can be interpreted as loss of face for the performer (See figure 13).
Beneficiary <------------------ Performer Solicitousness Beneficiary regards solicitousness as officious. Refusal of solicitousness by the beneficiary Face loss -------------->Performer Figure 13. Solicitousness and Face Loss

98

There is also the case in which someone can suffer loss of face if solicitousness is not demonstrated. This may more likely happen in a collectivist than in an individual culture (See chapter 4). In Japanese society, for instance, solicitousness is highly valued and even expected to a certain extent. So, if someone does not demonstrate as much solicitousness as expected by the members of society, s/he would suffer loss of face, because s/he was not sensitive enough to preempt the other partys desires, thus failing to fulfill norm-based expectations regarding politeness.

3.9. Conclusion
In this chapter, I have reviewed and considered the key issues of this study, i. e., requests and responses to requests. Since I will investigate why certain types of requests are employed in some situations, whether there are any relationships between the variables affecting politeness strategies and the choice of requesting choices, and whether there are any similarities or differences between the choice of requesting strategies by British and Japanese subjects, I have attempted to clarify some features of requests, such as the conditions, indirectness, some types of requests, and the payoffs of different types of requests. I have reviewed requesting strategies with regard to the relationship between the choice of requesting strategies and the variables affecting requesting strategies. In reviewing the components of variables, I clarified what I think to be the components of the three variables, as many researchers in pragmatics have not defined what they mean by each variable, as noted in 3.7.1. However, these are my interpretations, and the subjects in this study may have different components of each variable in mind, but it is not the purpose of this study to reveal what each subject considers to be the components of each variable. As Brown and Levinson (1987: 76) note, the factors compounded to estimate the three variables are certainly culture-specific. Therefore, it can be assumed that subjects in British culture and those in Japanese culture may differ in the components of each variable. The purposes of this study are to investigate how the subjects perceive each variable in the situations provided, how those perceptions influence their behaviors in requesting or responding strategies to off-record requests and whether there are any cross-cultural differences between British and 99

Japanese cultures. With British and Japanese subjects in this study, I will test out Brown and Levinsons predictions, i.e., the bigger the face threat (computed by the three variables), the higher the number of the strategy employed, by investigating the correlations between the perceptions of each variable and the requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests. In this study, I have decided to focus on responses to off-record requests. Off-record requests leave some options for interpretation, so that several responses are possible. I have confined myself to considering responses to off-record requests in which H has recognised that a request has been made. I have attempted to consider such responses, and I have defined one way of responding to off-record requests as solicitousness, in which H preempts Ss requests, and does something for the benefit of S. I have tried to clarify the conditions of solicitousness, the status of solicitousness in Brown and Levinsons framework, and I have offered some interpretations of solicitousness and the relationship between solicitousness and face. I will investigate whether there are any similarities or differences in the display of solicitousness between British and Japanese subjects. I will also investigate in what kind of situations solicitousness is chosen by British and Japanese subjects as a response to off-record requests. The display and the preference of solicitousness may be much related to different value systems in different cultures, which is the focus of the next chapter.

100

CHAPTER 4

Cultural Dimensions of the Study

4.1. Introduction
Politeness strategies, which are the focus of this study, are considered to be influenced by culture. In this chapter, some features of culture relevant to this study will be considered, and I will attempt to establish a contrastive framework of Japanese and British cultures, and to consider some features of Japanese and British cultures relevant to the interpretation of the politeness data. Culture is a very broad ranging concept, but it is not my purpose to consider all aspects of culture in this chapter in which I will confine myself to those cultural dimensions which may influence communication strategies, language use and politeness strategies. I will review some definitions of culture, and since the anthropological view of culture seems to be especially relevant to this study, it will be reviewed in 4.2.2. where I will consider some problems concerning culture and will clarify my position in this study. In 4.3., I will review the dimension of collectivism and individualism, which I will use to explain cultural differences. I will also review the definitions, and discuss some criticisms of the collectivism-individualism dichotomy, some of the major features of this dimension, and will consider Japanese and British cultures in the light of collectivism-individualism.

4.2. What is Culture?

4.2.1. Definitions of Culture
Culture is viewed from numerous angles, as may be clear from the summary of views of culture below. 101

Robinson (1988: 812) lists four different views of culture, as follows:

Theoretical Position View of Culture Behaviorist Observable reactions and/or events Functionalist Underlying structure or rules which govern and explain observable events Cognitive An internal mechanism for organizing and interpreting inputs Symbolic The meaning which results from the dialectic process between external events and internal mechanisms Table 5. Robinsons View of Culture

Robinson (Ibid.) explains these four views, as follows:

From the behaviorist point of view, culture consists of discrete behaviors or sets of behaviors, e.g., traditions, habits or customs, as in marriage or leisure. Culture is something which is shared and can be observed. (Ibid.: 8) The functionalist approach to culture is an attempt at making sense out of social behaviors. Again, culture is viewed as a social phenomenon. However, what is shared are reasons and rules for behaving. (Ibid.: 89) The cognitive definition shifts attention from the observable aspects of what is shared to what is shared inside the cultural actor. What is shared is a means of organizing and interpreting the world, a means of creating order out of the inputs. The cognitive approach emphasizes the mechanism of organizing inputs. That is, culture itself is a process through which experience is mapped out, categorized and interpreted. From this perspective, culture is like a computer program. The program differs from culture to culture. (Ibid.: 10) While cognitive anthropologists focus on the product of processing, i.e., the meanings derived. Symbolic anthropologists view culture as a system of symbols and meanings. Symbolic anthropology is concerned with the dynamic inter-relationship between meaning, experience and reality. Culture (which is the product of this interrelationship) is a dynamic system an ongoing, dialectic process, giving rise to symbols which may be viewed historically. Past experience influences meaning, which in turn affects future experience, which in turn affects subsequent meaning, and so on. (Ibid.: 11)

Robinson (Ibid.: 1213) notes the danger of a particular definition of culture and the merit of combining concepts of culture and learning. Therefore, I am not going to take any particular view of culture reviewed here. Adler (1997: 15) describes culture as: 102

1. Something that is shared by all or almost all members of some social group; 2. Something that the older members of the group try to pass on to the younger members; and 3. Something (as in the case of morals, laws and customs) that shapes behavior, or structures ones perception of the world. In figure 14, Adler (Ibid.: 16) shows how individuals express culture and its normative qualities through the values that they hold about life and the world around them. These values in turn affect their attitudes about the form of behavior considered more appropriate and effective in any given situation. Culture

Behavior

Values

Attitudes
Figure 14. Influences of Culture on Behaviour (Adler, 1997: 16)

Choosing politeness strategies can be considered as behaviour. From figure 14, it can be said that the choice of politeness strategies is influenced by culture. Mead (1994: 6) explains culture as follows: 1. culture includes systems of values; 2. a culture is particular to one group and not others; 3. it is learned and is not innate; it is passed down from one generation to the next; and 4. it influences the behavior of group members in uniform and predictable ways.

103

Values are defined by Lustig (1988: 61) as powerful unseen forces that are collectively shared within a culture. Culture is an important influence on communication, which is influenced by the values unique to one culture in this study. Schiffrin (1994: 139140) describes the relationship between culture and communication in the terms which emphasise the way in which culture both shapes and is shaped by language, which
is a system of use whose rules and norms are an integral part of culture. culture is continually created, negotiated, and redefined in concrete acts between persons who are participating in some kind of interactive situation. Thus, the way we communicate with each other is constrained by culture, but it also reveals and sustains culture. Language use is also a type (and a part) of social behavior in many different institutional realms (e.g. political, economic, religious, family) that are themselves bound to culture.

Scollon and Scollon (1995: 126) note that there are two normal uses of the word culture: (1) high culture, focusing on intellectual and artistic achievements; and (2) anthropological culture, meaning any of the customs, worldview, language, kinship system, social organization, and other taken-for-granted day-to-day practices of a people which set that group apart as a distinctive group. They note that in studying intercultural communication, their concern is not with high culture, but with anthropological culture. Since this study deals with a cross-cultural comparison of politeness strategies, linked to intercultural communication, anthropological culture is our main concern to be reviewed in the next section.

4.2.2. The Anthropological View

The traditional anthropological view defines culture as a monolithic, allembracing concept, including the behavioural (customs), the creativematerial (arts), the normative and institutional (morals and law), and the cognitive (knowledge and belief), not to mention any other capabilities and habits (Brgger, 1992: 31). In line with this view, Barnouw (1982: 4) says that:
A culture is the way of life of a group of people, the complex of shared concepts and patterns of learned behaviour that are handed down from one generation to the next through the means of language and imitation. A person is destined to learn the patterns of behaviour prevalent in the society in which he grows up.

104

According to Brgger (1992), such definitions view culture as configurations, structures, systems and control mechanisms or programmes. Culture is seen as being a totality, tied together by various webs or patterns of beliefs and values which are specific to each culture. The conceptualisation and description of culture proposed by Hofstede (1991) fits within this frame. He (Ibid.: 4) discusses culture in terms of mental programmes and the software of the mind, using the analogy of the way in which computers are programmed. Hofstede is careful to point out that peoples behaviour is only partially determined by their mental programmes. All individuals have a basic ability to deviate from these programmes and to react in ways which are new, creative, destructive or unexpected. The sources of ones mental programmes lie within the social environments in which one grew up and ones life experiences. Hofstede (Ibid.: 10) notes that as almost everyone belongs to a number of different groups and categories of people at the same time, people unavoidably carry several layers of mental programming within themselves, corresponding to different levels of culture, and lists the following: a national level according to ones country (or countries for people who migrated during their lifetime); a regional and/or ethnic and/or religious and/or linguistic affiliation level, as most nations are composed of culturally different regions and/ or ethnic and/or religious and/or language groups; a gender level, according to whether a person was born as a girl or a boy; a generation level, which separates grandparents from parents from children; a social class level, associated with educational opportunities and with a persons occupation or profession; for those who are employed, an organizational or corporate level according to the way employees have been socialized by their work organization. Hofstedes scheme is summed up in figure 15, in which he depicts the relationship between personality (which is unique), culture (which is acquired) and human nature (which is innate and universal).

105

Specific to individual

Inherited and learned

PERSONALITY

Specific to group or category Universal

CULTURE

Learned

HUMAN NATURE

Inherited

Figure 15. Three Levels of Uniqueness in Human Mental Programming (Hofstede, 1991: 6)

According to Hofstede (1991: 5), culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another. Hofstede describes four dimensions along which cultural value systems can be ordered: (1) power distance; (2) individualismcollectivism; (3) masculinity-femininity; and (4) uncertainty avoidance. Lustig (1988: 5860) explains these dimensions as follows:
Power distance indicates the degree to which the culture believes that institutional and organizational power should be distributed unequally. Individualismcollectivism indicates the degree to which a culture relies upon and has allegiance to the self or the group. Masculinity-femininity indicates the degree to which a culture values masculine behaviors such as assertiveness and the acquisition of wealth or feminine behaviors such as caring for others and the quality of life. Uncertainty avoidance indicates the degree to which the culture feels threatened by ambiguous situations and tries to avoid uncertainty by establishing more structure.

Of the above dimensions, individualism-collectivism seems to be the most relevant to this study, since this dimension is concerned with the relationship between the self and the group, and it may influence communication strategies, as communication is the activity which is conducted interpersonally.1
1 Mead (1994: 50) cites Kluckhohn and Strodtbecks (1961) six basic cultural orientations, and one of them is the persons relationship to other people, the range of variations of which is collectivist and individualist.

106

In cross-cultural communication, there are many studies which have used the dimension of individualism-collectivism as a way of framing the research. For example, in explaining cultural differences in language use, Holtgraves and Yang (1992: 253254) use differences in social interaction between individuals from individualistic and collectivist cultures. Holtgraves and Yang (Ibid.: 246) note that speakers in any culture can say the same thing in many different ways. In order to explain some cross-cultural differences between politeness strategies chosen by British subjects and those by their Japanese counterparts, I will use the dimension of individualism-collectivism, which I will review more in detail in 4.3.

4.2.3. Problems Concerning Culture

Sarangi (1995: 24) points out there are two problems concerning culture in cross-cultural pragmatics: (1) over-emphasising consistency within a cultural group and (2) not attempting to understand culture. Concerning the second problem, culture has not been well defined in the study of cross-cultural pragmatics. One reason for this situation may be the difficulty of defining culture, as Scollon and Scollon (1995: 125) note:
there is really very little agreement on what people mean by the idea of culture

Sarangi (Ibid.: 25) suggests that Hall (1959: 53) quite aptly summarises the elusive nature of the culture concept from the viewpoint of cultural agents in given societies as well as cultural analysts bound by different disciplines when he says that:
culture hides much more than it reveals, and strangely enough what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants.

On the basis of the definitions of culture reviewed above, I have come to the conclusion that the anthropological view offers a useful approach for the present study. Concerning the first problem, i.e., over emphasis of consistency within a cultural group, the features in one culture seem to be regarded as consistent in many studies in cross-cultural pragmatics. However, there are many subcultures in one culture, and each subculture is often different from 107

another. I think it is necessary to consider Hofstedes (1991: 10) view again here. That is, as almost everyone belongs to a number of different groups and categories of people at the same time, people unavoidably carry several layers of mental programming within themselves, corresponding to different levels of culture. Many factors, such as, social status, social class, institutionalised roles, age, sex, wealth, regional/ethnic identities, constitute many different subcultures within one culture. I agree with Sarangis warning of the danger of over-emphasising consistency within a cultural group. It is dangerous to generalise about one culture by examining only certain representatives of one culture. In order to avoid such a problem, I have confined my subjects to university students, and when I refer to the data of British or Japanese cultures in this study, it is as represented by the students concerned. The problem of over-emphasising consistency within a cultural group undoubtedly has to do with stereotyping. As noted in 4.2.1., culture is something that is shared by all or almost all members of some social group, but it is not always the case that all members have the same or similar perspectives. Trompenaars (1993: 25) points out that:
People within a culture do not all have identical sets of artefacts, norms, values and assumptions. Within each culture there is a wide spread of these. This spread does have a pattern around an average. So, in a sense, the variation around the norm can be seen as a normal distribution. Distinguishing one culture from another depends on the limits we want to make on each side of the distribution. Culture whose norms differ significantly tend to speak about each other in terms of extremes. Using extreme, exaggerated forms of behaviour is stereotyping.

However, not all stereotyping involves focusing on extremes, as is clear in the definition offered by Smith and Bond (1993: 168169).
A stereotype is a group of beliefs about persons who are members of a particular group. Gender, ethnicity, age, education, wealth and the like may form the basis for a stereotype, as indeed can any identifiable marker. Stereotypes may vary in many aspects: they may be widely shared by others, even by the stereotyped persons themselves, or they may be idiosyncratic to the individual holding them; they may involve beliefs about the traits, values, behaviours, opinions or, indeed, beliefs of typical persons from that other group; they may be simple or differentiated, positive or negative, confidently or unsurely held.

In fact, Smith and Bond (Ibid.: 169) point out that whereas the early work on stereotyping tended to have a bad name, recently psychologists have 108

been developing more balanced appreciation of stereotypes, many noting the kernel of truth that stereotypes possess, while it has also been observed that interacting social groups often hold positive stereotypes about one another, and that stereotypes for some groups may be defined across many dimensions, giving opportunity for judges to ascribe broad, differentiated identity to their own and other group members. Indeed, this last outcome, they suggest, may in fact be an important component in sustaining harmonious group relations. In any case, as Smith and Bond (Ibid.) note, stereotypes are one form of cognitive schema, and as such they reduce the need to attend to and process individual information about the other so that attention may be devoted to other aspects of the interaction. This redeployment of consciousness may be especially useful in cross-cultural encounters, where surprises are likely to abound. Roberts and Sarangi (1993: 99) point out that recently, anthropologists have come to regard generic conceptualisations of culture as misleading. They point out that culture is constantly being made and remade, being neither static nor monolithic, but multi-voiced and contested. What is important in this view is not what something means but how it came to be produced, to be the way it is, while the focus is on the critical analysis of culture-specific features.

4.3. Collectivism-Individualism
As noted in 4.2.1., the anthropological view of culture seems to be the one most applicable to this study, and as noted in 4.2.2., the dimension of individualism-collectivism proposed by Hofstede (1991), which is related to communication, and will thus provide a useful analytical category. In this section, I will discuss this dichotomy further, reviewing the definitions of collectivism and individualism in 4.3.1., reviewing and considering some criticisms in 4.3.2., and discussing some of the features of collectivism and individualism which are related to this study in 4.3.3.

109

4.3.1. Definitions
Several researchers have defined collectivism and individualism. Hofstede (1991: 51) defines them as follows:
Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive ingroups, which throughout peoples lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

Kim et al. (1994b: 2) explains individualism and collectivism in similar terms to Hofstede (1980).
According to Hofstede (1980), individualist societies emphasize I consciousness, autonomy, emotional independence, individual initiative, right to privacy, pleasure seeking, financial security, need for specific friendship, and universalism. Collectivist societies, on the other hand, stress we consciousness, collective identity, emotional dependence group solidarity, sharing, duties and obligations, need for stable and predetermined friendship, group decision, and particularism.

They also (Ibid.: 23) quote from Markus and Kitayama (1991) who:
similarly propose the independent view and interdependent view of the self. They describe individuals who uphold the independent view as being egocentric, separate, autonomous, idiocentric, and self-contained (p.226). Interdependent individuals are sociocentric, holistic, collective, allocentric, ensembled, constitutive, contextualist, and relational (p.227).

Brislin (1994: 7880), comparing individualism and collectivism, claims that:

Individualists are socialized to be self-reliant and to have more of a sense of separation from their extended family and from their community. The most important distinction between collectivists and individualists is the emphasis placed on the feelings and opinions of group members and the psychological closeness between a person and others. Collectivists are more willing to downplay their own goals in favor of group preferences.

Kim et al. (1994b: 6) note that liberalism serves as a foundation of individualism, and Confucianism serves as a moral-political philosophy that helps to entrench collectivism. Figure 16 on individualism and collectivism by them (Ibid.: 7) will be helpful in understanding individualism and collectivism. 110

Individualism <-------------------------> Collectivism

Fundamental Assumption Rationality, Reason

Fundamental Assumption Relatedness

Principles

Regulations, Rules, Laws

Collective welfare, Harmony

Roles, Duties, Obligations

Individuation

Autonomy

Selfcultivation

Interdependency

Self-fulfillment

Freedom of choice

Succorance

Nurturance

Uniqueness

Assertiveness

Common fate

Compliance

Figure 16. Individualism and Collectivism: An Integrated Framework (Kim et al., 1994b: 7)

The categories in individualism and those in collectivism in figure 16 seem to be bipolar, but I think it is important to note that individualist and collectivist tendencies can coexist, as Triandis (1994b: 42) suggests:
individual-level factor analyses suggest that the two can coexist and are simply emphasized more or less in each culture, depending on the situation. All of us carry both individualist and collectivist tendencies; the difference is that in some cultures the probability that individualist selves, attitudes, norms, values, and behaviors will be sampled or used is higher than in others.

Trompenaars (1993: 49) has a similar view to Triandis:

Individualism is often regarded as the characteristic of a modernising society, while collectivism reminds us of both more traditional societies and the failure of the communist experiment. these dimensions are complementary, not opposing, preferences.

111

4.3.2. Criticisms
I would like at this point to review the criticisms of the dichotomy of individualistic and collectivist cultures. Schwartz (1990: 140) considers that the individualism-collectivism dichotomy revolves around the presumed conflict between personal interests and ingroup interests, and claims that this dichotomy is insufficient. Schwartz (Ibid.: 151) points out that:
First, the dichotomy leads us to overlook values that inherently serve both individual and collective interests (e.g., maturity values). Second, the dichotomy ignores values that foster the goals of collectives other than the ingroup (e.g., universal prosocial values). Third, the dichotomy promotes the mistaken assumption that individualist and collectivist values each form coherent syndromes that are opposed to one another. It fails to recognize that the subtypes of individualist and of collectivist values sometimes do not vary together and are sometimes not opposed.

However, Schwartz (op. cit.: 151152) also admits the validity of the individualism-collectivism dichotomy.
This is not to contend, however, that the individualism-collectivism dichotomy and its psychological counterpart of idiocentrism-allocentrism are without merit. The dichotomy therefore remains useful for broad-brush analyses, and it can certainly suggest fruitful research hypotheses.

Wierzbicka (1994a: 19) criticises collectivist-individualist categories as binary ones, when pointing out the advantage of her cultural scripts2:
the use of unique and yet comparable cultural scripts allows us to develop a typology of communication patterns which does not necessitate trying to fit cultures

Wierzbicka (1994a) suggests the cultural scripts, i. e., a framework within which both the differences in the ways of communicating and the underlying differences in the way of thinking can be fruitfully and rigorously explored (Ibid.: 2). She (Ibid: 17) claims that: Cultural scripts are not statement about peoples behaviour, they are statements about ideas expectations, thoughts, assumptions, norms. one extremely rich source of evidence for cultural scripts lies in a cultures key words, that is, frequently used lexical items encapsulating core cultural concepts. For example, in Japanese culture certain key cultural concepts regulating human interaction are encapsulated in key words such as amae, enryo, wa or on, words which have no equivalent in English but whose meaning can be portrayed accurately in English in terms of lexical universal such as want, know or think.

112

into the strait jackets of binary categories such as collectivist/individualist or high-context/low-context.

Although Wierzbicka (1994a: 19) criticises collectivist-individualist categories as binary, she admits that her cultural scripts are also binary in nature (I can say X and I cant say X). She (Ibid.) defends herself by saying that:
Binary oppositions between scripts along the lines of I can say X vs. I cant say X are possible and can be used whenever appropriate but they are not forced by the analytical framework itself.

I think these criticisms of the dichotomy of collectivist-individualist cultures can be counter argued by Trompenaars concept of individualism and collectivism and Triandis suggestion, as noted in 4.3.1. That is, the dichotomy of collectivist-individualist cultures is sometimes complementary and individualist and collectivist tendencies can coexist. Schwartzs (1990) criticism of collectivism and individualism can also be countered by the possibility of individualist and collectivist tendencies co-existing in each culture. Therefore, I do not think that there is a problem in using the dimension of individualism-collectivism as a basis for considering British and Japanese cultures in this study.

4.3.3. Features of Collectivism and Individualism

4.3.3.1. The Concept of Group/Individual As noted in 4.3.1., in collectivist cultures, the group is considered to be important, and relationships within the group are important; whereas in individualist cultures, more importance is placed on individuals. This difference in values between collectivism and individualism gives rise to the following differences, as Yoshida (1994: 243) explains:
A society that values collectivism will obviously place a higher value on harmony and good interpersonal relationships while an individualistic society is likely to encourage behavior that brings merit to specific people.

The above difference in the concept of group and individuals is related to the distinction between independence and interdependence. In his classic 113

review of Japanese culture, Doi (1971) claims that amae, the desire to depend on others, is the key concept to understanding Japanese society. Yoshida (1994: 253) uses the word, interdependence, rather than dependence for amae. In her view, collectivists see people as interdependent beings that exist only in conjunction with others. An individual is not an entity of his or her own but is, rather, an integral component of a larger structure called society (Ibid.: 253254). As an explanation of this perspective, Yoshida refers to the character for people in Chinese as well as Japanese. It literally means individuals interactions with his fellow human beings and the character for person is made up of two strokes, one supporting the other (Ibid.: 253). In my view, independence and interdependence are not mutually exclusive, any more than individualism and collectivism are. That is, there may be some elements of independence even in collectivist cultures, and interdependence in individualist cultures. This is similar to the view held by Triandis (1994b) and Trompenaars (1993), as noted in 4.3.1. The point is that the salient feature of collectivist cultures is that of interdependence, and that of individualist cultures is independence. Group identity is also differently perceived in individualist and collectivist cultures. Ting-Toomey (1989: 353) refers to Triandis et al. (1986) who note that while the boundary conditions between ingroups and outgroups are fairly diffused and loosely structured in individualistic cultures, the boundary conditions between ingroups and outgroups, and also between memberships in various ingroups (e.g., kin, coworkers, neighbors), are more sharply defined and tightly structured in collectivistic cultures. Commenting on group identity, Hall (1976), using the term, high-/low- context cultures, points out that High-context cultures make greater distinctions between insiders and outsiders than low-context cultures do (Ibid.: 113). This is also illustrated by Trompenaarss (1993: 82) observation that:
There is a growing evidence, for example, that westerners working for Japanese companies are never wholly inside. It is similarly hard to feel fully accepted within the richness of French culture with its thousands of diffuse connections.

Bond et al. (1985) investigated the responses to verbal insult by Hong Kong Chinese, being ranked high in collectivism (C), and those by Americans, who are ranked low in collectivism. They noted that the greater the C, the greater the importance of in-group as opposed to out-group membership of the actor vis--vis the target (Ibid.: 113). They (Ibid.: 122) also report that the hypothesis, markers of status and group mem114

bership would have greater significance in guiding the perceptions of persons from societies higher in power distance (PD) and collectivism (C), was confirmed. Further studies describe the importance of group identity. For instance, Wetzel (1985: 142143) explains the importance of group identification in Japan, while Moeran (1988) points out that group identity is reflected in language choice in Japanese. Since the group is important in collectivist cultures and an individual is important in individualist cultures, there is a difference in external/ interpersonal reality (Yoshida, 1994).
External reality refers to measurable, verifiable phenomena that exist in nature. These are often what people accept as facts. (Ibid.: 258) Interpersonal reality refers to the feelings and impressions created during interactions between two or more people. Good interpersonal reality is characterized by the generation of pleasant feelings, and bad interpersonal reality is reflected through disagreement or conflict. (Ibid.: 256)

External reality is valued in individualist cultures, and interpersonal reality is valued in collectivist cultures. With regard to interpersonal reality, Yoshida (Ibid.: 257) refers to a Japanese book entitled Kikubari no susume (Suzuki, 1985) and explains kikubari, which
figuratively means putting yourself in another persons place and providing them with whatever they need most. The main characteristic of kikubari is that the person is sensitive enough to offer help or kindness without being asked. In short, kikubari is something that makes other people feel good, thus fostering good interpersonal reality. (Yoshida, 1994: 257)

Kikubari is one example of interpersonal reality. The characteristics of kikubari can also be described as sasshi (lit. inference), which is pragmatic politeness in Japanese (Suzuki, 1989: 59). This means that in Japanese society, it is considered to be polite if somebody infers the other partys wants, desires, etc., because the hearers private territory is trespassed on if they are asked about their wants, desires, etc. In order to demonstrate kikubari, it is necessary to infer the other partys wants. I will discuss further the importance of inference in Japanese society in 4.3.3.2. As kikubari is highly valued in Japanese culture, someone who does a lot of kikubari acquires a reputation as someone who is yoku kigatsuku (very attentive), doing whatever the other party wishes before the other 115

party expresses his/her wishes explicitly (Fukushima, 1995a: 39). Japanese people are expected to possess sufficient sensitivity to display kikubari in many occasions. In a way, Japanese people are trained to infer others needs from childhood, as the following shows:
In giving directives, Japanese mothers strongly emphasized sensitivity to the needs, wishes, and feelings of others. (Clancy, 1986: 232)

It seems to me that kikubari is related to the following cultural script on Japanese culture and society suggested by Wierzbicka (1994a: 6).
6. it is good if I can know what another person feels/thinks/wants this person doesnt have to say anything to me

The interpersonal reality which can be created by kikubari is esteemed in collectivist cultures, because close and mutual supportive relationships among group members are valued.

4.3.3.2. Communication Patterns The different concept of group and individual in collectivist and individualist cultures influences communication patterns. Scollon and Scollon (1995: 134) note that one consequence of the cultural difference between individualism and collectivism has to do with the difference between speaking to members of ones own group and speaking to others, and they explain the relationships between the concept of group and its influence on communication in individualist and collectivist cultures as follows.
In an individualistic society, groups do not form with the same degree of permanence as they do in collectivist society. As a result, the ways of speaking to others are much more similar from situation to situation, since in each case the relationships are being negotiated and developed right within the situation of the discourse. On the other hand, in a collectivist society, many relationships are established from ones birth into a particular family in a particular segment of society in a particular place. These memberships in particular groups tend to take on a permanent, ingroup character along with special forms of discourse which carefully preserve the boundaries between those who are inside members of the group and all others who are not members of the group. (Scollon and Scollon, 1995: 134)

Scollon and Scollons explanation has to do with the concept of group/ individual, as noted in 4.3.3.1. That is, in individualist cultures, the 116

boundary conditions between ingroups and outgroups are fairly diffused and loosely structured, whereas in collectivist cultures, they are more sharply defined and tightly structured. This difference on group boundary between individualist and collectivist cultures influences communication patterns, as Scollon and Scollon note in the above. That is, in individualist cultures, there are not many differences in the ways of speaking to others, whereas in collectivist cultures, people differentiate the ways of speaking according to the group membership of the other party. I would like to consider the features of communication patterns in collectivist and individualist cultures further. Triandis (1994a), explaining the features of communication patterns in collectivist cultures, says that:
People in collectivist cultures pay more attention to context (emotional expressions, touching, distance between bodies, body orientation, level of voice, eye contact) when they communicate than do people from individualistic cultures (Gudykunst, 1983). The collectivist must keep relationships with in-group members at their best and looks at all the evidence to understand what is communicated. Thus, collectivists are not as explicit, direct, or clear as the individualists. (Triandis, 1994a: 184) The important attributes of the communicator are age, sex, family background, and status in the social system. (Ibid.: 185) Collectivists also pay more attention to status differences than do individualists. (Ibid.: 186)

Some of the features noted in Triandis were confirmed in two studies. Beebe et al. (1990) found that Japanese subjects were more responsive to status than American counterparts, indicating that Japanese subjects displayed more features of collectivism than did American subjects. Hashimoto et al. (1992), examining requests in English and Japanese, found that the requesting strategies by native speakers of English (their nationality was not specified in their study) were influenced by closeness-noncloseness, while those by native speakers of Japanese were influenced by high-low position (measured by social status and age). Triandis (1994a: 184) also explains the features of communication patterns in individualist cultures:
In low-context (individualistic) cultures people distrust what is not said clearly. The communicator is the focus of the communication, and the important attributes are credibility, intelligence, and expert knowledge of the subject matter. Explicit logic, proofs, linear organization of the argument, emphasis on what is said, emphasis on specificity, and precision in word usage are valued.

117

Hofstede (1991: 60) also notes similar characteristics to Triandis (1994a).

A high-context communication is one in which little has to be said or written because most of the information is either in the physical environment or within the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit part of the message. This type of communication is frequent in collectivist cultures. A low-context communication is one in which the mass of information is vested in the explicit code, which is typical for individualist cultures. Lots of things which in collectivist cultures are self-evident must be said explicitly in individualist cultures.

Hall (1976: 113) explains the characteristics of high-context communication in terms of the implicit features of communication patterns as well as the necessity of inference by the hearer in arriving at an understanding of what the speaker intends.
People raised in high-context systems expect more of others than do the participants in low-context systems. When talking about something that they have on their minds, a high-context individual will expect his interlocutor to know whats bothering him, so that he doesnt have to be specific. The result is that he will talk around and around the point, in effect putting all the pieces in place except the crucial one. Placing it properlythis keystoneis the role of his interlocutor.

In order for people to know whats bothering him in Halls terms, people have to infer what the problem is. While not using the same terms as Hall, Triandis (1994a: 184) believes that inference is important in collectivist cultures, since the collectivist must keep relationships with in-group members at their best and looks at all the evidence to understand what is communicated. It appears, then, that inference is related to the concept of group. As Hall (1976: 113) notes, people in collectivist cultures expect more of others than do people in individualist cultures. This may mean that people in collectivist cultures expect others to infer their wants, problems, etc., which may help account for the fact that in collectivist cultures, people do not say as much or as explicitly as those in individualist cultures. To summarise, it is claimed that: 1. people in collectivist cultures distinguish forms of discourse, i.e., the way of speaking to others, between those who are in-group members and out-group members more than people in individualist cultures; 2. people in collectivist cultures pay more attention to context than people in individualist cultures; 3. people in collectivist cultures do not say as much or explicitly as people 118

in individualist cultures, i.e., people in collectivist cultures express themselves implicitly and indirectly; and 4. people in collectivist cultures infer more than people in individualist cultures. I will now review some empirical studies which will lend support to these conclusions. The study by Holtgraves and Yang (1992), examining request strategies by Koreans (collectivist culture) and those by Americans (individualistic culture), supports the point that people in collectivist cultures pay more attention to context than people in individualist cultures, and their study suggests that paying attention to context is also connected to the distinction made by people in collectivist cultures between in-group and out-group.
The politeness of the Korean requests varied more (in the predicted direction) as a function of power and distance than did the American requests. These results suggest that rather than characterizing Koreans as more polite than Westerners , it may be more accurate to describe Korean use of language as being more responsive to the interpersonal features of situations. (Ibid.: 252253) In collectivist cultures, strong distinctions are drawn between in-groups and outgroups, and this results in greater overall variability in social interaction. (Ibid.: 253)

Holtgraves and Yang (Ibid.) review previous studies which showed more variability in social interaction by subjects from collectivist cultures than those from individualist cultures. Wheeler, Reis and Bond (1989), for instance, found greater reported variability in the control of interactions for Hong Kong Chinese than for Americans. Leung (1988) found that Chinese were more likely to pursue an argument with a friend than with a stranger, whereas Americans showed less variability in this way. Gudykunst, Yoon and Nishida (1987) found that differences in perceptions of communication with in-group and out-group members were more variable for Korean subjects than for American subjects. These results confirm the point that people in collectivist cultures distinguish forms of discourse, i.e., the way of speaking to others, between those who are in-group members and out-group members more than people in individualist cultures. Concerning the point that people in collectivist cultures are more indirect than those in individualist cultures, Clancy (1986: 213) notes that the communicative style of the Japanese is intuitive and indirect, especially compared with that of Americans. Agar (1994: 222) notes that: 119

In several different studies conducted in the IC field, a correlation holds between the variables individualistic/collectivistic and low/high context. The first variable measures whether a culture features the individual actor or the collective social group, the second, whether communication is explicit and direct low context or whether it relies more on presupposition and implicature to communicate less directly high context. According to the studies, which rely by and large on survey data, individualistic cultures tend towards low-context communication, collectivistic cultures, towards high-context communication.

Okabe (1983: 3839) also explains that:

In a low-context culture, like that of the United States, where very little is taken for granted, greater diversity and heterogeneity are likely to make verbal skills more necessary, therefore, more highly prized. In a high-context culture, such as Japans, however, cultural homogeneity encourages suspicion of verbal skills, confidence in the unspoken, and eagerness to avoid confrontation.

However, Holtgraves and Yang (1992: 253) have suggested that it may not be accurate to characterise people in collectivist cultures as being more indirect than those in individualist cultures, and they warn that we may not be able to generalise in such a clear-cut way. Concerning the point that people in collectivist cultures infer more than people in individualist cultures, inference is common and is highly valued in a collectivist culture, as implied by Halls (1976: 113) explanation:
When talking about something that they have on their minds, a high-context individual will expect his interlocutor to know whats bothering him

As an example of a collectivist culture, in Japanese, people infer the others feelings (ishindenshin, lit. immediate communication from one mind to another) and they unconsciously expect reciprocal human relationships (Minami, 1994: 244). Kitade (1993) characterises Japanese communication as one of enryo (reservation) and sasshi (inference). Because in a collectivist culture, inference is highly valued,
giving options may not be preferred and may be seen as a bother, requiring decision-making on the part of the addressee. In Japan, it is a mark of proper behavior for a hostess to anticipate what her guests would like as a refreshment, not bothering them with choices. (LoCastro, 1990: 255)

120

Clancy (1986: 217) notes that:

in Japan the ideal interaction is not one in which the speakers express their wishes and needs adequately and listeners understand and comply, but rather the one in which each party understands and anticipates the needs of the other, even before anything is said. Communication can take place without, or even in spite of, actual verbalization. The main responsibility lies with the listener, who must know what the speaker means regardless of the words that are used. In this view of communication, mind-reading is seen as both possible and desirable, rather than a misguided expectation of those who have not learned to express themselves adequately.

The mind-reading in the above requires inference, which in Japanese society works to create good feelings among people (interpersonal reality).

4.3.4. A Brief Summary of Collectivist Cultures and Individualist Cultures

It is difficult to make a clear distinction between the features of collectivist cultures and individualist cultures, because some elements may be shared by both, as Schwartz (1990) suggests, because individualist and collectivist tendencies coexist (Triandis, 1994b), and also because all countries are likely to include sub-cultural groups that deviate markedly from the general orientation, at least in some activities (White, 1994: 60). Also there will always be people whose behavior varies from the generalizations, as Brislin (1994: 78) points out. While keeping these reservations in mind, I will attempt to summarise the salient features of collectivist cultures and individualist cultures which are relevant to this study (See Table 6). In collectivist cultures, people care for the group and at the same time they are cared for by the group members. This can be described as interdependence. The distinction between in- and out-group is more clear cut in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures. Thus, good relationships are important, and interpersonal reality is valued. People pay attention to the context. This may be because people try to maintain good interpersonal reality, by paying attention to such contextual factors as, status, age, etc., and try to act accordingly. As they have more shared knowledge than those in individualist cultures, meaning can be communicated implicitly. Subtlety is valued and much meaning is conveyed by inference. 121

In individualist cultures, the interests of individuals are important. People are expected to take care of themselves. Independence and privacy are valued. People do not have as much shared knowledge as people in collectivist cultures do; therefore, explicit communication is necessary.
Cultural Dimension individualist collectivist Context Dependence low high Communication Style direct indirect/ use of inference Orientation independence interdependence Reality In-group Out-group Distinction low

external

interpersonal high

Table 6. A Summary of Features of Collectivist Cultures and Individualist Cultures

4.3.5. Japanese Culture and British Culture: Collectivist or Individualist?

It has been claimed that Japanese culture is collectivist and British culture is individualist. To what extent does Japanese culture have features of collectivism and to what extent does British culture have features of individualism? In order to answer these questions, reference is made to Hofstedes (1991: 53) list of individualism index values (IDV) for fifty countries and three regions. According to Hofstedes list, Britain is the third in the rank with an IDV score of 89; while Japan is the 22/23 with an IDV score of 46. It seems clear, then, that Britain can be classified as an individualist society. Japan, by contrast, has been considered to be a collectivist society, but Japan is not an extreme case, according to the individualism index values. Even so, as Brislin (1994: 78) points out, Although not among the most collective countries, Japan is far more collective than the United States. And Britain, it might be added. Hofstede (1991: 77) points out that there is a strong relationship between national wealth and individualism, and cites Japan as an example of a collectivist country which has achieved fast economic development. He points out that:
Countries having achieved fast economic development have experienced a shift towards individualism. Japan is an example: the Japanese press regularly publishes stories of breaches of traditional family solidarity. Care for the aged in the past

122

was considered a task for the Japanese family, but provisions by the state have become necessary for cases where the family stops fulfilling its traditional duties. Nevertheless, even at a level of per capita income equal to or larger than Western countries, Japanese society will very likely conserve distinctive collectivist elements in its family-, school-, and workspheres.

Japanese culture has acquired some features of individualist cultures, although the classification of Japan, is, in any case, highly variable, as Putnis (1993: 4243) points out, noting that Japan was described both as collectivistic and moderately individualistic in different descriptions of the same research findings. Putnis (Ibid.) cites Asante and Gudykunst (1989):
Gudykunst, Yoon, and Nishida (1987) found that members of collectivistic cultures (Japan and Korea) perceive greater social penetration (personalization and synchronization) in their ingroup relationships than do members of individualistic cultures (United States). (Ting-Toomey, 1989: 353) Gudykunst, Yoon, and Nishida (1987) examined perceptions of communication with strangers (an outgroup) and classmates (an ingroup) among students in a highly individualistic culture (the United States), a moderately individualistic one (Japan) and a highly collectivist culture (South Korea). (Giles & Franklyn-Stokes, 1989: 122)

In the same study, Gudykunst et al. themselves (1987: 295) regard Japan as a moderately individualistic culture, while they (Ibid.: 297) consider Japan as moderately collectivistic. Putnis (1993: 4243) seems to regard the inconsistency of labeling Japanese culture by Gudykunst et al. as problematic, but I think the reference made by Gudykunst et al. to Japanese culture indicates that Japan is not very collectivist, having acquired some features of individualist cultures, although it is not as individualist as the U.S. According to Gudykunst et al., Japan is situated somewhere in-between the U.S. and Korea. No culture is static, and Japanese culture is no exception. It is certain that Japanese cultural values and behaviours are changing. Therefore, it is sometimes dangerous to accept as credible some of the features of Japanese culture depicted as in the kind of clich found in Nihonjinron (lit. the discussion of the Japanese), which emphasises the uniqueness of the Japanese.
Central to Nihonjinron has been the ideology of uniqueness designed to reinforce useful notions of particularity and specialness of a group of people exemplified in Tsunodas (1985) description of the peculiar qualities of the Japanese brain, Takeo Dois amae (the Japanese are uniquely disposed to interpersonal dependency), Chie Nakanes rigid categorisation of social relations in terms of hierarchical structure all contributed to point out uniqueness. (Maher and Yashiro, 1995: 910)

123

As Miyoshi (1991: 67), in Maher and Yashiro (1995: 11), writes, many cultural commentators on Japan tend to see Japan still in the terms that have been in stable use since around 1950: as an exemplar of modernisation theory in the context of the Cold War, a country that has pulled itself out of its premodern stage of development through learning from the West. Japan has experienced a rapid change in values and attitudes especially after World War II. Iwao (1990) depicts the change in the norms and attitudes that shape Japanese life-styles and Japanese society, listing the following factors underlying the value changes: (1) the speed of Japans economic development; (2) the accompanying level of affluence for relatively large segments of the general public; and (3) the rapid shift to an aging society. Indeed, a number of tendencies once cited as distinguishing characteristics of the Japanese people actually appear to have reversed themselves (Ibid.: 41). There are some further studies which show the changes in Japanese traditional attitudes. Yamazaki (1997a) reports that one of the Japanese stereotypes, i.e., that the Japanese apologise very often, was not supported by her Japanese senior high school students.3 Smith (1996: 98) cites Yang (1988), who also notes a change of Japanese students:
Yang (1988) has provided a wealth of evidence that modernization leads to increasing individualism, in a wide variety of nations. More recently there has been widespread concern, for instance in Japan, that the younger generation no longer feel bound by traditional values. Some studies have found Japanese students to endorse values just as individualistic as those espoused by American students.

Yamaguchi (1994: 184) also notes a change in the attitude of the Japanese people. He cites Triandis (1989) who:
suggests that people become more individualistic in affluent societies. He reasons that in a complex and affluent society people attain financial independence, which in turn leads them to be socially and emotionally independent. He suggests that

Only 27% of her Japanese subjects apologised to the teacher whereas 96 % of her American counterparts apologised to the teacher in the following situation: You had an interview at 2:30 with your home room teacher. You went at 2:30 sharp, but your teacher was not in a good mood, saying that the appointment was 2:00. Yamazaki (1997b) further comments that although the teacher is still regarded as a superior, with whom the students need to use polite linguistic forms, the Japanese subjects did not apologise to her/him.

124

people in affluent societies tend to give priority to personal goals over in-group goals. On the other hand, in developing countries, people need to be interdependent. It is quite common in developing countries that people need to share limited resources with others. In such economic situations, people can hardly be independent of others.

Yamaguchi (Ibid.) explains that after experiencing poverty after World War II, Japan has recently achieved substantial economic success, thus, Japanese can now afford to be more individualistic than before. He found a positive correlation between age and collectivism, i.e., older Japanese are more collectivist than younger Japanese. Such changes in the characteristics of Japanese culture, as depicted by Yamazaki (1997a), Yang (1988) and Yamaguchi (1994), cannot be denied. As Hofstede (1991: 77) points out, Japan has experienced a shift towards individualism because of economic development, but still has collectivist elements. According to Smith (1996: 98), Japan, which belongs in Asia, may still have collectivist elements compared to Western European and Anglo countries:
Nonetheless, if we examine the multi-nation studies outlined above, we find that they all still agree with Hofstedes finding that Western European and Anglo countries are more individualistic than those in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

From the above discussions, we may be able to characterise British culture as an individualist culture and Japanese culture as a collectivist culture, although it is not an extreme case and it has shifted towards greater individualism than before under the influence of economic growth.

4.4. Conclusion
In this chapter, I have attempted to establish a contrastive framework for British and Japanese cultures which I can use in comparing requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests by British and Japanese subjects. Reviewing some definitions of culture and some approaches to culture revealed that the anthropological view, for example, Hofstedes (1991) scheme provides a useful basis of this study, especially the dimension of individualism-collectivism. Although there are some criticisms of the 125

dichotomy of individualism-collectivism, I have come to a conclusion that I can use the dimension of individualism-collectivism as a major framework of this study, after taking those criticisms into account. I have also reviewed some features of individualist and collectivist cultures and considered whether British and Japanese cultures were individualist or collectivist. It is difficult to generalise about one culture since it consists of many sub-groups. People form sub-groups according to many factors, such as age, sex, occupation, level of education, wealth, regions of their living, ethnic identity, interests, beliefs, etc. Features of each sub-group may be diverse and some of the features may deviate from the general features of the whole culture. Historical change also influences the features of a culture, as noted in 4.3.5. concerning Japanese culture. As Sarangi (1995: 24) points out, there is a problem of over-emphasising consistency within a cultural group in cross-cultural pragmatics. If we take all those aspects which may influence a culture, it is probably impossible to generalise about one culture in a strict sense. However, there are certain aspects which may be common in one culture. In this chapter, I have come to a conclusion that British culture is predominantly individualist and Japanese culture is predominantly collectivist, although the latter has some individualist elements because of economic development. I will take these points into account when I formulate hypotheses on the requesting strategies and responding strategies to off-record requests by Japanese and British subjects, and when I analyse the results. There is another important point to keep in mind, concerning the cultural dimensions of this study. It is not the final goal to label Japanese culture as collectivist and British culture as individualist. In this sense, I agree with de Kadt (1998: 179) who says that:
In considering cultures contrastively, it cannot suffice simply to label a culture collective or individualist. Rather empirical data from a wide range of different cultures are required in order to enable researchers to use the terms in more differentiated and hence meaningful manner.

This study will provide some empirical data on British and Japanese cultures in aspects of requesting and responding to off-record requests, and reveal to what extent British and Japanese cultures exhibit the features of individualist or collectivist cultures in the aspect of interpersonal communication.

126

CHAPTER 5

Research Design and Methodology

5.1. Introduction
In this chapter, I attempt to develop the research design of this study, taking material covered in the previous chapters into account. In 5.2. and 5.3., I will state research questions, and hypotheses respectively, based on the review of literature in chapters 2, 3 and 4. In 5.4., I will evaluate the methods conventionally used to elicit pragmatic data before describing and justifying the methods and procedures used in the present study. In 5.5., I will report the development of data gathering instruments and the procedures employed. In 5.6., I will provide an explanation of the analytical procedures employed.

5.2. Research Questions

Brown and Levinson (1987: 76) note that:
We are not here interested in what factors are compounded to estimate these complex parameters; such factors are certainly culture-specific.

This means that the components of each variable such as power difference and social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act are culture-specific. Therefore, British subjects and Japanese subjects may have different components of each variable in mind. This may result in British and Japanese subjects perceiving each situation differently, as Blum-Kulka and House (1989: 137) note:
members of different cultures might differ in their perceptions of social situations as well as in the relative importance attributed to any of the social parameters mentioned.

127

British and Japanese subjects may have different values assigned to power difference and social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act. From the above, the first research question arises. 1. Do British subjects and Japanese subjects perceive comparable situations differently in terms of the three variables, i.e., power difference and social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act? As noted in chapter 2 (2.3.3.3.), Brown and Levinson (1987: 250251) have categorised British and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures whose politeness strategies are distributed in Dyad II. That is, negative politeness and off-record strategies are used in the cultures classified as Dyad II. Following Brown and Levinsons classification, it can be hypothesised that there will be no significant differences between the choices of requesting strategies by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects. Both British subjects and Japanese subjects will employ negative politeness and off-record strategies. However, Brown and Levinson have noted that there is a difference in the degree to what extent Japan and Britain belong to Dyad II, although they have not explained this difference sufficiently. In chapter 4, I have reviewed another categorisation of cultures, i.e., collectivist and individualist. Japanese culture is considered to be a collectivist culture, although it has acquired individualist elements because of the rapid economic growth. British culture is considered to be an individualist culture. I consider that the difference in the degree between British and Japanese cultures in Dyad II, suggested by Brown and Levinson, stemmed from the difference between collectivist and individualist cultures. Some differences between the communication styles in collectivist cultures and those in individualist cultures were noted in chapter 4 (4.3.3.2.). In collectivist cultures, implicit ways of communication are preferred, whereas in individualist cultures, explicit styles are preferred. People in collectivist cultures are more sensitive to the context than those in individualist cultures, and people in collectivist cultures make stronger distinctions between in-groups and out-groups than those in individualist cultures. Inference plays a greater part in a collectivist culture than in an individualist culture, and by making inferences people interpret off-record requests. Therefore, more off-record requests will be interpreted as requests in Japanese culture than in British culture. 128

As noted in chapter 3 (3.8.3.), solicitousness is realised when the performer of solicitousness interprets the desires of the S of off-record requests, by paying attention to context or circumstance or by making inferences, and the performer of solicitousness wants to do something for the beneficiary. In this sense, interpersonal reality, such as kikubari, is an important element in solicitousness. Since the performer does (offers) something by demonstrating solicitousness, solicitousness may reduce the choices of the S of off-record requests. As noted in chapter 4, interpersonal reality, such as kikubari is highly valued in a collectivist culture, whereas giving a person choices is valued in an individualist one. Consequently, solicitousness may be more appreciated and practiced in a collectivist culture than in an individualist one. From the above, the following research questions arise. 2. Do the requesting strategies by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects differ? 3. Do the responding strategies to off-record requests by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects differ? The requesting strategies and the responding strategies to off-record requests employed by British and Japanese subjects may differ if the assessment of the three variables differs between British and Japanese subjects. This is because there may be a positive correlation between the situational assessment of the three variables and the politeness strategies, as suggested by Brown and Levinson. As noted in chapter 3 (3.7.1.), Brown and Levinson (1987: 76) argue that all three dimensions P, D and R contribute the seriousness of an FTA, and thus to a determination of the level of politeness with which, other things being equal, an FTA will be communicated. This means that the weight of the three variables would determine the politeness strategy. That is, for instance, when the degree of the imposition of the requested act is high, a high numbered politeness strategy will be employed. From this, the following research questions arise. 4. Does the situational assessment of the three variables influence the requesting strategies? 5. Does the situational assessment of the three variables influence the responding strategies to off-record requests? 129

5.3. Hypotheses

5.3.1. Hypotheses of Situational Assessment

The null hypotheses of situational assessment are as follows. Ho1: There are no differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of power difference between S and H. Ho2: There are no differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of social distance between S and H. Ho3: There are no differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act. The alternative hypotheses of situational assessment are as follows. H1: There are significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of power difference between S and H. H2: There are significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of social distance between S and H. H3: There are significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act.

5.3.2. Hypotheses of Requesting Strategies

5.3.2.1. Hypotheses of Requesting Strategies by British and Japanese Subjects The null hypothesis concerning the choices of requesting strategies by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects is as follows. Ho4: There are no differences between the choices of requesting strategies by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects. 130

The alternative hypothesis concerning the choices of requesting strategies by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects is as follows. H4: There are significant differences between the choices of requesting strategies by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects.

5.3.2.2. Hypotheses concerning the Correlation between the Situational Assessment and the Choice of Requesting Strategies The null hypotheses concerning the correlation between the choices of requesting strategies and the situational assessment are as follows. Ho5: There are no correlations between the assessment of power difference between S and H and the choices of requesting strategies. Ho6: There are no correlations between the assessment of social distance between S and H and the choices of requesting strategies. Ho7: There are no correlations between the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act and the choices of requesting strategies. The alternative hypotheses concerning the correlation between the choices of requesting strategies and the situational assessment are as follows. H5: There are some correlations between the assessment of power difference between S and H and the choices of requesting strategies. H6: There are some correlations between the assessment of social distance between S and H and the choices of requesting strategies. H7: There are some correlations between the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act and the choices of requesting strategies.

131

5.3.3. Hypotheses of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

5.3.3.1. Hypotheses of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests by British and Japanese Subjects The null hypothesis concerning the responding strategies to off-record requests by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects is as follows. Ho8: There are no differences between the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects. The alternative hypothesis concerning the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects is as follows. H8: There are significant differences between the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects.

5.3.3.2. Hypotheses concerning the Correlation between the Situational Assessment and the Choice of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests The null hypotheses concerning the correlation between the choices of requesting strategies and the situational assessment are as follows. Ho9: There are no correlations between the assessment of power difference between S and H and the choices of responding strategies to offrecord requests. Ho10: There are no correlations between the assessment of social distance between S and H and the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests. Ho11: There are no correlations between the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act and the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests.

132

The alternative hypotheses concerning the correlation between the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests and the situational assessment are as follows. H9: There are some correlations between the assessment of power difference between S and H and the choices of responding strategies to offrecord requests. H10: There are some correlations between the assessment of social distance between S and H and the choices of responding strategies to offrecord requests. H11: There are some correlations between the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act and the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests. To test the above hypotheses, I need to have an appropriate method. In order to establish an appropriate method for data collection, I will review the methods for data collection in the next section.

5.4. Review of Methods for Data Collection

As I noted in chapter 1, although Brown and Levinson have made a significant contribution to politeness theory, they have not provided an equally sound methodology, whereas the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984: BlumKulka, House and Kasper, 1989) is to date the largest research project to systematically inquire into the cultural specificity of speech act behavior (Hinnenkamp, 1995: 10) lacks a sound theoretical basis. Indeed, it seems that while there is little in the way of developed method in Brown and Levinsons work, there is little in the way of sensible theory in the CCSARP work. Therefore, drawing on both schools of thought should contribute to putting politeness theory on a sounder footing. The CCSARP project focuses on two speech acts (requests and apologies) in eight languages or varieties (Australian English, American English, British English, Canadian French, Danish, German, Hebrew and Russian) (Blum133

Kulka & Olshtain, 1984: 197). Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984: 198) state that In order to ensure cross-cultural comparability, it was decided to obtain the data by the use of a controlled elicitation procedure and the method used for data collection was the discourse-completion test (DCT), because they wanted to obtain a large quantity of data from a wide range of countries, something which it would have been virtually impossible to do under field conditions (See Blum-Kulka et al, 1989: 13). Citing Hill et al. (1986: 353), Blum-Kulka et al. (1989: 13) claim that the use of written elicited data has an advantage:
The virtue of authenticity in naturally-occurring speech must be weighed against its reflection of speakers sociolinguistic adaptations to very specific situations.

And Blum-Kulka et al. (1989: 13) note that Using written elicitation techniques enables us to obtain more stereotyped responses. Examples of the CCSARP DCT procedure are as follows (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989: 14):
(a) At the University Ann missed a lecture yesterday and would like to borrow Judiths notes. Ann: _________________________________________________ Judith: Sure, but let me have them back before the lecture next week. (b) At the College teachers office A student has borrowed a book from her teacher, which she promised to return today. When meeting her teacher, however, she realizes that she forgot to bring it along. Teacher: Miriam, I hope you brought the book I lent you. Miriam: _______________________________________________ Teacher: OK, but please remember it next week.

The CCSARP elicitation procedures have a number of limitations, which Weizman (1989: 82), who collected the Canadian French data in the CCSARP, admits, pointing out that:
It should, however, be borne in mind that, due to the nature of the discoursecompletion task used to elicit responses, the CCSARP data do not provide a fully authentic picture of what the informants have actually uttered in real-life situations, but rather provide us with evidence of what the informants believe people would typically utter in a given situation.

Eliciting spoken data by the use of a written elicitation technique seems to me to be a major limitation of the CCSARP methodology. 134

In addition, I believe that there are problems with some of the situations used in the CCSARP. Blum-Kulka et al. (1989: 14) note that the situations depicted by the dialogues reflect every day occurrences of the type expected to be familiar to speakers across Western cultures, specifically to the student population tested. Yet a doubt remains over whether all the cultures they investigated were Western and whether the situations can be found in every culture concerned. Some situations lacked naturalness, because the subjects had to play the role of a policeman or a university professor, which is a problem also noted by Bonikowska (1988: 170). Another problem concerns the comparability of the situations across the cultures involved, because the researchers have not demonstrated that the situations used can occur in the cultures covered in their project and they have not explained why and how they could ensure cross-cultural comparability by the use of a DCT. In the CCSARP, a response to the (missing) request or apology was given, i. e., complying with the request and accepting the apology. As Johnston et al. (1998) found, strategy choice is differentially affected by rejoinder type, depending on whether it is positive, negative, or absent. Giving positive rejoinders in the CCSARP may have influenced the data. In natural conversations, however, we never know how the other party is going to respond to our requests or apologies. Consequently, providing responses to the missing turn lacks naturalness and strongly pre-determines the response strategy for the missing item, thus influencing the data obtained. As I noted earlier, the CCSARP was the biggest project in this field and it has developed a methodology for collecting data, which Brown and Levinson did not offer. However, because of the limitations in the CCSARP methodology, I am not going to use their procedures, but instead I prefer to develop an appropriate methodology of my own, beginning with a review of a number of other methodologies which have been employed. In the study of pragmatics and interlanguage pragmatics, a number of research methods and instruments have been employed, including observation of naturally occurring data, role plays and written questionnaires, the last in the form of discourse completion tests (DCTs) and multiple choice questionnaires (MCQs), as summarised in figure 17.

135

Naturally occurring Data Role plays Elicited DCTs Questionnaires MCQs Figure 17. Methods of Data Collection

It would be possible to claim that as one goes down the diagram in figure 17, the data becomes more artificial or less naturalistic. One thing to note here is that there may be some kind of belief that authentic data is valid and artificial data is not. However, naturally occurring data are not always valid, as one person may happen to use a certain expression in a particular occasion from which it is difficult to generalise. Another thing to note is that if spoken data are elicited, the data may become more artificial or less-naturalistic as one descends the diagram in figure 17. If non-spoken data are elicited, this constraint will not apply. Whatever the methodology adopted, one has to consider its validity. As a background to the data gathering procedures used in this study, the methods of data collection summarised in figure 17 will be reviewed, from which it will be clear that each method has its particular advantages, as well as disadvantages, and in the end a choice has to be a compromise between what is valid and reliable on the one hand and practical on the other. Balancing between validity and feasibility is a factor applicable to all research. After reviewing the pros and cons of each method in figure 17, I will try to find an appropriate method for the present study which will overcome the methodological limitations of the CCSARP, considering the validity as well as the feasibility in 5.5.

5.4.1. Naturally Occurring Data Cohen (1996: 391) reviews the advantages of using naturally occurring data:
a broader range of respondents can be studied than is usually the case with studies using predetermined respondents. Furthermore, in principle, one can obtain a sense of the frequency with which particular types of speech acts occur.

136

Cohen (Ibid.: 391392) further notes the advantages of naturally occurring data, following Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1993):
1. The data are spontaneous. 2. The data reflect what the speakers say rather than what they think they would say. 3. The speakers are reacting to a natural situation rather than to a contrived and possibly unfamiliar situation. 4. The communicative event has real-world consequences. 5. The event may be a source of rich pragmatic structures.

Cohen (Ibid.: 392) points out that there are also following difficulties.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The speech act being studied may not occur naturally very often. Proficiency and gender may be difficult to control. Collecting and analyzing the data are time-consuming. The data may not yield enough or any examples of target items. The use of recording equipment may be intrusive. The use of note taking as a complement to or in lieu of taping relies on memory.

Beebe and Takahashi (1989b) have also pointed out the limitations of using naturally occurring data. They found that the naturally occurring notebook data were biased toward the linguistic preferences of friends, relatives, and associates since these were the people with whom they tended to interact and observe. They also found a bias in favor of short exchanges because the investigators were not able to record long exchanges in their notebook. Finally, the researchers tended to record utterances with atypical or nonnative-sounding elements because these stood out from more routine utterances.

5.4.2. Elicited Data Elicited data can be obtained through role plays and questionnaires. In questionnaires, there are two types: (1) discourse completion tests and (2) multiple choice questionnaires.

5.4.2.1. Role Plays In role plays, the situation is described to the subject orally by the experimenter(s), who then ask the subject to say what the person they are role playing would say in the situation. Optimally, the subject is asked to 137

role play himself or herself under circumstances described in the experiment (Rintell and Mitchell, 1989: 250). Some researchers have pointed out the advantages and the disadvantages of this method.
The advantages of this method are that the subjects have the opportunity to say what and as much as they would like to say, and their spoken language is thought to be a good indication of their natural way of speaking. A possible disadvantage is that since the subjects are role playing and not naturalistically engaged in the interaction under investigation, we do not know to what extent the subjects responses are representative of what the subjects would say if he or she encountered the situation in real life. Another is that the subject might feel as if he or she were taking a test, and the responses might be accommodated accordingly. (Rintell & Mitchell, 1989: 251) Open role plays have the advantage that they allow examination of speech act behavior in its full discourse context. A disadvantage that open role plays share with authentic conversation data is that they need transcribing. (Kasper & Dahl, 1991: 228229)

Sasaki (1998), having compared role plays with production questionnaires, which have been traditionally called discourse completion tests, found that:
The role play responses tended to be longer, and they contained more and a greater variety of strategies although the types of central speech act expressions (e.g., the Head Acts and supportive moves for request) used in the responses were similar across the two methods. (Ibid.: 479)

She (Ibid.) further states which methodology is more appropriate for certain occasions.
Because production questionnaires are more practical in terms of data processing (i.e., they do not require time consuming transcription for analysis as do role plays), they thus seem to be more appropriate for conducting a quick or large-scale survey of the types of main speech acts strategies used. In contrast, role plays are more appropriate for investigating the sequences involved in more comprehensive speech act performance as well as the frequency of each strategy used.

5.4.2.2. Written Questionnaires 5.4.2.2.1. Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs) Discourse completion tests have been much used and much criticized (Kasper & Dahl, 1991). Many studies (e.g., Banerjee & Carrell, 1988; Beebe, 138

Takahashi & Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Bergman and Kasper, 1993; Blum-Kulka, 1982; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986; BlumKulka et al., 1989; Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Olshtain & Weinbach, 1987; Takahashi & Beebe, 1987) have used this technique, which also has both advantages and disadvantages. I think the biggest advantage of this method is that it is possible to collect large amounts of data, by administering questionnaires to a large number of subjects. This advantage has been pointed out by many researchers (e.g., Beebe & Cummings, 1996; Johnston et al., 1998: 157; Rintell & Mitchell, 1989: 250; Rose, 1992: 5152; Sasaki, 1998: 458; Wolfson et al., 1989: 183). Another advantage is that this method seems to effectively control the contextual variables important to the study, as pointed out by Rintell and Mitchell (1989: 250). Sasaki (1998: 458) made the point that:
Because the researcher can control variables related to a given context (e.g., the relative status and closeness of the respondent and the interlocutor) in production questionnaires, it is possible to investigate the effect of such variables.

With this method, it is also fairly easy to compare the data obtained in different cultures, because the situations can be controlled (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989), and because of the controlled situations, DCTs allow the testing of hypotheses derived from naturally occurring instances which provided insufficient data (Cohen, 1996: 393). It is also possible to collect comparable data from members of different speech communities (Johnston et al., 1998: 157). As Johnston et al. (1998: 157) note, there is no need to transcribe the data. In addition to the above advantages, I think that uniformity of description is ensured when using written prompts, whereas the use of visual material is open to misinterpretation because of cultural differences in the meanings of nonverbal cues, as can occur with videotaped material. There are, however, disadvantages in using DCTs. I think the biggest disadvantage of DCTs is that while tokens of spoken responses are being elicited, the actual medium being used is written, as Hinkel (1997) and Sasaki (1998) also pointed out:
it may be that DCTs have their own shortcomings because they require subjects to produce written responses in lieu of speech acts. (Hinkel, 1997: 20) the respondents spoken performance is intended to be elicited indirectly through the written mode. (Sasaki, 1998: 458)

139

This disadvantage can lead to further disadvantages:

the discourse completion task did not elicit natural speech with respect to actual wording, range of formulas and strategies, length of responses, or number of conversational turns necessary to fulfill a function. (Cohen, 1996: 394) it is hard to tell how representative what subjects write on such a discourse completion test is of what they actually say in spontaneous conversation. Other potential problems are that the length of response is constrained by the space the subjects have in which to write, and even that respondents may choose specific linguistic forms based on familiarity with the spelling of one word rather than another. Further, subjects may perceive writing as a more formal activity than speaking, and thus choose to write more formal language on the questionnaire. (Rintell and Mitchell, 1989: 250) how much can we assume that written responses are representative of spoken one? can we hope that short, decontextualized written segments are comparable to the longer routines typical of actual interaction? (Wolfson et al., 1989: 182) With regard to eliciting spoken data, Rose (1992: 60) notes that the DCT may not be an adequate instrument for collecting data on hearer-based languages1, such as Japanese.

5.4.2.2.2. Multiple-Choice Questionnaires (MCQs) Another written form of elicitation is the multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ), in which a choice of responses is provided for selection by the subject. MCQs have been used in perception tests (e.g. Olshtain and BlumKulka, 1985; Tanaka and Kawade, 1982), assessment tests (e.g. Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Fraser, Rintell & Walters, 1980; House, 1988; Rintell, 1981) or a judgment test (Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985). In Rose (1994), Rose and Ono (1995) and Hinkel (1997), MCQs were used to elicit production data, in comparison with the data elicited by DCTs. Eliciting data on requests from Japanese and American subjects, Rose (1994) found that the DCT results did not show that Japanese subjects used more hints than Americans; on the contrary, the Japanese were more direct. However, with a MCQ which included hinting and opting out as possible responses, the subjects shifted towards both opting out and hinting. In a later study, Rose and Ono (1995) replicated and confirmed Roses
1 Rose cites Lebra (1976) to explain hearer-based languages. In conversation the speaker does not complete a sentence but leaves it openended in such a way that the listener will take it over before the former clearly expresses his will or opinion. (Lebra, 1976: 38)

140

earlier findings (op. cit.). The results of the above studies show that MCQs can widen the selection of the subjects answers, providing choices which they may not have thought of, but they would feel the most appropriate. With the offered choices, MCQs can also control the data more than DCTs, because the data are confined to the offered choices. These are the advantages of MCQs. In addition, MCQs share some of the advantages of DCTs, such as the uniformity of description which is ensured by using written prompts, so that it is possible to gather large amounts of data cross-culturally and it is fairly easy to compare the data obtained in different cultures, because the situations can be controlled. However, if spoken data are elicited, MCQs also share the disadvantage of DCTs, in using the written mode to elicit spoken data.

5.5. Data Collection and Research Instruments

5.5.1. Method of Data Collection

5.5.1.1. Previous Stages of the Present Study 5.5.1.1.1. Project 92 In 1992, I observed the naturally occurring situations on requests and solicitousness by two means: (1) setting a tape-recorder in a shared kitchen in students hall in England where I lived; and (2) taking field notes. Some of the request situations which were collected through this project were useful in Project 93, the pilot study and SA 96, which I will describe later. However, by trying to obtain naturally occurring data, I encountered some difficulties, some of them being similar to those reviewed in 5.4.1. One of them was that there were not as many situations as I wanted to collect. Another was that when taking field notes, I could not record the whole exchange, because I was not carrying a tape-recorder all the time and when I realised some one had uttered something I wanted to collect, I could not recall every single word. As a result, the data I obtained were not sufficient for analysis. 141

Through this project, I have also come to a doubt whether production by one individual can be generalised as one widely used in the culture concerned, or whether the utterance is idiosyncratic, one person having happened to use certain expressions, whereas other people would express themselves differently. In other words, it is sometimes difficult to judge whether a certain instance is idiosyncratic or general. 5.5.1.1.2. Project 93 Since I did not succeed in the use of naturally occurring data in Project 92, I attempted to collect elicited data. According to Sasaki (1998: 459), If the respondent is given an opportunity to interact freely with the interlocutor, the task is called open role play. If the respondent is given very few or no opportunities to interact with the interlocutor, the task is called closed role play. I adopted a closed role play in Project 93. In 1993, I asked twenty British undergraduates living in Reading, Berkshire, to record what they would say under fifteen request situations, which were collected through Project 92. Each situation was described in a written form, and the subjects were shown the written prompt one by one and were asked to record what they would say. With this method of eliciting data, I encountered the difficulty of obtaining subjects. I visited some students halls and asked some undergraduates if they could cooperate with my research. It was time-consuming to do so, and not all the people I asked complied with my request, and thus it was difficult to obtain a large number of subjects. Another difficulty I had was the transcription of the data. It was time-consuming and sometimes I could not understand what the subjects had uttered. 5.5.1.1.3. Pilot Study Considering the difficulties I had in the use of naturally occurring data in Project 92 and role plays in Project 93, I opted for written questionnaires. Since I was well aware of the limitations of written questionnaires, I had to consider how I could overcome them. Using written situations, such as letters or e-mails, with the written medium was a possible means to overcome the mismatch of the spoken data and written medium. However, the situations I obtained were based on Project 92, which were spoken situations, not written ones. Therefore, I did not use letters or e-mails. In order to overcome the limitation of the combination of the use of a 142

written mode for the elicitation of spoken data, I decided not to elicit spoken data, i.e., linguistic exponents. Instead, I decided to elicit strategy data, which operate at a deeper level than linguistic exponents. This is because people may opt for one strategy (this can be done unconsciously) and then try to realise that strategy, for which there are several realisations. Consequently, the strategy data is tapping a deeper level than the linguistic exponents (See 5.5.1.2.). After having decided to elicit strategy data, I had to consider how I could do this. Many lay people may not be familiar with the word strategy. The subjects might be puzzled if they were asked to write requesting strategies in certain situations. So, in the pilot study, a written questionnaire with the choices of strategies was given to the subjects, i.e., MCQs with strategy choices. In the pilot study, each strategy was exemplified linguistically (See Part B & Part C in Appendix 2.1.). As noted in 5.4.2.2.2., with MCQs, it is possible to gather large amounts of data cross-culturally and it is fairly easy to compare the data obtained in different cultures, because the situations can be controlled. Since I was attempting to conduct a cross-cultural study, trying to gather fairly large amount of data so that it is possible to arrive at some generalisations, MCQs suited my purpose. The constraint of MCQs, i.e., using the written mode to elicit spoken data, does not apply here, because the spoken data are not elicited. Since I intended to use a questionnaire as a research instrument in this study, it was necessary to check the efficacy of the research instrument and of the procedures. Therefore, I conducted a pilot study in 1995 at the University of Reading, England with nineteen British subjects, and at Tsuru University, Yamanashi, Japan with twenty-one Japanese subjects. Nine request situations based on my field notes were used (See Appendix 2.1.). The instruments were in the mother tongue of the subjects, i.e., English for British subjects, and Japanese for Japanese subjects, and they consisted of three parts, i.e., Part A, Part B and Part C. First, the subjects were asked to assess the following on a five-point scale (See Part A in Appendix 2.1.): the power difference between S (the requester) and H (the requestee); the social distance between S and H; and the degree of imposition of the requested act. Secondly, the subjects were asked to choose one requesting strategy among the five choices provided. Choices (1) to (4) represented Brown and 143

Levinsons politeness strategies (See 2.3.3.1.) as follows, and choice (5) was added to choices (1) to (4). (1) Direct bald-on-record requests; (2) Conventionally indirect on-record requests; (3) Off-record requests; (4) Opting out choices (Dont do FTAs); and (5) Other (If the subjects do not find any of the above choices appropriate, they can write what they would say/do.) The choices were given as expressions representing the above strategies (See Part B in Appendix 2.1.). Thirdly, the subjects were asked to choose one strategy to respond to off-record requests among the following five choices: (1) Preempting Ss desires (Demonstrating solicitousness); (2) Responding to what S has said; (3) Saying nothing; (4) Changing the subject; and (5) Other (If the subjects do not find any of the above choices appropriate, they can write what they would say/do.) The choices were given as expressions representing the above strategies (See Part C in Appendix 2.1.). After conducting the pilot study, the following problems were identified in the research instruments. 1. Choices given as expressions Since the choices in the questionnaire were given in linguistic form, quite a number of the subjects seemed to focus their attention on the form and not on the strategies, although I wanted the subjects to choose the strategy. This was revealed by the tendency of many subjects to rephrase the expressions given in the questionnaire, having selected choice (5), although the strategies they used were actually provided in the questionnaire. For instance, one of the subjects selected choice (5) and wrote:
Ive run out of bread and milk. If it is not too much trouble, could you get me some next time you go out? Im afraid I dont feel well enough to go out.

144

This is a conventionally indirect request, even though it is more elaborate than the one given as choice (2) in situation 5 (I have run out of my bread and milk. Im not still feeling well. Could you get me some bread and milk?) in the questionnaire. Giving the choices as actual exponents proved to be distracting, because there was a confusion when analysing responses statistically. 2. Intention of S In the descriptions of the situations in the questionnaire, it was not stated that the person in the situation would like to make a request. If the intention of the person in the situation was not clear, it might be difficult for the subjects to make an assessment, especially on the degree of imposition in Part A. Off-record requests leave options for interpretation, i.e., they can be interpreted as requests or statements. Part C is confined to investigating how H responds to off-record requests when s/he knows that they are requests, not just statements. Therefore, it is better to indicate that Ss intention is to make a request. 3. Two choices in one category in Part C Both choice (3), saying nothing, and choice (4), changing the subject, in Part C belong to the same category, refusing off-record requests. It is less confusing to have one choice for each category, especially when conducting a statistical analysis. 4. Another possible choice in Part C Another choice, making a suggestion or giving advice, is a possible responding strategy to off-record requests. By making this choice, H does not do anything special her/himself, but at least s/he is more kind by showing some willingness to be of help to S rather than just refusing offrecord requests. This option was not included in the choices in the questionnaire in the pilot study. 5.5.1.1.4. Changes Made as a Result The following changes were made to the instruments as a result of the pilot study. 145

1. The choices in Part B and Part C were provided as strategies, and expressions were given only as examples. As was noted in the previous section, what most of the subjects in the pilot study did was paraphrasing the wording of the listed realisation. In other words, they concentrated on form, rather than strategies, so, there was a need to make the subjects concentrate on the strategy. Therefore, the choices of strategies were given and example sentences were provided for each choice so that the subjects could understand the meaning of the strategy. 2. Choice (5), other, in Part B and Part C was deleted. 3. The intention of S (i. e., to make a request) was stated clearly in the descriptions of the situations. 4. Due to (3), the opting out choice in Part B was deleted, because the intention of S was to make a request. 5. Choice (3), saying nothing, and choice (4), changing the subject, in Part C were combined (refusing an off-record request). 6. Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourself replaced responding to what S has said, in Part C. 5.5.1.1.5. Situational Assessment (SA 96) When conducting a cross-cultural study, it is important to ensure that the situations used in the study are comparable (Fukushima, 1994). While many cross-cultural studies have been carried out (e. g. CCSARP), the comparability of situations has not been considered, yet, without using comparable situations, it is difficult to compare responses by subjects from different cultures. In other words, the responses cannot be judged to be same or different between subjects from different cultures, unless the situations are comparable between the cultures concerned. If the situations are taken from a particular culture (e. g. British), subjects in other cultures (e. g. Japanese) may feel that it is unnatural to make requests in those situations, or they may feel that those situations are not likely to occur in their own culture. In such a case, the situations are not really comparable even if the subjects in different cultures perceive such variables as power difference, social distance, and the degree of imposition of the requested act similarly. The situations have to be natural in the cultures used in the study. Since I believe that comparability of situations in such studies is of fundamental importance, I conducted a situational assessment (SA 96) in order to identify situations which would be comparable in both British and Japanese settings (See Appendix 2.2.). 146

In SA 96, eighteen request situations were used. Nine situations were based on my field notes in England (Project 92); and the other nine were based on my field notes in Japan, as well as from a preliminary questionnaire on requests in which Japanese university students wrote down the requests they had recently made or received. Therefore, eighteen request situations used in SA 96 actually occurred in Britain and Japan, and these situations reflect student life. This is important, because all the subjects of this study are students. While they may not have exactly the same experiences as depicted in the situations, they do not have to put themselves in a totally different world. Bonikowska (1988: 170) points out the problem of requiring the respondent to adopt various roles, for example, of a father or principal, which are clearly distant from the subjects experience. The use of situations based on student life reduces this problem. The purposes of SA 96 were as follows: 1. to elicit comparable situations between British and Japanese cultures in terms of naturalness/authenticity of request situations; and 2. to identify the situations which have variations in power difference and social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act. In SA 96, nine British informants and twenty-eight Japanese informants were asked to assess the naturalness/authenticity of a situation in the subjects culture on a five-point scale. T-tests were then conducted to identify those situations in which there were differences in ratings between the two sets of subjects. The results of the t-tests showed that six situations (Situations 2, 3, 10, 13, 16, 17) had significant differences. These situations were then rejected, leaving twelve judged to be comparable in terms of naturalness or authenticity between British and Japanese cultures. From those twelve situations, eight were selected. In SA 96, the informants were also asked to assess status difference, age difference, closeness between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act. The mean scores of those four variables were calculated. It was intended to have balanced situations in terms of status difference, age difference, closeness between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act, i. e., it was intended to include situations with big/small status difference, big/small age difference, not close/close between S and H, and high/low degree of imposition. Based on the mean scores, twelve situations were divided into two categories in each variable: big/small status difference, 147

big/small age difference, not close/close, and high/low degree of imposition. The classification of twelve situations which were assessed as natural by both British and Japanese informants is presented in table 7.
Status difference Big Not Close High Small Close Low Numbers indicate the situations. Table 7. Classification of Twelve Situations in SA 96 12, 5, 14, 6, 15, 4 18, 14, 15, 5, 6, 4 5, 15, 1, 6, 4 5, 8, 15, 12, 6 11, 9, 8, 1, 7, 18 Age difference 1, 9, 11, 7, 8, 12 9, 8, 11, 12, 18, 14, 7 7, 1, 14, 18, 11, 9, 4 Closeness Degree of Imposition

From the above results, I categorised the situations, combining the four variables (status, age, distance and imposition), as shown in table 8.
Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Status H>L H>L Equals Equals Equals L>H L>H L>H Age + + + + + Distance + + + + + Imp. H L H H L H H L Situation 7, (9), (18) 8 14 4 (15), (5), 6 11 1 12

Status H: Higher status; Status L: Lower status; Age +: Big age difference; Age -: Small age difference; Distance +: Not close; Distance -: Close; Imp H: High degree of imposition; Imp L: Low degree of imposition Table 8. Category of Twelve Situations in SA 96

148

Several situations were assigned to category 1 and category 5. In category 1, in which the degree of imposition was high, situation 7 was chosen, because its mean score of the degree of imposition was the highest among the three situations. In category 5, in which the degree of imposition was low, situation 6 was chosen, because its mean score of the degree of imposition was the lowest among the three situations. With the exception of those in parentheses, the situations shown in table 8 were used in this study (See Appendix 2.3.), while their order was randomised, as shown in table 9.
Situations in SA 96 1 4 6 7 8 11 12 14 Situations in this study 7 8 5 1 4 3 6 2

Numbers indicate the situations. Table 9. Situations in SA 96 and Situations in This Study

Table 10 summarises the previous stages of this study.

Stage Procedure 1 (See 5.5.1.1.1.) Project 92 was conducted. 2 (See 5.5.1.1.2.) 3 (See 5.5.1.1.3. & Appendix 2.1.) 4 (See 5.5.1.1.4.) Aim To investigate the possibility of the use of naturally occurring data Project 93 was conducted. To investigate the possibility of the use of role plays The pilot study was conducted. To check the efficacy of the instruments and of the procedures Some changes were made to To improve the questionnaire the questionnaires as the result of the pilot study. Situational Assessment (SA 96) To identify comparable situations was conducted. between British and Japanese cultures

5 (See 5.5.1.1.5. & Appendix 2.2.)

Table 10. A Summary of Previous Stages of This Study

149

As the results of the first and second stages, the use of naturally occurring data and role plays was excluded, and a shift was made from eliciting spoken data to strategy data so as to overcome the limitations of the written questionnaires. This advanced the methodology, and eliciting strategy data by the use of MCQs was attempted in the pilot study, whose major achievement was to reveal the limitations of the questionnaire using choices with actual exponents representing the strategies. Because of this, in the main study I have decided to take a sociopragmatic approach, as noted in 1.2. That is, the choices were given as strategies. Since the strategy choices may not be familiar to the subjects, examples were given for each strategy choice. By making some other changes as a result of the pilot study, i.e., clarifying the intention of S and putting the choices in order, I was able to improve the research instruments for use in the main study. In the fifth stage, as a result of SA 96, I identified comparable situations between British and Japanese cultures, from which I selected the situations used in the main study. I believe that ensuring comparability of situations is one of the strengths of this study.

5.5.1.2. The Method for the Present Study In many empirical studies which elicited data on some speech acts, it has not been made clear that people select a strategy and then they choose a form to realise that strategy, although people may do this unconsciously. Cohen and Olshtain (1994: 146) note that The process of selecting the socioculturally appropriate strategy and the appropriate sociolingusitic forms or that strategy is complex, but they have not investigated the methodology for strategy choices. The methods for data collection I have reviewed in 5.4. were concerned with linguistic realisations, taking a pragmalinguistic approach. Since to my knowledge, there have not been any studies which developed a valid methodology to collect the strategy data, I adopted a methodology for a pragmalinguistic approach, having modified it, in order to have an appropriate method to elicit strategy data in this study. In taking a pragmalinguistic approach, it is difficult to compare linguistic realisations across languages, especially when comparing English and Japanese, whose linguistic systems are totally different. Turner (1996: 9) also points out the danger of comparing elicited syntactic data, stating that: 150

The many elicitation and judgement experiments that are conducted may be of interest if it is assumed that contextual factors are always equal, but in the natural use of natural language other factors are rarely equal,

There is no guarantee that similar linguistic realisations in different languages have the same pragmatic meaning. These limitations can be reduced by adopting a sociopragmatic approach.

5.5.2. Instruments
The instruments used in this study were written questionnaires, which consisted of three parts: (1) situational assessment, (2) requesting strategies and (3) responding strategies to off-record requests. The questionnaires, including rubrics, were in the mother tongue of the subjects, i. e., English for British subjects and Japanese for Japanese subjects (See Appendix 2.3.).2 As noted in 5.5.1.2., to elicit the data on requesting strategies and responding strategies to off-record requests, MCQs with strategy choices were used (See Part B and Part C in Appendix 2.3.). Bayraktaroglu (1991) notes that politeness has generally been approached as if it were something static, capturable in the grammatical characteristics of a single utterance and that this approach is inadequate to account for politeness operating over sequences in conversation, claiming the need to analyse politeness in stretches of talk. Since written questionnaires were used in this study and linguistic realisations were not investigated as noted in 5.5.1.2., it was impossible to investigate sequences in conversation, although Bayraktaroglus point has important implications for future politeness research.

5.5.2.1. Names used in the Instruments Hinkel (1997: 10) points out the importance of avoiding personal names and other gender markers. Sbis (1992: 272) criticises the gender problem

The questionnaires in Japanese were prepared, as was noted in 5.5.6., and distributed to Japanese subjects. However, only the questionnaires in English are listed in Appendix 2.

151

of Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989) whose questionnaire was not designed to investigate the gender variable, so the sex of speakers and hearers was randomly varied across situations. Wolfson et al. (1989: 193) note that there is a gender bias in the roles of the participants in the situations used to elicit apologies in the CCSARP. Throughout the questionnaire in the present study, the letters, such as X, Y, Z, were used to name the people in the situations, in order to avoid the influence of gender. The use of alphabetical letters was not only to avoid the influence of gender, but in order to avoid the influence which personal names, such as Jane or John in English, and Keiko or Taro in Japanese, may have on social distance or power difference. I think that specific names already give the subjects some clues or impressions concerning the interactants social distance or power difference. There are also some cross-cultural differences in the use of names. For instance, in Japanese culture, the use of first or given names indicates that the interactants are close, and usually equals, or else they are not equals because a higher status person may use a lower status persons first name, but not vice versa. In British culture, it seems that first names are used more frequently and widely than in Japanese culture. First names are used even among non-intimates, and status-unequal people in British culture. Although using alphabetical letters to name people in each situation may lack naturalness, I think it can help avoid the kinds of problems noted above.

5.5.2.2. Request Situations Eight request situations, which were identified as comparable between British and Japanese cultures in Situational Assessment (SA 96), were used (See 5.5.1.1.5.).

5.5.2.3. Situational Assessment In each request situation, a five-point-scale was provided for each assessment item: power difference between S and H; social distance between S and H; and the degree of imposition of the requested act (See Part A in Appendix 2.3.). Peoples evaluation of power difference, social distance between S and 152

H and the degree of imposition might vary spontaneously, and Brown and Levinson (1987: 231232) point out that:
a shift from one strategy to another may reflect the speakers momentary mood, not only as a function of the interaction and therefore as a part of the interactional balance, but completely extrinsically to the interaction as well. Such mood changes reflect a changed evaluation of D, P, and R, and in order for interactants to interpret utterances correctly they must have some assessment of each others current mood.

Subjects in this study may also evaluate such variables as P, D and R spontaneously, being given a five-point scale. However, this may not be a problem, because also in every day interactions, we may assess P, D and R differently according to such factors as mood, and as a consequence of the assessment of those variables, we may choose a certain politeness strategy, either consciously or unconsciously.

5.5.2.4. Requesting Strategies Three choices of requesting strategies were provided for each situation, as follows (See Part B in Appendix 2.3.). direct requests; conventionally indirect requests; and off-record requests. These three strategies were based on Brown and Levinsons (1978; 1987) model (See 2.3.3.1.), which lists five possible strategies for doing FTAs. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Do the act on-record baldly, without redress; Do the act on-record with positive politeness redress; Do the act on record with negative politeness redress; Do the act off-record; and Dont do the act.

As the intention of the requester was clearly indicated in the questionnaire, not doing the act (their strategy 5) was excluded. Choice (1) in the questionnaire corresponds to the first, choice (2) to the third, and choice (3) to the fourth of Brown and Levinsons strategies. Their second strategy, positive politeness, was not included in the questionnaire, because the three choices used in the questionnaire were on a direct-indirect scale, 153

choice (1) being the most direct, and choice (3) being the most indirect. Positive politeness strategies do not seem to fit this direct-indirect scale. Kaspers (1994: 3208) following statement confirms the above three choices.
Late twentieth-century evidence suggests that the established speech act sets are cross-linguistically robust. Thus for requests, modificatory dimensions include three major levels of directness (direct, conventionally indirect, indirect), measured in terms of distance between locution and illocution; internal modification of the requestive act, by mitigating or aggravating impositive force; and external modification, expressed by adjuncts supporting the request proper.

Olshtain and Blum-Kulka (1985: 305) also note that the three choices above are the basic categories of request realisation.
The realization patterns for requests seem to consist of at least three basic categories, these three categories form a scale of directness which seems to be shared by all languages. The first category consists of the direct, linguistically marked ways for making requests (such as imperatives and performatives). The second category, which is the most difficult one to compare across languages, consists of those indirect strategies which are conventionally used for requesting in a given language, such as could you or would you in English. The third category consists of the openended set of indirect hints, such as Its cold in here used as a request to close the window.

Similarly, Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989: 18) also used three types: direct strategies, conventionally indirect strategies and nonconventionally indirect strategies. Thus, it seemed appropriate to have three choices in the questionnaire: 1. direct requests; 2. conventionally indirect requests; and 3. off-record requests. There is a large number of possible combinations of requesting strategies and supportive moves. Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989: 287288) cite nine supportive moves, (1) to (6) being mitigating supportive moves, and (7) to (9) being aggravating supportive moves:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Preparator Getting a precommitment Grounder Disarmer Promise of reward (6) (7) (8) (9) Imposition minimizer Insult Threat Moralizing

154

Many combinations of the above supportive moves and requesting strategies are possible. The positions of supportive moves (before or after the request) will also increase the number of possible combinations. It is beyond the scope of the present study to include all possible combinations in the research instrument. For this reason, a choice had to be made from the range of possibilities, and grounders, such as reasons, were chosen as a supportive move because earlier research (Fukushima, 1993a and b, 1994) revealed that stating a reason was the most frequently used grounder by British and Japanese subjects. Likewise, in her data, Kasper (1989: 52) found that the grounder is by far the most frequently used supportive move. Supportive moves, using realisations based on the results of Fukushima (1997a), were provided in both direct requests and conventionally indirect requests, the same supportive moves being used throughout so as to reduce the influence which these moves would have on the choice of requesting strategies (See Part B in Appendix 2.3.).

5.5.2.5. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests Three choices were given as the responding strategies to off-record requests: preempting Ss request (demonstrating solicitousness); taking an alternative means other than doing something him/herself for S (making a suggestion or giving advice); and refusing a request (giving an excuse politely; just responding to what S said; saying nothing; or changing the subject). These strategies were based on the categories of responses to off-record requests listed in 3.8.1. Example expressions were given for each strategy, which were based on the results of Fukushima (1997b), to increase instrument validity (See Part C in Appendix 2.3.).

5.5.3. Subjects
One hundred and twenty-one British and one hundred and thirty-three Japanese undergraduates served as subjects, the former being recruited from students at the University of Reading, England, the latter from students at Tsuru University, Yamanashi, Japan. As it was intended to have com155

parability between the subjects in British and Japanese cultures as much as possible, the subjects were confined to undergraduates. They were considered to be comparable in terms of level of education, occupation and age. The mean age of British subjects was 22.2 years and that of Japanese subjects was 19.9 years. Another factor taken into account when comparability of subjects was considered was the subjects place of residence. The subjects representing each culture were chosen from those who lived in each cultural setting, i.e., British subjects lived in England, and Japanese subjects lived in Japan. The place of residence may influence linguistic choice, that is, Japanese living abroad may have different attitudes towards linguistic choice from those living in Japan. Therefore, the subjects used in this study were chosen from those who lived in their own culture. It was very difficult to obtain comparable subjects in British and Japanese cultures. In a strict sense, it may be impossible to obtain comparable subjects between different cultures. For instance, university students in one culture may have different social meanings or status from those in another culture. In order to obtain comparable subjects, there are many other factors to be considered such as the subjects family background (e.g., parents occupation, level of education, social class), the place of origin, ethnicity, religions, political beliefs, and genders, for example. In investigating comparability of subjects between different cultures, there are also other important issues. As Thomas (1983: 91) points out, there exists no single system of pragmatic values in one society, and the term cross-cultural does not necessarily mean native-non-native interactions, but any communication between two people who, in any particular domain, do not share a common linguistic or cultural background. This view is in line with Tannen (1985: 203), who points out that:
the notion of cross-cultural encompasses more than just speakers of different languages or from different countries; it includes speakers from the same country of different class, region, age, and even gender.

This means that one Japanese subject does not necessarily share similar values, linguistic or cultural background with another Japanese subject, for instance. I am aware of the importance of these issues, but it was beyond the scope of this study to investigate all the details of each subject in each culture. Although there were so many factors I had to take into consideration in order to have the comparability in the subjects, I also had to consider 156

feasibility. Considering feasibility, the subjects, who were confined to undergraduates who lived in their own culture, were the best possible subjects I could obtain. I could not control the other factors which might influence the nature of subjects noted above. I did not intend to investigate the gender difference, so gender was not controlled either. (Forty-eight male subjects and seventy-three female subjects served as British subjects; and thirty-two male subjects and one hundred and one female subjects served as Japanese subjects.)

5.5.4. Procedures
5.5.4.1. Situational Assessment The subjects were asked 1. to read the written situational descriptions; and 2. to rate the following on the five-point scale: power difference between S and H; social distance between S and H; and the degree of imposition of the requested act. A five-point scale was used, because the three-point scale used in Fukushima (1994) did not provide the subjects with a sufficiently wide range so that some of the subjects in Fukushima (1994) made a point between 1 and 2, and a point between 2 and 3 in order to have more discriminations. In fact, Hatch and Lazaraton (1991: 57) note that most researchers prefer to use 5-, 7-, or 9-point scale, though if subjects are offered too many points, they may be confused. Consequently, a five-point scale was used because it provides more discriminations than a three-point scale, while avoiding the confusion created by having too many. In some studies (e.g. Blum-Kulka et al., 1985; Holmes, 1990; Trosborg, 1987; and Wood and Kroger, 1991), the researchers simply used their own assessment of variables. Questioning the validity of the findings of such studies, Spencer-Oatey (1993: 31) points out the danger of relying on researchers assessment, because assessment of variables by researchers and by subjects may differ. This may happen especially when the cultural 157

background of the researchers and that of subjects differ. Blum-Kulka and House (1989: 137) also state that members of different cultures might differ in their perceptions of social situations as well as in the relative importance attributed to any of the social parameters mentioned. Therefore, it is important to give subjects the opportunity to assess variables, instead of using my own judgment on variables. It is also important to investigate whether British and Japanese subjects perceive the three variables in the described situations in the questionnaire similarly or differently. These are the reasons why situational assessment (Part A in Appendix 2.3.) was carried out. As I did not intend to investigate which components of each variable the subjects had in mind when they assessed each variable in each situation, I dealt with only the results of their perception of these variables. By obtaining more than one hundred subjects in each culture (British subjects: 121; Japanese subjects: 133) and conducting statistical analyses, I should be able to obtain consistent results within each group of the subjects.

5.5.4.2. Requesting Strategies The subjects were asked: 1. to read the written situational descriptions; and 2. to choose one request strategy out of the following three request strategies: direct requests; conventionally indirect requests; and off-record requests.

5.5.4.3. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests The subjects were asked: 1. to read the written situational descriptions; 2. to read the off-record requests; and 3. to choose one responding strategy to the off-record requests out of the following three responding strategies: preempting Ss request (demonstrating solicitousness); 158

 taking an alternative means other than doing something him/herself (suggesting an alternative means other than doing something him/ herself); and refusing a request.

5.5.5. Data Collection

British data were collected in Reading, Berkshire, U.K., and Japanese data were collected in Tsuru, Yamanashi, Japan.

5.5.6. Translation of the Instruments

Because subjects were to be given comparable questionnaires in their respective mother tongues, it was necessary to translate the research instrument. In translation theory, the notion of equivalence is crucial. According to Ruuskanen (1996), the on-going debate on the definition of equivalence in translation studies has focused on the attempt to establish a semantic relationship between languages that was as close to one-to-one as possible for each semantic unit, but the recent variable approach to translation has admitted the consideration of pragmatic factors into this debate. In translating the questionnaire, equivalence of pragmatic factors was considered. Unfortunately, such translation proves not to be a simple procedure, for reasons which will be discussed below.

5.5.6.1. Translation Procedures Translation of the English version of the questionnaire into its Japanese counterpart involved the following stages. 1. The English version was translated into Japanese. When translating the questionnaire, I tried to avoid translating literally, keeping instead the function of the messages in view. 2. The translation was checked by Tsuru University students, including one graduate. They have lived abroad, and their English proficiency 159

was quite high. (Their TOEFL mean score was around 570.) They are also competent in Japanese. (There are returnees whose Japanese is not very good.) First, they checked my translation at home, and then we had a discussion about student life at Tsuru University so as to ensure that there was as close a match as possible between the situations in the questionnaire and their way of life. 3. My translation was checked by two Japanese university lecturers, one of whom has a Ph. D. in writing from an American university, the other of whom has a Ph. D. in pragmatics from a British university. They checked the lexical, semantic and pragmatic aspects of the translation, and we identified a major problem concerning the equivalence of levels of directness and indirectness in Japanese and English. 4. I revised my original translation, taking the comments made in the second and third stages into consideration. In revising my original translation, I used the solutions discussed in the next section.

5.5.6.2. Problems and Solutions In translating the questionnaire into Japanese, several problems arose and solutions for those problems were found. 1. Language choice in Japanese Strictly speaking, there is no equivalent expression from Japanese to English or vice versa. In Japanese there are no neutral expressions, because as Matsumoto (1988: 418) argues, in Japanese, one is forced to make morphological or lexical choices that depend on the interpersonal relationship between the conversational participants. For example, Matsumoto (1988: 416) states that in Japanese there are four ways of expressing to eat which are used depending on (1) who is the subject of the sentence, a professor, or the speaker him/herself; and (2) the way of speaking: refined or not. Language choice in Japanese also depends on the gender of the addresser. In the questionnaire, alphabetical letters were substituted for peoples names so as to avoid specifying gender and influencing language choice in Japanese. When translating the English version of the questionnaire into Japanese, neutral language, neither too masculine nor too feminine, was used as much as possible. 160

2. Equivalence of the level of direct/indirectness between English and Japanese A particularly tricky issue arises with regard to equivalence of expressions and levels of direct/indirectness when translating between Japanese and English, as revealed in a study by Takahashi (1987), who developed a taxonomy of thirteen ranks in levels of direct/indirectness, summarised in table 11, in which ranks 613 are omitted.
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Level 0.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 English Open the window. You will open the window. I want you to open the window. You can open the window. Will/Wont you open the window? Could/Couldnt you open the window? Japanese Mado o akenasai, akero, ake-te kudasai. Mado o ake-te moraitai, ake-te itadaki tai. (Anata nara) mado o akerare masu (yo). Mado o ake-te kure masu ka. Mado o ake-te kudasai masu ka. Mado o ake-rare masu ka.

Table 11. Taxonomy developed in Takahashi (1987)

The English example expressions used for direct requests in my questionnaire take the form of Please + an imperative form. An imperative form such as Open the window was classified into Rank 1 in Takahashis taxonomy. The Japanese example expressions used for direct requests in my questionnaire, te kudasai, can be assigned to Rank 1 in Takahashis taxonomy. Therefore, it can be considered that my Japanese example expressions are equivalent to the English ones in terms of directness level. The English example expressions used for conventionally indirect requests in my questionnaire take the form of Could you? They are categorised in Rank 5 in Takahashis taxonomy. The Japanese example expressions used for conventionally indirect requests in my questionnaire take the form of te kudasai masu ka, which is assigned to Rank 4 in Takahashis taxonomy. Japanese Rank 5 in Takahashis taxonomy is rare masuka. Takahashi states that Rank 5 are Sentences asking Hs ability to do A. Sentences, such as Could you..?, ask Hs ability in the first place, but they are used as requests. Japanese, rare masuka does not seem to be as convention161

alised as English, Could you? That is, Japanese sentences using rare masuka are used when asking Hs ability, rather than asking a request, whereas English sentences using Could you ? are used when asking a request rather than asking Hs ability. Therefore, I do not agree with Takahashis Japanese forms in Rank 5. I consider Japanese expressions in Rank 4 in Takahashis taxonomy, te kure masu ka and te kudasai masu ka to be more equivalent to English expression in Rank 5, Could you?, because te kure masu ka and te kudasai masu ka are used when making requests. Both Mado o ake-te kure masu ka. and Mado o ake-te kudasai masu ka. are assigned to Rank 4 in Takahashis taxonomy. However, I think there is a difference in direct/indirectness level, Mado o ake-te kudasai masu ka. being more indirect than Mado o ake-te kure masu ka. I decided to use the form te kudasai masu ka in the example expressions of Japanese indirect requests, since I used Could you? rather than Can you? in the example expressions of English indirect requests. 3. A cultural adaptation/modification Hervey and Higgins (1992: 28) argue that translating involves not just two languages, but a transfer from one culture to another and some translation techniques necessitated by the transfer from one cultural mode of expression to another involve compromise and compensation. Although they will vary throughout Japan, the situations used in the Japanese questionnaire were adapted to match the situation in Tsuru, Yamanashi, where all of the Japanese subjects live. In the English questionnaire, a self-catering university students hall was used, but there is no such thing in Tsuru. Geshuku, privately owned flats with a shared kitchen where some students live in Tsuru, was used as a form of accommodation comparable with a self-catering hall of residence in Reading. Another cultural adaptation/modification was made concerning the use of cheques. In Japan, the use of cheques by students is rare, so credit cards were substituted for cheques, this being another example of cultural transplantation (Hervey and Higgins, 1992: 29). A brief summary of the problems and solutions concerning translation is presented in table 12.

162

Problems 1. Language choice in Japanese

Solutions 1. Neutral language was used as much as possible. 2. Equivalence of the level of direct/ 2. Takahashis (1987) taxonomy was indirectness between English used to decide the direct/ and Japanese. indirectness level. 3. A self-catering university students hall 3. Geshuku (privately owned flats) (Situation 5) does not exist in Tsuru, with a shared kitchen was used. Yamanashi, Japan. 4. The use of cheques (Situation 8) is not 4. Credit cards were used instead of popular among Japanese students. cheques. Table 12. Problems and Solutions of Translation

5.6. Data Analyses

Statistical analyses of the data were carried out, and the reasons why particular procedures were chosen will be discussed below. First, the statistical analysis comparing British subjects assessment and Japanese subjects assessment on the three variables will be reviewed, followed by a comparison between the requesting and responding choices made by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects. Next, the correlation between situational assessment and the requesting strategies and the correlation between situational assessment and the responding strategies to offrecord requests will be discussed.

5.6.1. Situational Assessment

Statistical analyses were conducted to test out the hypotheses in 5.3.1. The issue here is whether the data in situational assessment are interval scale or ordinal scale. Strictly speaking, the interval between 1 and 2 on the scale, for example, may not be exactly equal with the interval between 2 and 3. Consequently, the data may not be interval scale data. However, in the previous studies (e.g. Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Blum-Kulka & 163

House, 1989; House, 1989; Olshtain, 1989; and Vollmer & Olshtain, 1989) this kind of data were treated as interval scale data. In those studies, the subjects were asked to assess the contextual factors, such as social distance, power, etc. on scales, and the mean scores of those factors were presented. Means and standard deviations are used to describe the distribution of interval data (Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991: 169). Therefore, it can be said that in the above studies, the data were considered as interval data, since medians were used. In Blum-Kulka and House (1989), t-tests were used. It seems to be a common practice to regard such assessment data as interval scale data. Therefore, the assessments by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects on power difference between S and H, social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act were analysed by conducting t-tests which compare two groups for interval data.

5.6.2. Requesting Strategies and Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

Statistical analyses were conducted to test out the hypotheses in 5.3.2.1. and 5.3.3.1. In the analyses of requesting strategies and responding strategies to off-record requests, nonparametric methods had to be used, because the choices of requesting strategies and responding strategies to off-record requests are ordinal scale variables. Those data are not scores nor interval scale data, which cannot therefore be analysed by t-tests (See Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991: 547). Therefore, Mann-Whitney U tests, which are nonparametric tests, being suitable for ordinal scale data and comparing two groups, were used.

5.6.3. Correlation between Situational Assessment and Requesting Strategies and Correlation between Situational Assessment and Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests
Statistical analyses were conducted to test out the hypotheses in 5.3.2.2. and 5.3.3.2. In this section, the methodology used to investigate whether there are correlations between situational assessment on the three variables 164

and the choice of requesting strategies, and correlations between situational assessment on the three variables and the choice of responding strategies to off-record strategies will be discussed. While the Pearson correlation is the most common correlation in applied linguistic research, there are occasions when the Pearson formula cannot be used to measure the strength of the relationship between two variables (Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991: 448). Since the Pearson correlation is used only with interval scale data, it is not appropriate to use it in this study, because the choices of requesting strategies and those of responding strategies are ordinal scale variables, while the three variables in situational assessment (Part A in Appendix 2.3.) can be considered as interval scale variables. The Spearman correlation is appropriate for both rank-order data and interval data with the strength of ranks (Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991: 451). Consequently, Spearmans Rank-order was used in order to investigate whether there were correlations between the results of situational assessment of the three variables and the choices of requesting strategies, and whether there were correlations between the results of situational assessment of the three variables and the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests. A brief summary of data analyses is presented in table 13.

5.7. Conclusion
In this chapter, I have attempted to bridge the review of the literature in chapters 2, 3 and 4 and the present study, and to found a basis for the present research. I have tried to clarify the problems to be investigated in this study and postulated hypotheses. I have reviewed the methods for data collection and decided to use MCQs with the choices of strategies, taking a sociopragmatic approach, because it best suits the purpose of this study and solves some problems arising from the translation from English into Japanese. I have also explained the concrete aspects of this research, such as subjects, procedures, instruments, translation of the instruments, and the methods of statistical analyses to take. With the data I obtained, I conducted statistical analyses explained here. The results will be presented in the next chapter. 165

Source of data

Reasons for using these statistical methods Part A in Assessment Considered to Whether T-tests To test the Appendix of power be interval there are any difference 2.3. difference; scale data differences T-tests are a between two social between the procedure to groups for distance & assessment by test the interval data: degree of British and difference British and imposition by Japanese between two Japanese British and subjects groups for situational Japanese interval data. assessment subjects (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991: 249) Part B & Part Requesting Ordinal scale Whether MannTo compare C in choices & data there are any Whitney U two groups Appendix Responding differences in tests for ordinal 2.3. choices to the choice of scale data: off-record requesting MannBritish and requests by and respond- Whitney U Japanese British and ing strategies test compares requesting Japanese to off-record two groups choices & subjects requests by for ordinal responding British and scale data. choices to Japanese (Hatch & off-record subjects Lazaraton, requests 1991: 274) Part A, Part B Assessment Interval scale Whether Spearmans To investigate & Part C in of power data & there are Rank-Order whether there Appendix difference; Ordinal scale correlations are correla2.3. social data between the The Speartions between distance & assessment of man correla- (1) assessdegree of power differ- tion is ment of the imposition by ence; social appropriate three British and distance for both variables and Japanese & degree of rank-order the requestsubjects imposition, data and ing strategies; Requesting and the interval data and (2) the choices & choices of with the assessment of responding requesting strength of the three choices by strategies and ranks. (Hatch variables and British and responding & Lazaraton, the respondJapanese strategies 1991: 451) ing strategies subjects

Data obtained

Type of data

What I want to find out

Statistical methods

Table 13. A Summary of Data Analyses

166

CHAPTER 6

Results

6.1. Introduction
In this chapter, I will present the results of the statistical analyses of the data in the following order: 1. the results of situational assessment of the three variables, i.e., power difference between S and H, social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects; 2. the results of requesting strategies by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects; 3. the results of the correlation between situational assessment of the three variables and the choices of the requesting strategies; 4. the results of responding strategies to off-record requests by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects; and 5. the results of the correlation between situational assessment of the three variables and the choices of the responding strategies to off-record requests.

6.2. Results of Situational Assessment

In order to test out the hypotheses of situational assessment in 5.3.1., I have calculated the mean scores of the situational assessment of the three variables by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects, and conducted t-tests. The results are presented in table 14.

167

Sit. 1 Sit. 2 Sit. 3 Sit. 4 Sit. 5 Sit. 6 Sit. 7 Sit. 8

Power Difference B:3.355 (.912) J:3.759 (.947)** B:1.405 (.748) J:1.549 (.783) B:3.669 (.870) J:4.308 (.761)*** B:3.545 (1.025) J:3.752 (.980) B:1.322 (.686) J:1.308 (.618) B:2.554 (1.147) J:2.865 (.868)* B:3.107 (.982) J:3.917 (.779)** B:1.545 (.894) J:1.429 (.800)

Social Distance B:2.967 (1.016) J:3.444 (1.018)** B:1.636 (.856) J:1.797 (.952) B:3.223 (1.053) J:3.947 (.890)*** B:3.397 (1.091) J:3.632 (.917) B:1.223 (.555) J:1.617 (.832)*** B:2.446 (1.154) J:2.301 (.961) B:3.157 (.992) J:3.579 (.931)** B:1.347 (.727) J:1.361 (.772)

Imposition B:3.694 (1.048) J:3.842 (.991) B:2.116 (1.058) J:2.699 (.977)*** B:1.719 (.868) J:2.624 (.950)*** B:2.165 (1.067) J:1.789 (.897)** B:1.215 (.580) J:1.150 (.452) B:1.512 (.776) J:1.256 (.532)** B:3.926 (1.026) J:3.895 (.837) B:2.471 (1.170) J:2.383 (.943)

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 B: Scores by British subjects

J: Scores by Japanese subjects

The numbers outside the parentheses indicate the mean scores; and the numbers in the parentheses indicate the standard deviations. Table 14. Mean Scores of Three Variables by British and Japanese Subjects

From the results shown in table 14, a number of conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, there were significant differences in the assessment of power difference between British and Japanese subjects in situations 1 (df = 252, t = 3.458, p<.01), 3 (df = 252, t = 6.244, p<.001), 6 (df = 252, t = 2.449, p<.05) and 7 (df = 252, t = 7.315, p<.01). In those situations, power differences were assessed as bigger by Japanese subjects than by British subjects. The null hypothesis (Ho1) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1: There are significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of power difference between S and H.) was supported in situations 1, 3, 6 and 7. Secondly, there were significant differences in the assessment of social distance between British and Japanese subjects in situations 1 (df = 252, t = 3.730, p<.01), 3 (df = 252, t = 5.937, p<.001), 5 (df = 252, t = 4.387, p<.001), and 7 (df = 252, t = 3.497, p<.01). Japanese subjects have assessed social distance as bigger than British subjects in those situations. The null 168

hypothesis (Ho2) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H2: There are significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of social distance between S and H.) was supported in situations 1, 3, 5 and 7. Thirdly, there were significant differences in the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act between British and Japanese subjects in situations 2 (df = 252, t = 4.570, p<.001), 3 (df = 252, t = 7.898, p<.001), 4 (df = 252, t = 3.048, p<.01) and 6 (df = 252, t = 3.100, p<.01). Japanese subjects have assessed the degree of imposition of the requested act as bigger than British subjects in situations 2 and 3; while British subjects have assessed it as bigger than Japanese subjects in situations 4 and 6. The null hypothesis (Ho3) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H3: There are significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act.) was supported in situations 2, 3, 4 and 6.

6.3. Results of Requesting Strategies

In order to test out the hypotheses of requesting strategies by British and Japanese subjects in 5.3.2.1., I conducted Mann-Whitney U tests. The numbers of the subjects who selected each choice of requesting strategies and the results of Mann-Whitney U tests are presented in table 15. From the results shown in table 15, the following conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, there were significant differences in the choices of requesting strategies between British and Japanese subjects in situations 4 (z = 2.108, p<.05), 5 (z = 7.367, p<.001), 6 (z = 5.903, p<.001) and 8 (z = 5.168, p<.01). The null hypothesis (Ho4) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H4: There are significant differences between the choices of requesting strategies by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects) was supported in situations 4, 5, 6 and 8.

169

Sit. 1 Sit. 2 Sit. 3 Sit. 4 Sit. 5 Sit. 6 Sit. 7 Sit. 8

Choice 1 B: 14 J: 15 B: 12 J: 25 B: 26 J: 39 B: 5 J: 14 B: 15 J: 82 B: 17 J: 63 B: 7 J: 3 B: 11 J: 61

Choice 2 B: 98 J: 115 B: 108 J: 103 B: 92 J: 89 B: 87 J: 97 B: 103 J: 45 B: 90 J: 66 B: 83 J: 101 B: 90 J: 54

Choice 3 B: 9 J: 3 B: 1 J: 5 B: 3 J: 5 B: 29 J: 22 B: 3 J: 6 B: 14 J: 4 B: 31 J: 29 B: 20 J: 18

z value ns ns ns 2.108* 7.367*** 5.903*** ns 5.168**

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 Table 15. The Number of the Subjects who Selected Each Choice of Requesting Strategies and the Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests

Secondly, in all those situations, British subjects selected higher-numbered choices. Since the choices of requesting strategies were arranged from (1) direct requests; (2) conventionally indirect requests and to (3) offrecord requests, the above results indicate that British subjects chose more indirect requests than Japanese subjects in situations 4, 5, 6 and 8 (See graphs 1.1.4., 1.1.5., 1.1.6. and 1.1.8. in Appendix 1.1.). Thirdly, as noted in chapter 4, people in collectivist cultures make greater distinctions between in-groups and out-groups than people in individualist cultures (e.g. Holtgraves and Yang, 1992). In order to investigate whether there were any differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choices of requesting strategies according to the group distinctions, I conducted Mann-Whitney U tests. I categorised situations 2, 5, and 8 as in-group situations, and situations 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 as outgroup situations. This is because I defined in-group members as those with equal status. Status was included in the variable of power (See 3.7.3.1.), and both British and Japanese subjects assessed power difference between S and H as small (less than 1.6; See table 14) in situations 2, 5, and 8, and there were no significant differences between British and 170

Japanese subjects in the assessment of power difference in those situations. The following are the results of Mann-Whitney U tests.
Group In-group Out-group Choice 1 B: 38 J: 168 B: 69 J: 134 Choice 2 B: 301 J: 202 B: 361 J: 468 Choice 3 B: 24 J: 29 B: 175 J: 63 z value 8.305*** 3.023**

**p<.01; ***p<.001 Table 16. The Number of the Subjects (In-group and Out-group) who Selected Each Choice of Requesting Strategies and the Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests

In both in-group and out-group situations, there were significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choices of requesting strategies, British subjects having chosen more indirect requesting strategies than Japanese subjects, i. e., Japanese subjects chose more direct requesting strategies than British.

6.4. Results of Correlation between Situational Assessment and Requesting Strategies

In order to test out the hypotheses of the correlation between the situational assessment and the choice of requesting strategies in 5.3.2.2., I conducted Spearmans rank-order correlations. Table 17 indicates Spearmans rankorder correlation coefficients between (i) the assessment of power difference between S and H and the choice of requesting strategies; (ii) the assessment of social distance between S and H and the choice of requesting strategies; and (iii) the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act and the choice of requesting strategies. From the results shown in table 17, several conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, there were positive correlations between the assessment of power difference and the choice of requesting strategies in situation 6 ( s = .125, p<.05) and situation 7 ( s = .187, p<.01). The choices of requesting strategies were arranged from (1) direct requests; (2) conventionally indirect 171

Sit. 1 Sit. 2 Sit. 3 Sit. 4 Sit. 5 Sit. 6 Sit. 7 Sit. 8

Power Difference -.017 -.062 .008 .037 -.004 .125* .187** -.024

Social Distance -.233*** -.055 -.010 .006 -.061 .099 .055 .007

Imposition .008 -.023 .089 .040 .192** .236*** .231*** .183**

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 Table 17. Spearmans rank-order Correlation Coefficients between the Choice of Requesting Strategies and the Three Variables

requests and to (3) off-record requests, and in situations 6 and 7, H has bigger power (higher in status) than S. Therefore, the above results indicate that the bigger the power difference between S and H, when H has bigger power than S (e.g. H is higher in status, or older than S), the more indirect the requesting strategies become. The null hypothesis (Ho5) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H5: There are some correlations between the assessment of power difference between S and H and the choices of requesting strategies) was supported in situations 6 and 7. Secondly, there was a negative correlation between the assessment of social distance between S and H and the choice of requesting strategies in situation 1 ( s = .233, p<.001). The null hypothesis (Ho6) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H6: There are some correlations between the assessment of social distance and the choices of requesting strategies) was supported in situation 1. This result indicates that the bigger the social distance between S and H becomes, the more direct the requesting strategies become. Thirdly, there were positive correlations between the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act and the choice of requesting strategies in situations 5 ( s = .192, p<.01), 6 ( s = .236, p<.001), 7 ( s = .231, p<.001) and 8 ( s = .183, p<.01). The null hypothesis (Ho7) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H7: There are some correlations between the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act and the choices of requesting strategies.) was supported in situations 5, 6, 172

7 and 8. These results indicate that the higher the degree of imposition of the requested act, the more indirect the requesting strategies become. As noted in chapter 4, there were some previous studies (e.g. Triandis, 1994a; Bond et al., 1985; Beebe et al., 1990) reporting that people in collectivist cultures pay more attention to status differences. In order to investigate whether there was any difference between British and Japanese subjects concerning the correlation between power difference (Status was included in the variable of power in this study) and requesting strategies, I conducted Spearmans rank-order correlations between power difference and the choices of requesting strategies by British and those by Japanese subjects. The following are the results.
Power Difference .107*** .239***

The Choice of Requesting Strategies by British Subjects The Choice of Requesting Strategies by Japanese Subjects ***p<.001

Table 18. Spearmans rank-order Correlation Coefficients between the Choice of Requesting Strategies by British and Japanese Subjects and Power Difference

From the results shown in table 18, it can be seen that there were positive correlations between the choices of requesting strategies by both British and Japanese subjects and the assessment of power difference between S and H.

6.5. Results of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

In order to test out the hypotheses of responding strategies to off-record requests by British and Japanese subjects in 5.3.3.1., I conducted MannWhitney U tests. The numbers of the subjects who selected each choice of responding strategies and the results of Mann-Whitney U tests are presented in table 19.

173

Sit. 1 Sit. 2 Sit. 3 Sit. 4 Sit. 5 Sit. 6 Sit. 7 Sit. 8

Choice 1 B: 20 J: 73 B: 69 J: 76 B: 104 J: 99 B: 93 J: 125 B: 119 J: 131 B: 86 J: 114 B: 35 J: 48 B: 81 J: 105

Choice 2 B: 33 J: 26 B: 41 J: 48 B: 13 J: 28 B: 10 J: 3 B: 2 J: 1 B: 27 J: 17 B: 43 J: 60 B: 23 J: 13

Choice 3 B: 68 J: 34 B: 11 J: 9 B: 4 J: 6 B: 18 J: 5 B: 0 J: 1 B: 8 J: 2 B: 43 J: 25 B: 17 J: 15

z value 6.238*** ns 2.233* 4.735*** ns 2.774** 2.424* 2.142*

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 Table 19. The Number of the Subjects who Selected Each Choice of Responding Strategies and the Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests

From the results in table 19, it can be seen that there were significant differences in the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests between British and Japanese subjects in situations 1 (z = 6.238, p<.001), 3 (z = 2.233, p<.05), 4 (z = 4.735, p<.001), 6 (z = 2.774, p<.01), 7 (z = 2.424, p<.05), and 8 (z = 2.142, p<.05). The null hypothesis (Ho8) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H8: There are significant differences between the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects.) was supported in situations 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. British subjects selected higher-numbered choices than Japanese subjects in situations 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8; while Japanese subjects selected highernumbered choices than British subjects in situation 3. The choices of responding strategies to off-record requests were arranged from (1) demonstrating solicitousness; (2) taking alternative means other than doing something him/herself for S; to (3) refusing a request. Therefore, the above results indicate that Japanese subjects selected more choices of solicitousness than British subjects in situations 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8; and British subjects 174

selected more choices of solicitousness than Japanese subjects in situation 3 (See graphs 1.2.1.; 1.2.3.; 1.2.4.; 1.2.6.; 1.2.7. and 1.2.8. in Appendix 1.2.).

6.6. Results of Correlation between Situational Assessment and Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests
In order to test out the hypotheses of the correlation between the situational assessment and the choice of responding strategies in 5.3.3.2., I conducted Spearmans rank-order correlations. Table 20 indicates Spearmans rankorder correlation coefficients between (i) the choice of responding strategies and the assessment of power difference between S and H; (ii) the choice of responding strategies and the assessment of social distance between S and H; and (iii) the choice of responding strategies and the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act.
Power Difference -.116 .195** .041 .073 .001 .198** .138* .236* Social Distance -.167** .116 .047 .023 .185** .191** .084 .199** Imposition .228*** .310*** .151* .326*** .324*** .335*** .280*** .323***

Sit. 1 Sit. 2 Sit. 3 Sit. 4 Sit. 5 Sit. 6 Sit. 7 Sit. 8

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 Table 20. Spearmans rank-order Correlation Coefficients between the Choice of Responding Strategies and the Three Variables

From the results in table 20, a number of conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, there were positive correlations between the assessment of power difference and the choice of responding strategies in situations 2 ( s = .195, p<.01), 6 ( s = .198, p<.01), 7 ( s = .138, p<.05) and 8 ( s = .236, p<.05). The null hypothesis (Ho9) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H9: There are some correlations between the assessment of power difference between 175

S and H and the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests) was supported in those situations. Among those situations, in situations 6 and 7, H, the potential performer of solicitousness, has bigger power than S, the potential beneficiary of solicitousness. Therefore, the above results indicate that the bigger the power difference between S and H, when H, the potential performer of solicitousness, has bigger power than S (e.g. H is higher in status, or older than S), the more refusal will be demonstrated. Secondly, there were positive correlations between the assessment of social distance and the choice of responding strategies in situations 5 ( s = .185, p<.01), 6 ( s = .191, p<.01), and 8 ( s = .199, p<.01), and there was a negative correlation between the assessment of social distance and the choice of responding strategies in situation 1 ( s = .167, p<.01). The null hypothesis (Ho10) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H10: There are some correlations between the assessment of social distance between S and H and the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests.) was supported in situations 1, 5, 6 and 8. The results in situations 5, 6, and 8 indicate that the bigger the social distance between S and H, the more refusal is demonstrated, in other words, the smaller the social distance between S and H, the more solicitousness is displayed; and the result in situation 1 indicates that the bigger the social distance becomes, the more solicitousness is demonstrated. Thirdly, there were positive correlations between the assessment of imposition and the choice of responding strategies in all the situations (Situation 1: s = .228, p<.001; Situation 2: s = .310, p<.001; Situation 3: s = .151, p<.05; Situation 4: s = .326, p<.001; Situation 5: s = .324, p<.001; Situation 6: s = .335, p<.001; Situation 7: s = .280, p<.001; Situation 8: s = .323, p<.001). The null hypothesis (Ho11) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H11: There are some correlations between the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act and the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests) was supported in all the situations. The above results indicate that the higher the degree of imposition becomes, the more refusal is demonstrated, in other words, the lower the degree of imposition becomes, the more solicitousness is displayed.

176

6.7. Conclusion
In this chapter, I have presented the results of the statistical analyses of the data obtained. Table 21 summarises the results.
Situation (Participants) Prospected Act Situational Assessment J assessed P & SD as bigger than B. J assessed I as bigger than B. J assessed P, SD, I as bigger than B. B assessed I as bigger than J. J assessed SD as bigger than B. J assessed P as bigger than B. B assessed I as bigger than J. J assessed P & SD bigger than B. Requests Responses to Off-record Requests J demonstrated more sol. than B. (SD) (I) (P) (I) B demonstrated more sol. than J. (I) J demonstrated more sol. than B. (I) (SD) (I)

Delivering gifts 1. (Tutor asking student)

(SD)

2. (Student asking colleague) 3. (Student asking tutor)

Exchanging work shifts

Writing a letter of recommendation Providing a lift 4. (Tutor asking student) home Lending some 5. (Student asking student) salt

Providing 6. (Student asking student) information

7. (Student asking tutor)

Giving a lift to airport

B chose more indirect requests than J. B chose more indirect requests than J. (I) B chose more indirect requests than J. (P) (I) (P) (I)

Lending lunch 8. (Student asking student) money

B chose more indirect requests than J. (I)

J demonstrated more sol. than B. (P) (SD) (I) J demonstrated more sol. than B. (P) (I) J demonstrated more sol. than B. (P) (SD) (I)

J = Japanese subjects; B = British subjects; P = Power Difference; SD = Social Distance; I = Imposition; Sol. = Solicitousness The variables in the parentheses are the ones which had correlations with the choice of requesting strategies, or the choice of responding strategies. Table 21. A Summary of the Results of Situational Assessment, Requesting Strategies and Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

I will discuss the significance of these results in the next chapter. 177

This page intentionally left blank

178

CHAPTER 7

Discussion

7.1. Introduction
I have attempted to examine aspects of Brown and Levinsons theory by conducting empirical research to establish whether there were cross-cultural variations in the assessment of the three variables suggested by Brown and Levinson, i.e., power difference between S and H, the social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act between British and Japanese subjects; whether the above three variables were influential in deciding choice of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests; whether there were any differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requesting and responding strategies to offrecord requests; and the validity of Brown and Levinsons categorisation of British and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures whose politeness strategies are distributed in Dyad II. As noted in chapter 6, there were some significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of the three variables (See table 14). These results indicate that there were some cross-cultural variations in situational assessment between British and Japanese subjects, which Brown and Levinson accommodate within their theory, as noted in chapter 2 (2.3.3.3.). These differences in situational assessment influenced some of the choices in requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests between British and Japanese subjects (See tables 17, 20 and 21). These results support Brown and Levinsons claim that their three variables are crucial in determining the choice of politeness strategies. However, there were situations in which there were significant differences in the choice of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests between British and Japanese subjects, although there were no significant differences in the assessment of the three variables in those situations. This may indicate that there were some factors other than Brown and Levinsons three 179

variables which influenced the choice of politeness strategies in this study, confirming Turners (1996: 5) suggestion, that Brown and Levinsons three variables are not sufficient. While a consideration of what these other variables might be is not within the scope of the present study, it could be conjectured that such variables as the different value of money in British and Japanese cultures, or economic differences of British and Japanese university students, may have influenced some of the choices of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests. For example, in situation 8 (A university student wants to borrow lunch money from his/her classmate), there was a significant difference in the choice of requesting strategies and that of responding strategies to off-record requests between British and Japanese subjects, but there were no significant differences in the situational assessment between British and Japanese subjects (See table 21). I have attempted to examine whether there were any differences in the choice of requesting strategies between British and Japanese subjects, and the validity of Brown and Levinsons categorisation of British and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures, whose politeness strategies are distributed in Dyad II. The results of requesting strategies overall confirmed Brown and Levinsons categorisation of British and Japanese cultures, although I suggest some modifications to Brown and Levinsons categorisation, based on the significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requesting strategies, Japanese subjects having chosen more direct requesting strategies in four out of eight situations. I have attempted to extend Brown and Levinsons theory in the area of responses to off-record requests, and the results of responding strategies to off-record requests have revealed some differences in the choices of responding strategies between British and Japanese subjects, which cannot be sufficiently explained from Brown and Levinsons classification of British and Japanese cultures. On the basis of this, I suggest that other cultural dimensions, such as individualism/collectivism, as noted in chapter 4, are needed to explain those differences. In this chapter, I will discuss in detail the assessment of the three variables in 7.2.; the requesting strategies employed by British and Japanese subjects, and the categorisation of British and Japanese cultures from the perspective of requesting strategies in 7.3.1.; 180

 the relationship between the assessment of the three variables and the choice of requesting strategies in 7.3.2.; the responding strategies to off-record requests employed by British and Japanese subjects, and the categorisation of British and Japanese cultures from the perspective of responding strategies to off-record requests in 7.4.1.; and the relationship between the assessment of the three variables and the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests in 7.4.2.

7.2. Situational Assessment

Situational assessment plays an important role in this study as the choices of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests are influenced by it. I will discuss how the assessment of the three variables influenced the choices of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests further in 7.3.2. and 7.4.2. respectively. In this section, I will confine myself to discussing differences in the assessment of Brown and Levinsons three variables between British and Japanese subjects. The results in 6.2. (See table 14) show that there were some significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of the three variables, which suggests that there were some cross-cultural variations, which is in line with Brown and Levinsons view that the actual factors that go into assessing the size of these social variables are of course culturally specific (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 248) (See 2.3.3.3.). I will now review the results in which there were significant differences between British and Japanese cultures and consider why there were some cross-cultural differences in the assessment of Brown and Levinsons three variables, i.e., power difference between S and H, social distance between S and H and the degree of imposition of the requested acts in 7.2.1., 7.2.2. and 7.2.3. respectively. In other words, I will consider how the actual factors influenced different assessments of the three variables by British and Japanese subjects.

181

7.2.1. Power Difference

The results in 6.2. (See table 14) show that there were significant differences in the assessment of power difference by British and Japanese subjects in the following situations: Situation 1 (Asking a student to deliver some gifts), Situation 3 (Asking a tutor to write a letter of recommendation), Situation 6 (Asking a senior member of the same club to provide a phone number of the club captain) and Situation 7 (Asking a tutor for a lift to an airport). The power difference was assessed as bigger by Japanese than British subjects in all these situations. The interactants in situations 1, 3 and 7 were students and tutors. There are several studies which show that Japanese are sensitive to social status (e.g. Barnlund and Yoshioka, 1990; Beebe and Takahashi, 1989a; Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz, 1990) and status is considered to be important in collectivist cultures, as noted in chapter 4. This kind of social/ cultural background may have influenced the assessment of power difference by Japanese subjects in a relationship in which there were status differences between the two interactants. In situation 6, the interactants were a junior and a senior member of the same university club. The age difference between them is not considerable, the only difference being the year of their enrollment. As Sakamoto and Naotsuka (1982) have pointed out, even a one year difference counts as significant in Japanese society. With this in mind, it is likely that the Japanese subjects may have regarded a junior member and a senior member of the same club to be hierarchically different, and so they assessed the power difference as bigger than did the British subjects.

7.2.2. Social Distance

The results in 6.2. (See table 14) show that there were significant differences in the assessment of social distance between British and Japanese subjects in the following situations: Situation 1 (Asking a student to deliver some gifts), Situation 3 (Asking a tutor to write a letter of recommendation), 182

 Situation 5 (Asking a next door neighbour in a students hall for some salt) and Situation 7 (Asking a tutor for a lift to an airport). The social distance was assessed to be bigger by Japanese than by British subjects in all these situations. In situations 1, 3 and 7, the interactants are tutors and students and there were significant differences in the assessment of power difference. While it is not invariably so, it is often the case that where there is a power difference between people, they may not feel close to each other, in other words, there will be some social distance between them. The results indicate that in situations 1, 3 and 7, the Japanese subjects who assessed the power difference as bigger than did the British subjects also assessed social distance as bigger than did their British counterparts. This suggests that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between power difference and social distance, as Thomas (1995: 129) notes. This may also be related to the fact that some of the components of power and social distance overlap (See 3.7.3.1. and 3.7.3.2.).

7.2.3. Imposition
The results in 6.2. (See table 14) show that there were significant differences in the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act between British and Japanese subjects in the following situations: Situation 2 (Asking a colleague at part-time work to exchange work shifts), Situation 3 (Asking a tutor to write a letter of recommendation), Situation 4 (Asking a student for a lift home) and Situation 6 (Asking a senior member of the club to provide a phone number of the club captain). The degree of imposition of the requested act in situations 2 and 3 was assessed as higher by Japanese than British subjects, while the degree of imposition of the requested act in situations 4 and 6 was assessed as higher by British than Japanese subjects. As noted in chapter 3 (3.7.3.3.), the degree of imposition of the requested act is related to the requesters right to make a certain request. How that right is perceived is culturally influenced. In situation 3, for example, 183

Japanese subjects assessed the degree of imposition of the requested act of writing a letter of recommendation as higher than did the British subjects. This may be accounted for by different perceptions of the rights of the requester. While university lecturers in the U.K. may regard writing letters of recommendation as part of their routine responsibilities, those in Japan may consider it to be extra work. Therefore, British subjects may have felt that the requester had the right to make such a request, whereas Japanese subjects may not have perceived the requesters right in such a light. This difference may have resulted in a different assessment of the degree of imposition, Japanese subjects having assessed it as higher than their British counterparts. The assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act in situation 4 may also be related to the right of the requester. British subjects assessed the degree of imposition in situation 4 as higher than did the Japanese, possibly because the British subjects did not feel that the requested act in situation 4 was within the legitimate rights of the requester, whereas the Japanese subjects may not have considered whether the requested act was within the requesters legitimate right or not. This may be because university lecturers in Japan seem to expect their students to perform certain tasks for them, even though these tasks may sometimes be unrelated to the students work. Leech (1983: 126) offers the following explanation of the British perception of lecturers rights:
A lecturer might feel it reasonable to say to a student Get that essay to me by next week, but not Make me a cup of coffee. In the former case he would be exercising his legitimate authority over the students academic behaviour; but in the latter case, he would be stepping outside that recognized role.

The British subjects may have felt that the tutor in situation 4 makes a request which is outside the recognized role in Leechs terms. On the other hand, there are some Japanese lecturers who make a request which is not legitimate, such as asking students to make a cup of coffee/tea, and Japanese students may not feel awkward by being given such a request, and they would most probably make the requested beverage. These differences between British and Japanese perception of rights may have influenced the significantly different assessment by the British and Japanese subjects in situation 4.

184

7.3. Requesting Strategies

7.3.1. The Choice of Requesting Strategies
In this section, I would like to analyse the requesting strategies employed by British and Japanese subjects and, in the light of this analysis, to consider the validity of Brown and Levinsons grouping British and Japanese cultures together as negative politeness cultures, whose politeness strategies are distributed into Dyad II, i.e., negative politeness and off-record strategies are used, as noted in chapter 2 (2.3.3.3.; See table 1). I would like to look at the choice of requesting strategies employed by British and Japanese subjects in 7.3.1.1., and discuss the validity of Brown and Levinsons categorisation in 7.3.1.2. from the perspective of requesting strategies. I will discuss the relationship between the choice of requesting strategies and the assessment of the three variables in 7.3.2.

7.3.1.1. Requesting Strategies employed by British and Japanese Subjects The results in 6.3. (See table 15) show that there were significant differences in the choice of requesting strategies by British and Japanese subjects in four situations out of eight, as follows: Situation 4 (Asking a student for a lift home in the rain), Situation 5 (Asking a next door neighbour in the students hall for some salt), Situation 6 (Asking a senior member of the club to provide the club captains phone number) and Situation 8 (Asking a classmate for lunch money). In all of these situations, Japanese subjects chose more direct requesting strategies than the British (See graphs 1.1.4.; 1.1.5.; 1.1.6.; and 1.1.8. in Appendix 1.1.). As noted in chapter 4, in the literature, it has been claimed that an implicit way of communication is valued in a collectivist culture. However, in the above situations, Japanese subjects did not employ an implicit way of requesting, as compared with British subjects. I will consider in what kind of situations Japanese subjects did not employ an implicit way of requesting; in other words, I will consider those situations in which Japanese subjects chose more direct requesting strategies than the British subjects. 185

In situation 4 (Asking a student for a lift home in the rain), there was a significant difference in the assessment of the degree of imposition between British and Japanese subjects (See table 14), but there was no correlation between the situational assessment of the three variables and the choice of requesting strategies (See tables 17 and 21). Consequently, based only from the results of the present study, it is difficult to identify any single factor which influenced the different choice of requesting strategies between British and Japanese subjects, but it is conjectured that status difference was the factor which led to the significant difference in the choice of requesting strategies between the two groups of subjects. In this situation, a request was made from a higher status person to a lower status person. LoCastro (1990: 269) notes the use of direct forms by higher status to a lower status persons in Japanese, although the speech act of her example is not requesting but disagreement:
for Japanese, in a situation of disagreement, with a higher status person speaking to a lower status person, the language used by the higher status person is more direct than in other situations with few markers of mitigation, one of the politeness strategies cited by Brown and Levinson (1987).

In situation 6 (Asking a senior member of the club to provide the club captains phone number), there were significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of power difference, and in the assessment of the degree of imposition (See table 14). There were also correlations between the choice of requesting strategies and the assessment of power difference, and between the choice of requesting strategies and the assessment of the degree of imposition (See table 17). Japanese subjects assessed power difference as bigger than British subjects, while British subjects assessed the degree of imposition as higher than Japanese subjects (See table 14). These results suggest that the different choice of requesting strategies by British and Japanese subjects was influenced by differences in the assessment of power difference and the degree of imposition (See table 21). Although both power difference and the degree of imposition were the factors which influenced the different choice of requesting strategies by British and Japanese subjects, since Spearmans rank-order correlation coefficients of imposition (.236) were bigger than those of power difference (.125) (See table 17), it appears that the assessment of the degree of imposition, British subjects having assessed it as higher than Japanese subjects, influenced the choice of requesting strategies more than the 186

assessment of power difference. In other words, lower assessment of the degree of imposition by Japanese than British subjects resulted in their choice of more direct requesting strategies. This is in line with Brown and Levinsons politeness strategies, as noted in chapter 2 (2.3.3.1.), i.e., the request may be made bald-on-record if the speaker decides that the overall weightiness of the FTA is very small. In situations 5 (Asking a next door neighbour in the students hall for some salt) and 8 (Asking a classmate for lunch money), there were positive correlations between the assessment of the degree of imposition and the choice of requesting strategies (See table 17), but there were no significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of the degree of imposition in either situations (See table 14). It would seem that the assessment of the degree of imposition was not a factor which differentiated the choice of requesting strategies by British and Japanese subjects, so there must be some other factors which influenced strategy choice. In these situations, the power difference was small (British mean score in situation 5: 1.322; Japanese mean score in situation 5: 1.308; British mean score in situation 8: 1.545; Japanese mean score in situation 8: 1.429), from which it can be considered that S and H were equal in status. In such situations, the strategy most frequently chosen by Japanese subjects was a direct requesting one, whereas that most frequently chosen by British subjects was a conventionally indirect requesting strategy (See graphs 1.1.5. and 1.1.8. in Appendix 1.1.). If the situations in which S and H are equal in status can be considered as in-group situations, it can be assumed that the Japanese subjects chose more direct requesting strategies in in-group situations than did the British subjects. The results of Mann-Whitney U tests of in-group and out-group situations (table 16) show that British subjects chose more indirect requesting strategies than Japanese subjects in both in-group and out-group situations. Although statistically there were no significant differences between the choice of requesting strategies in in-group situations and those in out-group situations, in graphs 1.1.9. and 1.1.10. some differences can be seen in the choice of requesting strategies in in- and out-group situations. These graphs show that Japanese subjects tended to choose more direct requesting strategies in in-group than in out-group situations. While British subjects selected conventionally indirect requesting strategies in most situations, Japanese subjects selected direct requesting strategies and conventionally indirect requesting strategies, depending on whether the situation was in-group or out-group. This may indicate that Japanese subjects make 187

greater distinctions than British subjects between in- and out-group membership, which confirms the results of the previous studies in which it has been concluded that collectivists make greater group membership distinctions than do individualists, as noted in chapter 4. Making greater distinctions in the choice of requesting strategies can also be described as showing more variability. Differentiating the choice of requesting strategies according to in- and out-group situations by Japanese subjects may be explained as showing more variability in the choice of politeness strategies by people in collectivist cultures than people in individualist cultures. The phenomenon that people in collectivist cultures show more variability in the choice of politeness strategies than those in individualist cultures can also be explained from Scollon and Scollons (1995: 134) observation on individualist and collectivist cultures, as noted in chapter 4 (See 4.3.3.2.). That is, in an individualist culture, groups do not form with the same degree of permanence as they do in a collectivist culture, so that the ways of speaking to others are much more similar from situation to situation, whereas in a collectivist culture, many relationships are established more permanently than in an individualist culture. Consequently, forms of discourse used to those who are inside the groups and forms of discourse used to those who are not members of the group differ. According to the results of this study, conventionally indirect requests were chosen most in all the situations by British subjects, which were much more similar from situation to situation in Scollon and Scollons terms, and different forms of discourse chosen to those who are inside and outside groups were direct requests and conventionally indirect requests respectively by Japanese subjects. Whereas Japanese subjects differentiated their requesting strategies according to the situation, British subjects did so less, the most frequently chosen strategy by British subjects in all the situations being a conventionally indirect request. The reason why many British subjects chose conventionally indirect requesting strategies may also be due to the fact that in English, conventionally indirect request strategies are conventionalised, because, as Brown and Levinson explain,
in a given society particular techniques of face redress may become highly favoured as strategies, and therefore conventionalized. In English, for example, conventionalized indirect requests are so common that it is rare to hear a completely direct request even between equals (and in the middle classes, it is even surprisingly rare from mother to child, unless she is angry). (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 248)

188

The results here may coincide with the study by Holtgraves and Yang (1992), as noted in chapter 4, in which Koreans, who were collectivists according to Holtgraves and Yang, showed more variability in the choice of requesting strategies and were more responsive to interpersonal features of situations than Americans, who were individualists. The Japanese subjects in this study showed more variability in the choice of requesting strategies than the British counterparts, and the Japanese were more responsive to interpersonal features of situations, such as power difference and social distance, consequently having made group distinctions. The Japanese subjects in this study manifested similar features to Korean subjects in Holtgraves and Yang (Ibid.), which suggests that the Japanese subjects possess collectivist features. Next, from the results of this study, I would like to consider the relationship between directness/indirectness and politeness, since this has been an issue in the literature. Brown and Levinson (1987: 1721) propose a hierarchy of politeness.
positive politeness precedes (is less face-redressive than) negative, and negative precedes off record, because of an assessment of the risks involved in choosing each of these super-strategies. (Ibid.: 17)

Brown and Levinsons hierarchy assumes that the more indirect an utterance, the more polite it becomes. In Sifianous (1997: 69) words, their politeness superstrategies are intrinsically ranked, with off-record strategies being more polite than negative politeness strategies, which in turn precede positive politeness ones. This assumption has been challenged by BlumKulka (1987), who found that the most indirect request strategies were not judged as the most polite by her subjects. In other words, the strategies which were rated as the most polite were conventional indirect requests, but not off-record requests which her subjects judged to be the most indirect. Blum-Kulka (Ibid.) argues that for an utterance to count as polite, a certain interactional balance between pragmatic clarity and non-coerciveness is required. This balance is achieved with negative politeness strategies, but it is destroyed with off-record utterances since they place high inferential demands on the addressee. From the Chinese viewpoint, Lee-Wong (1994: 509) has noted that:
negative politeness is irrelevant in a context where being indirect can be perceived as inappropriate as (a) where the request is deemed to be easily carried out, (b) where both interactants are familiar or socially close, (c) where the speaker is in a

189

position of power or authority. Requests expressed as imperatives are socially acceptable in this context.

The first and the third situations in the above can be considered to be the same as bald-on-record strategies are used when the overall weightiness of FTA is very small; and when the power differential is great, as noted in chapter 2 (2.3.3.1.). The second situation noted above by Lee-Wong can be considered as in-group situations as discussed in this study. Eslamirasekh (1993) notes that in Persian, direct speech acts emphasise in-group membership and solidarity and stem from the value of group orientation in Iranian culture. Hinkel (1997: 8) notes that directness and indirectness in speech acts may have different ranks of imposition in different socio-cultural and pragmatic systems, and cites Fraser (1990), who
indicates that the socio-cultural views of politeness and directness in pragmatics research generally reflect those accepted in English-speaking societies, where greater formality is associated with greater politeness. On the other hand, in non-Englishspeaking communities indirectness may not be seen as a requisite in polite speech acts, and the degree of directness expected in appropriate speech acts may vary according to the social norms of each community.

This point is confirmed by the frequent choice of direct requesting strategies by Japanese subjects in this study, the preference for directness by Israeli informants in Blum-Kulkas (1987) study, the preference for bald-on-record strategies by Chinese respondents in Lee-Wong (1994), and the function of direct speech acts in Iranian culture in Eslamirasekhs (1993) study. It appears that there may be cultural variation in preferences shown for choices along the continuum of direct and indirect (Blum-Kulka (1992: 263)). In fact, Blum-Kulka (Ibid.) points out that indirectness is not considered to be inherently polite, since You can say something directly and impolitely or indirectly and impolitely (Ibid.: 264). From the above, we can conclude that politeness does not necessarily involve being indirect, while the linguistic form itself, whether direct or indirect, does not automatically render the speech act polite or impolite, as Thomas (1995: 155157) and Sifianou (1992: 113) note. Thomas (Ibid.: 157) contends that:
we cannot assess politeness reliably out of context; it is not the linguistic form alone which renders the speech act polite or impolite, but the linguistic form + the context of utterance + the relationship between the speaker and the hearer.

190

Taking Thomas formula into account, the choice of direct requesting strategies by Japanese subjects in situations 4, 5, 6 and 8 does not indicate impoliteness, but, considering the situation, the relationship between S and H and the degree of imposition of the requested act, direct requesting strategies are appropriate in the Japanese language in those situations, whereas the choice of conventionally indirect requesting strategies by British subjects are appropriate in English. Consequently, it can be concluded that we cannot determine politeness by indirectness, but by appropriateness. In this respect, I believe that Meiers (1997) view of politeness as appropriateness is relevant. Appropriateness is determined by the norms of the society, the addressees expectations, and some other social factors present in the situation. As noted in chapter 2 (2.2.), what is considered to be appropriate varies from situation to situation and culture to culture. Thomas (1995: 176) points out that:
Brown and Levinsons model appears to predict that the greater the degree of facethreat, the greater will be the degree of indirectness. But many counter-examples are readily available. we find very different norms of directness in operation with long-term relationships and within different sub-groups.

Following Thomass argument, I would like to suggest that Brown and Levinsons prediction, the greater the degree of face-threat, the greater will be the degree of indirectness, needs to be modified. How face-threat is perceived and redressed and how much indirectness is needed may depend on such factors as cultural-norms and the relationship between S and H. In the present study, the fact that Japanese subjects chose more direct requesting strategies than did the British subjects in four situations out of eight, illustrates different norms of directness in different cultures. Next, I would like to consider the requesting strategies which had no significant differences between British and Japanese subjects. The results in 6.3. (See table 15) show that there were no statistically significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requesting strategies in the following situations: Situation 1 (Asking a student to deliver some gifts), Situation 2 (Asking a colleague at part-time work to exchange work shifts), Situation 3 (Asking a tutor to write a letter of recommendation), and Situation 7 (Asking a tutor to give a lift to the airport).

In these situations, both British and Japanese subjects selected choice (2), conventionally indirect requests, most frequently (See graphs 1.1.1., 1.1.2., 191

1.1.3. and 1.1.7. in Appendix 1.1.). These results indicate that negative politeness strategies were chosen almost equally by both British and Japanese subjects. This is partly in line with the use of negative politeness strategies in Brown and Levinsons Dyad II.

7.3.1.2. Categorisation of British and Japanese Cultures from the Perspective of Requesting Strategies As noted in 7.3.1.1., there were some common features between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requesting strategies. That is, both British and Japanese subjects chose conventionally indirect requests, which are negative politeness strategies (situations 1, 2, 3, and 7). This trend is in conformity with Brown and Levinsons categorisation of British and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures, their politeness strategies being distributed in Dyad II. The difference between British and Japanese cultures in terms of the choice of requesting strategies appears not to be as great as the difference in strategy choice between Japanese and Americans, as revealed in previous studies (e.g. Beebe et al., 1990), in which Americans most frequently used positive politeness strategies while the Japanese subjects most frequently employed negative politeness strategies. Brown and Levinson have considered that politeness strategies in the U.S.A. are located in Dyad III, in which symmetrical use of bald on record and positive politeness would be expected (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 251) (See 2.3.3.3.). Compared to the strategy choices by American and Japanese subjects, the difference between British and Japanese subjects in this study does not appear to be as big, so that it may be valid to categorise British and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures, their politeness strategies being distributed in the same dyad. However, I think that Brown and Levinsons categorisation of British and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures, whose politeness strategies are distributed in Dyad II, needs some modifications, because there were also some important differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requesting strategies, as noted in 7.3.1.1. The main reason for the need to modify Brown and Levinsons categorisation is that the Japanese subjects differentiated the choice of requesting strategies depending on the situations more than did the British subjects, i.e., in some situations Japanese subjects chose bald-on-record strategies (direct 192

requests) most, and in other situations they chose negative politeness strategies (conventionally indirect requests) most. While Brown and Levinson have admitted that there are differences in degree between British and Japanese cultures in the same dyad, they have not specified what the degree of difference is between the two (See 2.3.3.3.). In the current study, the Japanese subjects displayed more variability in the choice of requesting strategies than did the British subjects. Such variability in strategy choice is an indication/manifestation of the difference in degree between British and Japanese cultures. In chapter 4, I considered that the difference between British and Japanese cultures derived from the features between collectivist and individualist cultures. The results of the choice of requesting strategies have confirmed this, because the use of both bald-on-record and negative politeness strategies by Japanese subjects, depending on the situation, can be considered as one way of distinguishing between in-group and out-group members, which is a feature of collectivist cultures. Based on the results of this study, I have attempted to describe the choice of requesting strategies by British and Japanese subjects, making some modifications to Brown and Levinsons Dyad II by specifying the differences between British and Japanese cultures, and considering the payoffs explained by Brown and Levinson (1987: 7173), as noted in chapter 3 (3.5.). I have made the following modifications to Brown and Levinsons categorisation. 1. I have divided Japanese culture into two categories, in one of which negative politeness strategies are frequently used, and in the other, baldon-record strategies are employed, the Japanese subjects in this study choosing both conventionally indirect requests and direct requests, depending on the situations. In the first category, the use of politeness strategies follows the same pattern as that of the British subjects, but in the second category, bald-on-record strategies are used, reflecting significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requesting strategies.1
1 There were also some British subjects who chose bald-on-record strategies, i.e., direct requests. However, the number of the British who chose direct requests was not as many as the Japanese counterparts (See table 15 & graphs 1.1.1.1.1.8.). In situations 4, 5, 6 and 8, in which there were significant differences in the choice of requesting strategies between British and Japanese subjects, many more Japanese subjects chose direct requests than did the British. Therefore, the second category was added only to Japanese culture.

193

2. Another modification I have made is the addition of P in the first category of Japanese culture. In Brown and Levinsons categorisation, features of Dyad II were high D relations where H has no (or low) power over S, and S and H have high D (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 250). The difference between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requesting strategies in this study revealed that there was a tendency for Japanese subjects to be more influenced by power differences than British subjects. This is why I have added P to the features of the first category of Japanese culture. 3. I have also added to show/strengthen solidarity into the payoff in the second category of Japanese culture. In chapter 3 (3.5.), I reviewed the payoffs of different types of requests as proposed by Brown and Levinson. According to them (Ibid.: 72), the payoff of going on record is efficiency (S can claim that other things are more important than face, or that the act is not an FTA at all). Brown and Levinson have also proposed that bald-on-record strategies are used when the overall weightiness of the FTA is very small (See 2.3.3.1.). In situations 5 and 8, bald-on-record strategies were chosen most by Japanese subjects. In situation 5 (S asks a hall mate for some salt), the degree of imposition of the requested act was assessed as rather low (Japanese mean score: 1.150), so, it can be said that the payoff of the use of bald-on-record strategies in situation 5 is to claim that the act is not an FTA at all. However, in situation 8 (S asks a classmate for lunch money), the degree of imposition of the requested act was not assessed as being low as in situation 5 (Japanese mean score: 2.383). So, I do not think the use of bald-on-record strategies in situation 8 can be explained on the basis that the act is not an FTA at all. I would suggest that bald-on-record strategies were chosen most by Japanese subjects in situation 8, because both power difference (Japanese mean score: 1.429) and social distance were assessed as being small (Japanese mean score: 1.361), it can be assumed that S and H are equal in status and they are close, in other words, S regards H as an in-group member, and the choice of bald-onrecord strategies is a way of demonstrating this. I would therefore define this use of bald-on-record strategies as showing/strengthening solidarity. These modifications are summarised in table 22.

194

Culture British

Features High D relations dominate in public encounters

Japanese (1) High D, P relations dominate in public encounters

Japanese (2) Low P relations prevail in close relationship

Requesting Strategies Negative politeness strategies, i.e., conventionally indirect requests; Off-record strategies, i.e., off-record requests Negative politeness strategies, i.e., conventionally indirect requests; Off-record strategies, i.e., off-record requests Bald-on-record strategies, i.e., direct requests

Payoffs To pay respect to H in return for the FTA, leaving H unimpeded

To pay respect to H in return for the FTA, leaving H unimpeded

To claim that the act is not an FTA; to show/strengthen solidarity

Table 22. Features of British and Japanese Cultures and Requesting Strategies by British and Japanese Subjects in This Study

Sifianou (1992: 96), contrasting England and Greece, argues that in England social distance is highly valued, and consequently negative politeness and off-record strategies will prevail, whereas in Greece intimacy and solidarity are valued, so that positive and bald-on-record politeness strategies will predominate in daily encounters. The comparison of British and Greek cultures is that of negative and positive politeness cultures. However, in the present case, the comparison of British and Japanese cultures is between two negative politeness cultures. I think it is worth noting that even in a negative politeness culture such as Japanese, in which social distance is highly valued and negative politeness strategies are often employed, there is also a sub-segment in which solidarity is valued and bald-on-record politeness strategies are preferred (the second category of Japanese culture in table 22). The existence of the second category in Japanese culture can be also explained from subcultural differences noted by Brown and Levinson (1987: 245) in 2.3.3.3. I would argue that it is too simplistic to characterise the Japanese way of communication as being indirect, as depicted in many stereotypes. I think it is important to note the existence of the second category in table 22.

195

7.3.2. The Relationship between the Choice of Requesting Strategies and the Three Variables
As noted in chapter 3 (3.7.1.), Brown and Levinson (1987) claim that there is a relationship between the choice of politeness strategies and the three variables they have suggested, i.e., power difference between S and H, social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act. More specifically, their claim is that the bigger the face threat as computed by the three variables, the higher the number of the strategy which is employed. While some previous studies have not confirmed their claim, some others have done so, as noted in chapter 3 (3.7.1.). On the whole, the results of the present study have confirmed the relationship between the choices of requesting strategies and the three variables, as Brown and Levinson have argued. Next, I would like to show this in detail, also providing a summary of the results of the three variables and the choice of requesting strategies (See table 21). Among the three variables, the degree of imposition of the requested act correlated with the choice of the requesting strategies most (See table 17). Although Baxter (1984) did not find imposition to be a very influential variable, as noted in chapter 3 (3.7.1.), from the results of this study, I would argue that imposition is very influential in the choice of requesting strategies. There were positive correlations between the choice of requesting strategies and the variable of the degree of imposition of the requested act in four situations out of eight (situations 5, 6, 7, and 8). Positive correlations between choice of requesting strategies and the degree of imposition of the requested act indicate that the higher the degree of imposition of the requested act, the more indirect the requesting strategies become. This confirms Brown and Levinsons claim that the bigger the face threat computed by the three variables, the higher the number of strategy which is employed. As noted in chapter 3 (3.7.1.), McLaughlin, Cody and OHair (1983) did not find the power variable to be predictive of politeness level in offender accounts, but the results of this study showed that there were positive correlations between the variable of power difference and the choice of requesting strategies in situation 6 (Asking a senior member of the club to provide the club captains phone number) and situation 7 (Asking a tutor for a lift to an airport). In both situations 6 and 7, requests were made from a lower status to a higher status person. In this study, there were three situations (situations 3, 6, and 7) in which a lower status person 196

makes such a request. In two situations out of three in which requests were made from a lower to a higher status person, there were positive correlations between the power difference and the choice of the requesting strategies. Positive correlations between the power difference and the choice of the requesting strategies indicate that the bigger the power difference between S and H, when H has bigger power than S, the more indirect the requesting strategies become. This confirms Brown and Levinsons prediction that the bigger the face threat computed by the three variables, the higher the number of strategy to be employed. As noted in chapter 3 (3.7.1.), among the three variables, that of social distance was the one for which previous studies were most out of line with Brown and Levinsons prediction, and there was a disagreement among researchers whether affect should be included in that of social distance or not. The results in 6.4. (See table 17) show that there was a relationship between the assessment of social distance and the choice of requesting strategies in situation 1 (Asking a student to deliver some gifts), but the correlation was negative. This means that the bigger the social distance between S and H, the more direct the requesting strategies become. This partly confirms Brown and Levinsons claim in the sense that the variable of social distance has some relation to the choice of requesting strategies, but it does not support their claim that the bigger the face threat computed by the three variables, the higher the number of strategy to be employed. In situation 1, S was a tutor and H was a student, i.e., status unequals. While social distance is determined by the familiarity/closeness between S and H, it may also be influenced by the power difference. If this is taken into consideration in situation 1, it can be said that S, being higher in status, chose direct strategies with H, being lower in status, the social distance being assessed as rather big (British mean score: 2.967; Japanese mean score: 3.444). One possible reason for this result may lie in the difficulty of judging the relationship between people, as noted in chapter 3 (3.7.2.). It may be more difficult to judge social distance than power difference and the degree of imposition of the requested act. Another possible reason for this result may be that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between power difference and social distance (Thomas (1995: 129)). It is not surprising that power difference and social distance sometimes overlap, because some of the components of power difference and social distance, such as age, social status, or social class (See 3.7.2. and 3.7.3.) are similar. 197

So far, I have discussed the relationship between the choice of requesting strategies and the three variables. Here, I would like to consider further the influence of power difference on the choice of requesting strategies by British and Japanese subjects, in other words, whether there were any differences between British and Japanese subjects in the correlation between the choice of requesting strategies and the variable of power difference. According to the results shown in table 18, the choice of requesting strategies by British and Japanese subjects was influenced by power difference. However, Spearmans rank-order correlation coefficients of Japanese subjects (.239) were bigger than those of British subjects (.107) (See table 18). These results indicate that although both British and Japanese subjects were influenced by power difference when they chose requesting strategies, the Japanese subjects were more influenced by power difference than the British. Since the components of the variable of power difference include social status (See 3.7.2.), this confirms the results of the previous studies (e.g. Beebe et al., 1990), that is, Japanese, who are collectivists, were more responsive to status and position than Americans and native speakers of English, who can be considered as individualists (See 4.3.3.2.).

7.4. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

7.4.1. The Choice of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests
While Brown and Levinson (1987: 71) have briefly mentioned a response to an off-record request (See 3.8.2.), they have not fully discussed it. I have attempted to contribute to the development of their theory with regard to responses to off-record requests, by incorporating responses to off-record requests within their framework, and also by clarifying possible responses to off-record requests, defining one of them as solicitousness. I have also attempted to investigate whether there were any differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests. Based on the results in chapter 6 (6.5. and 6.6.), I would like to discuss the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests employed by British and Japanese subjects in 7.4.1.1., and consider the validity of Brown and Levinsons categorisation of British and Japanese 198

cultures as negative politeness cultures, whose politeness strategies are distributed in the same dyad from the perspective of responding strategies to off-record requests in 7.4.1.2. I will discuss the relationship between the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests and the assessment of the three variables in 7.4.2.

7.4.1.1. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests employed by British and Japanese Subjects The results in 6.5. (See table 19) show that there were significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests in the following situations: Situation 1 (A tutor wants his/her student to deliver some gifts), Situation 3 (A student wants his/her tutor to write a letter of recommendation), Situation 4 (A lecturer wants his/her student to give a lift home in the rain), Situation 6 (A junior member of a university club wants a senior member to provide the club captains phone number), Situation 7 (A student wants his/her tutor to give a lift to the airport) and Situation 8 (A student wants his/her classmate to lend lunch money). In five situations out of eight (situations 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8), Japanese subjects selected more choices of solicitousness than the British, and in one situation (situation 3), British subjects selected more choices of solicitousness than the Japanese (See graphs 1.2.1.; 1.2.3.; 1.2.4.; 1.2.6.; 1.2.7. and 1.2.8. in Appendix 1.2.). I would like now to consider some possible reasons for this. In situation 1 (A tutor wants his/her student to deliver some gifts), the responding strategies to off-record requests showed a distinctive difference between British and Japanese subjects, in that although the most frequently chosen strategy by Japanese subjects was choice (1), demonstrating solicitousness, the most frequently chosen strategy by British subjects was choice (3), refusing a request (See graph 1.2.1.). In this situation, there were also significant differences in the assessment of power difference and social distance between British and Japanese subjects, the latter having assessed both of them as bigger than the British subjects (See table 14). There was a correlation between the choice of responding strategies and the assessment 199

of social distance (See table 20). This means that the significant difference between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of social distance was influential in their choice of the responding strategies to off-record requests (See table 21). The correlation between the assessment of social distance and the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests was negative, which means that the bigger the social distance, the more solicitousness is demonstrated. On many occasions, people may demonstrate solicitousness when they feel close to the beneficiary, because they want to be of some help to him or her. However, there may be cases in which people would demonstrate solicitousness even when they do not feel close to the beneficiary, as was the case with Japanese subjects in situation 1. As noted in chapter 3 (3.8.2.), by demonstrating solicitousness, the performer can gain credit if the beneficiary takes solicitousness positively. There appear to be two reasons why the performer demonstrates solicitousness. The first is that the performer wishes to demonstrate their concern for the well-being of S; and the second is that s/he just wants to gain credit. Some people might demonstrate solicitousness out of the second motive, especially if they would not feel close to the beneficiary. As noted in 7.3.2., it is sometimes difficult to distinguish power difference from social distance. In situation 1, H, the potential performer of solicitousness, is a student who is lower in status than S, the tutor, who is the potential beneficiary. In such a situation, Japanese subjects may find it difficult to refuse an off-record request, because out of the sense of giri2 or on3 to a tutor, they may feel more obliged to do what the tutor wants than do British subjects. In other words, Japanese subjects may have felt that they were obliged to demonstrate solicitousness because the potential beneficiary is a tutor (sensei). This may have to do with the right to make a request, as noted in 7.2.3. It is often the case that Japanese sensei expects his/her students to perform certain tasks even though those tasks are outside the students legitimate ones. And Japanese students are expected (or trained) to fulfill senseis desires. So, even if Japanese subjects felt socially distant from the tutor, more of them may have opted for solicitousness than British subjects, whereas British subjects could refuse such an offrecord request, because they may have thought that that request was not within the tutors legitimate right.
2 3 giri: social obligations (Lebra, 1976: 46) on: a relational concept combining a benefit or benevolence given with a debt or obligation thus incurred (Lebra, 1976: 91)

200

In situation 4 (A lecturer wants his/her student to give a lift home in the rain), there was a significant difference in the assessment of the degree of imposition between British and Japanese subjects, British subjects having assessed it as higher (See table 14), and there was a positive correlation between the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests and the assessment of the degree of imposition (See table 20). It appears that the different assessment of degree of imposition between British and Japanese subjects led to different choices of responding strategies between British and Japanese subjects. Japanese subjects, who assessed the degree of imposition as lower than British subjects, selected more choices of solicitousness than British subjects. In situation 6 (A junior member of a university club wants a senior member to provide the club captains phone number), there were significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of power difference and the assessment of the degree of imposition (See table 14). And there were positive correlations in the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests and the assessment of all the three variables (See table 20). Consequently, it was the power difference between S and H and the degree of imposition of the requested act which were the variables influencing the significant difference in the choice of responding strategies between British and Japanese subjects. Although both power difference and the degree of imposition influenced the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests, considering the fact that the coefficients of Spearmans rank-order correlation coefficients of imposition (.335) were bigger than those of power difference (.198) (See table 20), it can be said that the influence of the degree of imposition was stronger than that of power difference. Japanese subjects, who assessed the degree of imposition as lower than British subjects, selected more choices of solicitousness than British subjects. In situation 7 (A student wants his/her tutor to give a lift to the airport), there were significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of power difference and the assessment of social distance, Japanese subjects having assessed both of them as bigger than British subjects (See table 14). There were positive correlations between the choice of responding strategies and the assessment of power difference and the choice of responding strategies and the assessment of the degree of imposition (See table 20). From these results, it can be concluded that the assessment of power difference was the variable which influenced the significantly different choice of responding strategies between British and Japanese 201

subjects. In this situation, a tutor, a person with a higher status, preempted the desire of a student, a person of a lower status. Although Japanese subjects assessed power difference as bigger than British subjects, they selected more choices of solicitousness than their British counterparts. This may indicate that people in general would demonstrate solicitousness when they feel sorry for someone who needs help. All subjects may have considered that the tutor would have felt sorry for the student, considering the difficulties he or she faced. This is in line with the underlying concern in solicitousness for someones well-being or consideration for others, as noted in chapter 3 (3.8.2. and 3.8.3.). Although statistically Japanese subjects selected more choices of solicitousness than British subjects in situation 7, it is worth noting that the most frequently chosen strategy by Japanese subjects was (2), taking alternative means other than doing something him/herself, and that both Japanese and British subjects selected all three choices. British subjects selected an equal number of choice (2), taking alternative means other than doing something him/herself, and choice (3), refusing an off-record request (See graph 1.2.7.). More choices of refusal by British subjects than Japanese subjects may have led to the statistically significant difference between British and Japanese subjects. In situation 8 (A student wants his/her classmate to lend lunch money), there were positive correlations between the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests and the assessment of all the three variables (See table 20). However, there was no significant difference between British and Japanese subjects in the situational assessment of any variable (See table 14). This means that from the results of the present study, it is difficult clearly to identify the factors which led to the difference in responses between British and Japanese subjects, Japanese subjects having made more choices of solicitousness than British subjects. However, it can be conjectured that economic differences between Japanese and British students could be the factor which differentiated the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests between British and Japanese subjects. I have observed that university students in Japan are on the average more affluent than those in Britain, and this may be why more solicitousness was displayed by Japanese than British subjects, although the most frequent choice by British subjects was also demonstrating solicitousness (See graph 1.2.8.). Only in situation 3 (A student wants his/her tutor to write a letter of recommendation), was more solicitousness chosen by British than Japanese 202

subjects. There were significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of all the three variables (See table 14). And there was a positive correlation between the choice of responding strategies and the assessment of the degree of imposition (See table 20). These results indicate that the variable of imposition influenced the different choice of responding strategies to off-record requests between British and Japanese subjects. British subjects assessed the degree of imposition as lower than did the Japanese subjects, thus choosing more solicitousness than the Japanese. Next, I would like to look at the responding strategies to off-record strategies which did not show any significant differences between British and Japanese subjects. The results in 6.5. (See table 19) show that there were no statistically significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests in the following situations: Situation 2 (A student wants his/her colleague to exchange work shifts) Situation 5 (A student wants his/her hall mate to lend some salt). In both situations, the tendency in the choice of responding strategies by both British and Japanese subjects was similar. In situation 2, all three choices were made by both British and Japanese subjects without much difference in each choice (See graph 1.2.2.), whereas in situation 5, choice (1), demonstrating solicitousness, was chosen most by both British and Japanese subjects (See graph 1.2.5.). In situation 5, the degree of imposition was assessed as low by both British and Japanese subjects, there being no significant difference between British and Japanese subjects (See table 14). There was a positive correlation between the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests and the variable of imposition in situation 5 (See table 20). The low degree of imposition has led to the choice of demonstrating solicitousness. Offering salt is considered to be an act with a low degree of imposition of the requested act in both British and Japanese cultures, because salt is not very expensive and it is likely that most people have salt in the kitchen. Therefore, most of the subjects, both British and Japanese, have selected choice (1), demonstrating solicitousness.

203

7.4.1.2. Categorisation of British and Japanese Cultures from the Perspective of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests It seems to me that Brown and Levinson did not consider responding strategies to off-record requests when they categorised British and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures, whose politeness strategies are distributed in Dyad II, because although they (1987: 71) have briefly mentioned responses to off-record request, they have not considered responding strategies to off-record requests. So, while it may not be fair to judge their categorisation from the perspectives of responding strategies to off-record requests, the results of the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests in 6.5. indicate that Brown and Levinsons categorisation of politeness strategies in British and Japanese cultures into the same dyad was simplistic, because in six situations out of eight, there were significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests, Japanese subjects having chosen more solicitousness than British subjects in five situations among them. It may be that the different responding strategies to off-record requests by British and Japanese subjects can be explained better from the viewpoint of individualist and collectivist cultures, because demonstrating solicitousness, which is connected to interpersonal reality, is more valued in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures, as noted in chapter 4. Brown and Levinson may not have considered the influence of the features of collectivist and individualist cultures when they categorised British and Japanese cultures in the same dyad, but there appears to be some influence by the different features between collectivist and individualist cultures, as de Kadt (1998) argues.
Although Brown and Levinson do assume considerable cultural elaboration of their basic model in terms of what kinds of acts threaten face, what sorts of persons have special rights to face-protection, and what kinds of personal style are especially appreciated (1987: 13), these possibilities do not explain the overall polarisation of request strategies in Zulu into direct strategies and hints. Rather there appears to be a different logic involved. Underlying this logic must be the strongly collectivist thrust of Zulu society, (de Kadt, 1998: 175)

I think her point that it is necessary to take collectivist features into account can also be used to explain the results of Japanese subjects having chosen more solicitousness than the British in the present study.

204

7.4.2. The Relationship between the Choice of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests and the Three Variables
The results in 6.6. (See table 20) show that the assessment of the degree of imposition was the one which had the most correlations with the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests among the three variables which were investigated in this study. In fact, in all the situations, there were positive correlations between the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests and the degree of imposition. This means that the higher the degree of imposition, the more refusal is chosen; in other words, the lower the degree of imposition, the more solicitousness is displayed. It may be natural for people in general to demonstrate solicitousness when the degree of imposition is low, because the cost to the performer of solicitousness is not so great. The results in 6.6. also show that there were positive correlations between the variable of power difference and the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests in four situations (situations 2, 6, 7 and 8) out of eight (See table 20). In situations 6 and 7, the potential performer of solicitousness is higher in status. Therefore, the results here indicate that when the power difference between S and H is big, and when H, the potential performer of solicitousness, has bigger power than S (e.g. H is higher in status, or older than S.), the more likely it is for refusal to be chosen. This suggests that the person who has bigger power may also have power to refuse an off-record request. The results in 6.6. also indicate that there were relationships between the variable of social distance and the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests (See table 20). In three situations (situations 5, 6, and 8), there were positive correlations between the variable of social distance and the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests, and there was a negative correlation between them in one situation (situation 1). The results having positive correlations indicate that the bigger the social distance between S and H, the more refusal is chosen, in other words, the smaller the distance between S and H, the more solicitousness is displayed. The result having a negative correlation indicates that the bigger the social distance becomes, the more solicitousness is demonstrated (See also the discussion of situation 1 in 7.4.1.1.). Brown and Levinson have not provided concrete strategies of responses to off-record requests. I have tried to fill this gap, attempting to develop their theory in the area of responses to off-record requests, and, based on 205

the results of Fukushima (1997b), I have suggested three choices of responses to off-record requests: demonstrating solicitousness, taking an alternative means other than doing something him/herself, and refusing a request. These responding strategies to off-record requests have not been formulated based on Brown and Levinsons scale of strategies, such as bald-on-record, positive and negative politeness, off-record strategies, and dont do FTAs. Consequently, from the results of the responding strategies to off-record requests, it is difficult either to support or deny Brown and Levinsons claim that the bigger the face threat computed by the three variables, the higher the number of the strategy to be employed. However, the results here certainly show that the three variables influence the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests.

7.5. Conclusion
Some significant differences have been revealed between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of the three variables, power difference between S and H, social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act. Some of the cross-cultural differences in situational assessment led to different choices of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests by British and Japanese subjects, because there were correlations between the assessment of those variables and the requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests. In other words, the three variables were influential in deciding politeness strategies. Among the three variables, that of the degree of imposition was the most influential. There were positive correlations between the variable of the degree of imposition and the choice of requesting and responding strategies to offrecord requests. These results support Brown and Levinsons claim that their three variables are influential in determining choice of politeness strategies. Japanese subjects chose more direct requesting strategies than British subjects in four situations out of eight, in which (1) S has more power than H; (2) the degree of imposition is low, or (3) S and H are equal in status. The choice of direct requesting strategies by Japanese subjects in those situations was considered to be appropriate in the Japanese language. 206

Whereas Japanese subjects chose direct requesting strategies and conventionally indirect requesting strategies, depending on the situation, British subjects chose conventionally indirect requests most frequently in all the situations. This may indicate that Japanese subjects are influenced by some features of a collectivist culture, showing more variability in the choice of politeness strategies. The results of the choice of requesting strategies partly confirmed Brown and Levinsons categorisation of British and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures, whose politeness strategies are distributed in Dyad II, in the sense that negative politeness strategies (conventionally indirect requests) were chosen by both British and Japanese subjects. The results here also clarified the differences between British and Japanese cultures, which Brown and Levinson have not elaborated. That is, Japanese subjects differentiated requesting strategies more than did British subjects, having chosen bald-on-record as well as negative politeness strategies, depending on the situations, as noted above. I have suggested some modifications to Brown and Levinsons categorisation of British and Japanese cultures by elaborating some of the differences between British and Japanese cultures, which Brown and Levinson, while noting, have not specified. Although there were some differences in the choice of requesting strategies between British and Japanese subjects, I would not go so far as Matsumoto (1988) to refute Brown and Levinsons cataegorisation, but I would suggest that Brown and Levinsons categorisation is valid with the modifications I have made in 7.3.1.2. The results of the responding strategies to off-record requests showed that Japanese subjects selected more solicitousness than did British subjects in five situations out of eight. As noted in chapter 3 (3.8.2.), the potential performer of solicitousness demonstrates solicitousness when s/he shows consideration for the potential beneficiary, i. e., when s/he wants to do something for the potential beneficiary, out of interpersonal reality such as kikubari. As noted in chapter 4, interpersonal reality is highly valued in collectivist cultures. Therefore, the results of this study indicate that Japanese subjects still behave according to some features of a collectivist culture, despite some changes in values (having developed more individualist features with the rapid growth of economy) especially after World War II. This study has provided some empirical data on British and Japanese cultures in the aspect of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests. To sum up, this study has confirmed Brown and Levinsons theory in the following points. 207

 There were cross-cultural variations between British and Japanese cultures in the assessment of the three variables suggested by Brown and Levinson; These three variables were influential in deciding politeness strategies, although there were some differences in the degree to which they were influential; There were some differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requesting strategies; and Their categorisation of British and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures, whose politeness strategies are distributed in the same dyad, was valid with some modifications. I have also developed Brown and Levinsons theory in the area of responses to off-record requests. I have suggested that there are three concrete responding strategies to off-record requests, i.e., demonstrating solicitousness, taking an alternative means other than doing something him/herself, and refusing a request, while the results of this study have shown that Japanese subjects would demonstrate solicitousness more often than British subjects, this difference being attributable to collectivism. I have suggested that the features of collectivist/individualist cultures would be helpful in explaining some of the differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of politeness strategies, being in line with de Kadt (1998).

208

CHAPTER 8

Conclusion

8.1. Introduction
In this study I have attempted to apply and extend Brown and Levinsons (1978; 1987) politeness theory to the analysis of requests and responses to off-record requests in two different cultural contexts, British and Japanese. Although Brown and Levinson have established a system of politeness strategies, there are gaps in their theory, one of which concerns assigning British and Japanese societies to Dyad II. Brown and Levinson appear to believe that they can categorise cultures according to two polar dimensions, P and D, as employed in four dyads (op. cit., 250251). As a result, they classify Japanese and English cultures together in the same dyad. Given the observed differences between British and Japanese cultures, I believe that it is necessary to specify the features of this categorisation in more detail, drawing on cross-cultural comparisons, for which their theory provides a satisfactory basis. Another concerns responses to off-record requests. These gaps have provided an opportunity to test their model in this study, which makes a contribution to an under-researched aspect of their theory. As noted in chapter 2, Brown and Levinsons framework is sufficiently robust enough to be used for cross-cultural comparison and empirical research. This empirical study, which is based on Brown and Levinsons framework, focuses on requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests by comparable British and Japanese subjects, using comparable situations. By attending to issues of comparability of subjects and situations, I have attempted to avoid the limitations of previous research in which selection and comparability were inadequately controlled. I have also adopted an elicitation procedure which gives priority to choice of strategy, thus avoiding the problems which arise, particularly in a cross-cultural context, when the focus is on exponents. The research results partly confirm Brown and Levinsons categorisation of politeness strategies of British and Japanese cultures into Dyad II, because 209

both groups of subjects opt for negative politeness strategies as predicted by their model. In addition, the results of this study reveal that there were some significant differences between the choice of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests by British and Japanese subjects. For example, the Japanese subjects opted for more direct requests and solicitousness than did the British in some situations. On the basis of the differences in the choice of requesting strategies between British and Japanese subjects, I have suggested a refinement to Brown and Levinsons Dyad II categorisation (See Table 22, 7.3.1.2.) by introducing a combination of +D and +P, and adding one subcategory to Japanese culture. Although Brown and Levinson have included Japanese culture in Dyad II, they have not collected data from Japan. Their data consist of first-hand tape-recorded usage for English, Tzeltal and South Indian Tamil and only occasional examples are drawn from secondary sources for Malagasy, Japanese, and other languages (op. cit.: 59). By collecting data from Japanese subjects, I have extended Brown and Levinsons theory to a culture not represented in their work. Some differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests could not be sufficiently accounted for by Brown and Levinsons classification. So, I tried to find some other way of accounting for these results, and the cultural dimension of individualism/collectivism seemed to provide a solution. By showing that cross-cultural comparisons need to be multidimensional instead of relying on a single dimension, I believe that this study makes a useful contribution to cross-cultural pragmatics. In this final chapter, I will summarise my findings in 8.2., relating them to the objectives as outlined in chapters 1 and 5, evaluate this study in 8.3., consider its implications in 8.4., and suggest further issues which could be researched on the basis of the work reported here in 8.5.

8.2. Summary of Findings

I started out by posing a number of research questions (See 5.2.), and I will review the answers revealed by the data obtained in this study.

210

8.2.1. Situational Assessment

Firstly, I asked whether British subjects and Japanese subjects perceive comparable situations differently in terms of the three variables: power difference and social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act. To answer this question, I established a set of situations which were comparable in the cultural settings concerned, and then compared the ways in which the two sets of subjects assessed the situations in terms of Brown and Levinsons three variables. The results indicate that there were some significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of these three variables (See table 14). This was in line with Brown and Levinson (1987), as paraphrased by Holtgraves and Yang (1992: 247) that there may be cultural differences in the perceptions of situations on the power, distance, and imposition dimensions (See 2.3.3.3.). According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 76), all the three dimensions P, D, and R contribute to the seriousness of an FTA, and thus to a determination of the level of politeness with which, other things being equal, an FTA will be communicated. This means that the perception of the three variables influences the choice of politeness strategies. Since there were some significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of the three variables, it was considered that there would be some differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests, and indeed, some significant differences between British and Japanese subjects were revealed, as summarised in 8.2.2. and 8.2.3. Thus, research questions four and five (See 5. 2.) were answered: the situational assessment of the three variables did influence the choice of requesting strategies, as well as the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests.

8.2.2. Requesting Strategies

Secondly, I was concerned with whether the requesting strategies by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects differed. The data revealed that in their choice of strategies, Japanese subjects opted for more direct requesting strategies than British subjects in four situations out of eight. In those four situations, Japanese subjects selected choice (1), direct requesting strategies, 211

more than the British subjects. In the situations in which there were no significant differences between British and Japanese subjects, conventionally indirect requesting strategies were chosen by both British and Japanese subjects. Brown and Levinsons categorisation of British and Japanese cultures in Dyad II, in which negative politeness and off-record strategies are used, was partly confirmed by the results of the choice of requesting strategies, because both British and Japanese subjects often selected conventionally indirect requesting strategies. However, from the point of revealing some significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requesting strategies, Brown and Levinsons categorisation of British and Japanese cultures in the same dyad needs more detailed specification, focusing on the difference between these two cultures. According to my results, the most evident difference between the choice of requesting strategies by British and Japanese subjects is that while the Japanese subjects chose both bald-on-record and negative politeness strategies, i.e., direct requests and conventionally indirect requests, depending on the situation, the most frequent choice in all situations by British subjects was negative politeness strategies, i.e., conventionally indirect requests. The Japanese subjects showed greater variability in the choice of requesting strategies than did the British subjects, a difference which can be accounted for by the differences between British and Japanese cultures in terms of individualist and collectivist cultures. As noted in chapter 4, compared with people in individualist cultures, members of collectivist cultures tend to pay more attention to context, and they make stronger distinctions between in-group and out-group. This difference tends to be confirmed in my data, from which I would suggest that it is not appropriate to describe Japanese people as being indirect or Japanese communication as implicit, as commonly characterised in the literature. Instead, it would be more appropriate to characterise Japanese subjects in this study as being more responsive to the context than their British counterparts, in other words, they appear to pay more attention to context, such as power difference and social distance between S and H, on which basis they differentiate requesting strategies. The results of the correlation between situational assessment of the three variables and the choice of requesting strategies showed that the choice of requesting strategies was influenced by the assessment of the three variables (See table 17). Of the three variables, the degree of imposition of the requested act was the most influential in the choice of requesting 212

strategies. In four situations out of eight, there were positive correlations between the degree of imposition and the choice of requesting strategies. That is, the higher the degree of imposition, the more indirect requesting strategies were chosen, which confirmed Brown and Levinsons prediction.

8.2.3. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

Thirdly, there was the question of whether there was a difference in the responding strategies to off-record requests by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects. The results show that there were significant differences between the British and Japanese subjects in the choice of responding strategies (See table 19), Japanese subjects demonstrating more solicitousness than British subjects in five situations out of eight. Such concern with solicitousness shows some collectivist features, because interpersonal reality, such as kikubari, is a feature of collectivist cultures like Japan rather than individualist cultures like Britain, as noted in chapter 4. It would appear, therefore, that the difference in responding strategy choice by British and Japanese subjects is accounted for by differences between British and Japanese cultures in terms of individualism and collectivism. The results of the correlation between situational assessment of the three variables and the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests showed that while the three variables influenced the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests (See table 20), the degree of imposition was the most influential in the choice of responding strategies. There were positive correlations between the degree of imposition and the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests in all situations, which means that the lower the degree of imposition, the more solicitousness was chosen. This demonstrated that solicitousness was displayed more frequently when the cost to the performer was low.

8.3. Evaluating This Study

Inevitably, a study such as this has strengths and limitations, and I would now like to consider these, beginning with its strengths. 213

8.3.1. Strengths
The following are the strengths of this study. 1. Comparison of two negative politeness cultures Brown and Levinson have classified British and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures, whose politeness strategies are distributed in Dyad II (See 2.3.3.3.). So far, there have been many studies comparing politeness strategies in cultures which are classified as negative politeness cultures and positive politeness cultures respectively (e.g. Barnlund & Araki, 1985; Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Hill et al., 1986; LoCastro, 1990; Nomura & Barnlund, 1983; Sifianou, 1992; Sifianou, 1995a). However, to my knowledge, there have been no studies comparing politeness strategies in two negative politeness cultures. Thus, the present study, using subjects from two negative politeness cultures, represents an innovation. 2. Developing a methodology for a cross-cultural study Many empirical studies have been conducted in cross-cultural pragmatics, but the reliability of their data remains questionable. For instance, if the situations used in such studies were not comparable between the cultures compared, the reliability of the data would be impaired. In this study, I have taken some pains to avoid such limitations, beginning with carefully identifying comparable situations. As noted in chapter 5 (5.5.1.1.5.), it is important to ensure the comparability of the situations used in cross-cultural studies. As a step towards achieving this, I conducted SA 96 in which I rejected situations which were judged not to be comparable by British and Japanese subjects in that phase of my study. Since the subjects were all university students, the situations used in this study, based on my field notes or a preliminary questionnaire on requests (See 5.5.1.1.5.), were selected so as to reflect students life in Japan and the U.K. This means that the subjects did not have to put themselves in a totally different world. In other words, they could easily imagine the situation, even if it was one which was not within their own experience. This was a way of ensuring that the situations had credibility for both groups of subjects. 214

3. Controlling the choice of subjects The subjects used in this study were all undergraduates in both British and Japanese settings. I tried to limit the choice of subjects in terms of occupation, level of education and age, so as to ensure that as far as possible, differences in choices of politeness strategies were not the outcome of differences attributable to personal characteristics. As noted in chapter 5 (5.5.3.), I also restricted the subjects place of residence, because this could also influence the choice of politeness strategies. In some previous studies (e.g. Hashimoto et al., 1992), the background and characteristics of subjects were not fully specified, so that it was not clear whether they were Americans, or British, or some other nationalities. As there are some differences between the politeness strategies used by Americans and those by British, I think it is necessary to limit and be explicit about the nationality of the subjects, and for that reason, in this study, I have carefully restricted the nationality of my subjects. 4. Assessment of the variables by the subjects Every subject in this study who made choices of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests assessed the three variables, i.e., power difference between S and H, social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act. In some previous studies (e.g. Blum-Kulka et al., 1985; Holmes, 1990; Trosborg, 1987; and Wood and Kroger, 1991), the researchers own assessment was used and the subjects were not given an opportunity to assess the variables concerned. However, researchers and subjects assessment may be different, so it is important to give the subjects themselves an opportunity to assess the variables, otherwise, we cannot tell how the variables influence their choices of politeness strategies.

215

8.3.2. Limitations
There are some limitations to this study. 1. Representivity of subjects While confining the subjects to all undergraduates in both British and Japanese cultures is one of the strengths of this study, the subjects concerned represent only one section of diverse societies, and if the data were taken from people of different sections, such as a different age group, occupation, level of education, or social class, the results might differ. Consequently, it should be noted that the results of this study only indicate the strategy choices of British and Japanese undergraduates and although I have used British and Japanese as labels, the data do not represent the whole of the societies concerned. Ways of behaving (e.g., requesting and responding to off-record requests) may differ from region to region, even in the same culture. For example, there may be differences among people from the city and those from the country. Data collection of this study does not cover the whole area of Japan nor that of Britain, being confined to the place of the subjects present residence, Tsuru, Yamanashi in Japan and Reading, Berkshire in the U.K. 2. Effects of feasibility In the questionnaire used in this study, only eight situations were employed: in two situations a request was made from a higher status person to a lower status person, in three situations a request was made from a lower status person to a higher status person, and in other three situations among equals. While it would have been better to have had more situations in each category, I also had to consider feasibility. If the subjects had been given too many situations, they would not have filled in the questionnaire, or they would have been bored and made any choice without thinking seriously. Consequently, I felt that it was wise to limit the number of situations, although it must be admitted that eight situations may also restrict the range of generalisations which can be made.

216

3. Standard/non-standard situations Although the situations were carefully examined in terms of comparability between the cultures compared, they were not consistent from the viewpoint of standard/non-standard situations (cf. Hoppe-Graff et al., 1985). That is, some situations were standard situations which may occur frequently, and other situations were non-standard situations which may not occur frequently. 4. Number of variables In this study, I have considered the three variables, power difference, social distance between S and H and the degree of imposition of the requested act, suggested by Brown and Levinson, as those which determine choice of politeness strategies. However, there were some situations in which, although there were significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of politeness strategies, it was not the three variables which differentiated the choices (Examples of this are the requesting strategies in situations 4, 5 and 8; and the responding strategies to offrecord requests in situation 8.). In other words, there are factors other than the three variables investigated in this study which have influenced the different choices of politeness strategies between British and Japanese subjects. Although those factors were not identified in this study, it was conjectured that such factors as economic differences between British and Japanese students, and in- and out-group distinction may have influenced some strategy choices. 5. Strategy choices The subjects were asked to choose a strategy in the questionnaire, and example sentences were given for each strategy so that they could understand the meaning of the terminology. Such example sentences may have influenced the subjects strategy choices, so it is difficult to tell whether their choices were influenced by the strategy or the example sentences.

217

8.4. Implications of This Study

1. Cultural differences There were some significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of the three variables. There were correlations between the assessment of the three variables and the choice of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests, and there were significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests. These results imply that underlying cultural differences play an important role in explaining politeness strategies, as shown in previous studies (e.g. Blum-Kulka and House, 1989; Eisenstein and Bodman, 1993; Meier, 1996). 2. Cultural generalisations There are some stereotypes about different cultures, and the Japanese people are sometimes characterised as indirect, which is sometimes used synonymously with polite. However, as the results of the choice of requesting strategies show, the stereotype of the Japanese people as being indirect does not always hold true. This demonstrates the danger of cultural generalisations, as noted by LoCastro (1990: 250) who points out that:
There is a danger in interacting with others on the basis of stereotypes; behavior must be understood within the context of the cultural norms of all the participants.

3. Interlanguage pragmatics The most outstanding feature in the choice of requesting strategies was that Japanese subjects chose more direct requesting strategies than British subjects in four out of eight situations. This result has an important implication. A problem arises when Japanese people making requests in English are influenced by the way of making requests in Japanese. In other words, there is cross-language pragmatic transfer or interference. Since direct requests are appropriate in the Japanese language in some situations (e.g. when making requests among equals), requests in English by Japanese people sometimes sound too direct and rude (See Fukushima, 1990). It may be assumed that as the intention of the Japanese speakers is not to make re218

quests which can be interpreted as rude by their English-speaking interlocutors, some misunderstandings are possible in cross-cultural communication because of this mismatch of intention and uptake. Teachers of EFL/ESL should be aware of such problems and take pragmatic aspects into account.

8.5. Suggestions for Further Research

1. Components of each variable As Brown and Levinson claim, the factors used to estimate the three variables are culture-specific. However, I did not investigate what the subjects considered to be the components of each variable. I have reviewed the components of variables in 3.7.2., and I have explained what I think the components of each variable are in 3.7.3. This is my interpretation, however, so that it is possible that the components of each variable which the subjects in this study had in mind may have been different from mine. Although in the questionnaire given to the subjects I did not explain in detail what I considered to be the components of each variable, I made a brief explanation of the components of each variable in the rubrics of the questionnaire as follows (See Appendix 2.3.): The power difference may be related to the relative status, role or age of the parties. Social distance is related to the degree of closeness or familiarity between the parties. The imposition may be high if the requested act requires a lot of time or effort on the part of the requestee or will be a psychological or financial burden; or if the requester does not have a right to ask the requestee to perform the requested act; or if the requestee does not have an obligation to carry out the requested act. However, it was up to the subjects themselves to decide what they considered to be the components of each variable. I did not ask the subjects to clarify what they considered to be the components. It is also possible that the subjects did not think so consciously about what the components of 219

each variable were. In other words, they intuitively assessed each variable on the scale. In future studies, it would be interesting to investigate what the subjects consider to be the components of each variable, whether there are any cross-cultural differences concerning the components of each variable and whether the relative importance in the components of each variable varies according to cultures or situations. As noted in chapter 7, it may have been difficult to judge social distance compared with the other two variables. It is sometimes more difficult to judge the relationship between people in terms of familiarity and closeness than it is to judge the degree of imposition of the requested act, because, as noted in chapter 3 (3.7.2.2.), relationships among people are dynamic and open to negotiation. Furthermore, because of the variations in family patterns, social organisations and values, the relationship among people cannot be judged by traditional assumptions, such as that of the parentchild relation being one of closeness. As noted also in chapter 7 (7.3.2.), some of the components of power difference and social distance, such as age, social status, or social class, are similar, and it may be difficult to distinguish between power difference and social distance. It would be interesting to consider the components of social distance further, in particular whether power difference and social distance can be distinguished. 2. Investigating the variables which influence politeness strategies As noted in 8.3.2., some factors other than the three investigated here have influenced the significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests in some situations. However, these factors were not identified in this study. In order to identify the factors which influenced the choice of politeness strategies other than the three variables studied here, it will be necessary to investigate many more variables which may influence this choice. For instance, gender difference can be another variable, as revealed in some previous studies (e.g., Tannen, 1981; Holtgraves, 1991). Further investigation on the in- and out-group distinction will also merit future research. 3. Interpretation of off-record requests In this study, the possible responses to off-record requests were already provided for the subjects to select in the questionnaire. The choices were 220

those in which H understood that S has made a request, because Ss intention in making the off-record requests was specified in the descriptions of the situations in the questionnaire. This meant that the potential performer of solicitousness did not have to infer the desires of the potential beneficiary. In everyday life, however, it is necessary for the performer of solicitousness to infer both that a request has in fact been made and what Ss desires are, as noted in chapter 3 (3.8.3.). There are some occasions in which S intended to make requests by the use of off-record requests, but H could not interpret these as requests. As noted in chapter 4, inference (sasshi), which is often necessary to interpret the intention of the speaker of off-record requests, is more practiced and valued in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures, so that there may be some cross-cultural differences in the interpretation of off-record requests. It will be interesting to research in further detail whether there are any differences in the interpretation of off-record requests among people from different cultural backgrounds. Different cultural backgrounds do not necessarily mean different nationalities, but also can be different generations, as noted by Kitade (1993: 45), who regrets that Japanese young people these days are lacking the communication of enryo and sasshi. 4. Uptake of solicitousness Even when people demonstrate solicitousness for the benefit of the beneficiary, the latter does not always appreciate the offer of solicitousness (See 3.8.5.). Whether solicitousness is taken positively or negatively may depend on various factors, such as situations, cultural background and individual tastes, etc. How solicitousness is interpreted is another interesting area for further study, investigating whether there are any cultural differences, and the relationship between features of situations and the interpretation of solicitousness. 5. Investigating the strategy choice As noted in 8.3.2., it is possible that some subjects could have made their choices under the influence of the example sentences. In order to investigate strategy choice in further detail, it would be possible to conduct a twostage study: by (1) giving the subjects the questionnaire with the strategy choices only while ensuring that the subjects understood the meaning of 221

strategy choices and (2) giving the subjects the questionnaire with both the strategy choices and the example sentences. If there were no significant differences between the results of the first and the second studies, it could be said that the example sentences had not influenced their strategy choice. 6. Methodology As noted in 5.5.2., Bayraktaroglu (1991) points out the need to analyse politeness in stretches of talk. Since written questionnaires were used in this study and linguistic realisations were not investigated as noted in 5.5.1.2., it was impossible to investigate sequences in conversation. In future studies, it is hoped that some kind of methodology, which can investigate politeness in sequences, will be developed. Kasper (1994: 3210) notes some limitations of the research of politeness and suggests the direction for future research:
The complex research program to be addressed by future politeness studies is not only to specify and examine the relationship between contextual variables and discourse domains. Such research will also have to uncover how the ongoing discourse itself constitutes, maintains, and alters participants rights and obligations, increases and reduces distance, fosters liking and disliking, and so forth. Politeness will therefore have to be studied not only as a dependent variable but as a major force in shaping human relationships.

In order to study some features which could not be investigated in this study such as sequences in conversation and the relationship between the ongoing discourse and the variables such as rights and obligations of S and H, distance between S and H, and also to increase the validity of the methodology, some methods other than the written questionnaires or a combination of different methods, i. e., a multimethod approach, could be employed. Wolfson et al. (1989: 194) note that:
Research into human behavior is notoriously squishy and requires multiple approaches in order to reach a level of validity which will give our analyses both predictive power and generalizability. our own intuitions cannot provide us with a complete picture of the social circumstances that result in a given speech act. It is only through an iterative process which makes use both of systematic observation and increasingly sensitive elicitation procedures and analyses that we can begin to capture the social knowledge that is the unconscious possession of every member of a speech community.

222

The use of a combination of different approaches is also supported by Cohen and Olshtain (1994: 147) who point out that no single method will thoroughly assess the behavior in question. With regard to using multiple approaches, it is also necessary to note Brown and Levinsons (1987: 22) remarks on methodology:
quantitative evaluation of politeness redress in natural language data must always be preceded by, and supplemented with, qualitative ones.

In future research, a combination of different methods should be attempted, having the above points in mind. 7. Brown and Levinsons fifth strategy In 2.3.3.1., I reviewed Brown and Levinsons politeness strategies, and have used them in this study. However, neither Brown and Levinson nor I have discussed Brown and Levinsons fifth strategy, i. e., remaining silent sufficiently. Sifianou (1995b; 1997) casts doubts on the claimed hierarchy of the strategies, noting that:
Brown and Levinson (1987 [1978]) regard silence as the ultimate expression of politeness, although they offer no discussion of it. (Sifianou, 1997: 79)

As Sifianou rightly points out, Brown and Levinson (1987: 72) exclude the fifth strategy from their discussion, saying that:
the payoff for the fifth strategic choice, Dont do the FTA, is simply that S avoids offending H at all with this particular FTA. Of course S also fails to achieve his desired communication, and as there are naturally no interesting linguistic reflexes of this last-ditch strategy, we will ignore it in our discussion henceforth.

And according to Brown and Levinsons politeness scale, the higher the number, the greater the risk of loss of face presented by the situation, and thus the more polite the strategy, (Sifianou, 1997: 67) which means that the fifth strategy is the most polite one among the five strategies. However, as Sifianou (Ibid.: 69) notes, no discussion concerning this ranking of politeness strategies has considered the fifth superstrategy. Sifianou (Ibid.) further argues that:
Brown and Levinsons superstrategy Dont do the FTA is inadequate to account for the multifaceted functions of silence, since this strategy relates to a very restricted

223

number of instances. I have suggested that instead of treating silence as a separate superstrategy, the theory could be enriched by subsuming facts of silence under the other superstrategies, since it appears capable of realising positive, negative and off-record politeness. Given a particular context, silence can realise the desire to avoid imposition or can indicate shared common ground.

I think Sifianou makes an important point, and that there is more room to consider the fifth strategy, although it was beyond the scope of this study. In future research, Brown and Levinsons fifth strategy can be investigated with regard to such aspects as meaning and interpretation of silence, crosscultural perspectives (in some cultures silence is something to be avoided, whereas in some other cultures it is rather desirable), the relationship between social variables and the meaning of silence (e. g., the superiors silence may indicate domination, whereas the inferiors silence may indicate subordination or defiance against the superiors authority), where it occurs, whether being silent is polite or not, and whether S keeps silent with or without having an intention to make H do something.

8.6. Final Remarks

I took an interest in researching requesting strategies from observing the ways of making requests in English by Japanese speakers. I myself am a Japanese who was educated in Japan, learning English as a foreign language at school, where I was not taught pragmatic aspects of making requests. When living in English-speaking countries (U.S.A. and U.K.), I felt that without making requests appropriately in English, I could not survive, because there were many requests I had to make in everyday life. I was motivated to do a comparative study on requests between British English and Japanese, because there seem to be some stereotypes of the Japanese people in the literature, who are often described as being indirect, but from my personal experiences living in English-speaking countries, and from the data I obtained (e.g. Fukushima, 1993a & b; Fukushima, 1996b), the Japanese are not always indirect in making requests. This was confirmed by the data in this study, because the Japanese subjects made more direct requests than did the British in some situations. When a Japanese makes direct requests in English, being influenced by 224

the way of making requests in Japanese, which would not be appropriate in English, a native English H may stigmatise the Japanese as rude. Through this study, I have drawn attention to the fact that there are different ways of making requests in different languages. I hope this study will help people to understand different ways of making requests from their own and prevent some possible misunderstandings between people from different cultural backgrounds. I particularly wanted to research responding strategies to off-record requests, because they were not sufficiently discussed in Brown and Levinson and there have been no previous studies on responses to off-record requests, although this is an important research area as noted in 3.8. There was also my personal experience. I have experienced being hurt, when I have demonstrated solicitousness, wishing for the well-being of the beneficiary, only to find that the beneficiary, who was from a different cultural background, interpreted my solicitousness as officiousness. By contrast, when I demonstrated such solicitousness to Japanese people, they appreciated it. Then, I realised that there were some cultural differences in the uptake of solicitousness. Because of these differences, misunderstandings, especially among people from different cultural backgrounds, can occur. I hope that this study will provide people with some knowledge of British and Japanese cultures in aspect of responding strategies to offrecord requests, and that this study will be of some help in reducing misunderstandings between people from different cultural backgrounds, assumptions, and ways of communication. As noted in this study, I have attempted to develop Brown and Levinsons theory in the area of responses to off-record requests. Although this study is only one step in such evolution, I hope that it will be a useful contribution to the development of theory and research in politeness and cross-cultural pragmatics.

225

This page intentionally left blank

226

Bibliography

Adegbija, E. (1989). A comparative study of politeness phenomena in Nigerian English. Multilingua, 8 (1), 5780. Adler, N. J. (1997). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing. Agar, M. (1994). The intercultural frame. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18 (2), 221237. Arndt, H. & Janney, R. W. (1985). Politeness revisited: cross-modal supportive strategies. IRAL, 23 (4), 281300. Aronsson, K. & Stterlund-Larsson, U. (1987). Politeness strategies and doctor-patient communication: On the social choreography of collaborative thinking. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 127. Asante, M. K. & Gudykunst, W. B. (1989). Handbook of international and intercultural communication. Newbury Park: Sage. Aston, G. (1988). Negotiating Service: Studies in the discourse of bookshop encounters. In Aston, G. (Ed.), TESTI e DISCOURSI: Strumenti linguisticie letterai (pp. 123). Bologna: Cooperative Libraria Universitaria Editrice. Aston, G. (1995). Say Thank you: Some Pragmatic Constraints in Conversational Closing. Applied Linguistics, 16 (1), 5786. Attardo, S. (1998). Are socio-pragmatics and (Neo)-Gricean pragmatics incompatible? Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 627636. Austin, J. L. (1962). How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Banerjee, J. & Carrell, P. L. (1988). Tuck in your shirt, you squid: Suggestions in ESL. Language Learning, 38, 313347. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Natural conversations, institutional talk, and interlanguage pragmatics. Unpublished manuscript. Bloomington: Indiana University, Program in Applied Linguistics. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. & Harris, S. J. (1996). Requests and status in business correspondence. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 635662. Barnlund, D. C. (1975). Public and Private Self in Japan and the United States. Tokyo: Simul Press. Barnlund, D. C. (1989). Communicative Styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and Realities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Barnlund, D. C. & Araki, S. (1985). Intercultural encounters: The management of compliments by Japanese and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 926. Barnlund, D. C. & Yoshioka, M. (1990). Apologies: Japanese and American styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 193206. Barnouw, V. (1982). An Introduction to Anthropology (Vol. II: Ethnology). Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press.

227

Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. Baxter, L. A. (1984). An Investigation of Compliance Gaining as Politeness. Human Communication Research, 10 (3), 427456. Bayraktaroglu, A. (1991). Politeness and interactional imbalance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 92, 534. Becker, J. A., Kimmel, H. D. & Bevill, M. J. (1989). The Interactive Effects of Request Form and Speaker Status on Judgments of Requests. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18 (5), 521531. Beebe, L. M. (1985). Speech Act Performance: A function of the data collection procedure. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual TESOL and Sociolinguistics Colloquium at the International TESOL Convention, New York. Beebe, L. M. & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data vs written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In Neu, J. & Gass, S. M. (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 6586). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. (1989a). Do you have a bag?: Social Status & Patterned Variation in Second Language Acquisition. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Discourse and Pragmatics (pp. 103125). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. (1989b). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts. In Eisenstein, M. (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage (pp. 199218). New York: Plenum. Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T. & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In Scarcella, R. C., Anderson, E. & Krashen, S. C. (Eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language (pp. 5573). New York: Newbury House. Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London: Longman. Bergman, M. L. & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and Performance in Native & Nonnative Apology. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 82 107). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berscheid, E., Synder, M. & Omoto, A. M. (1989). Issues in studying close relationships: Conceptualizing and measuring closeness. In Hendrick, C. (Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 6391). London: Sage. Bilbow, G. (1995). Requesting Strategies in the Cross-Cultural Business Meeting. Pragmatics, 5 (1), 4555. Biletzki, A. (1996). Is there a history of pragmatics? Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 455 470. Blaker, M. (1977). Japanese international negotiation style. New York: Columbia University. Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 2959. Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11 (2), 131146. Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: the role of conventionality in indirect requests. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 3770). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

228

Blum-Kulka, S. (1992). The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In Watts, R., Ide, S. & Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp. 255280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Discourse Pragmatics. In van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction Volume 2 (pp. 3863). London: Sage Publications. Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B. & Gherson, R. (1985). The language of requesting in Israeli society. In Forgas, J. (Ed.), Language and Social Situation (pp. 113141). New York/ Berlin: Springer Verlag. Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5 (3), 196213. Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 165180. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Blum-Kulka, S. & House, J. (1989). Cross-Cultural & Situational Variation in Requesting Behavior. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 123154). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Bond, M. H., Wan, K., Leung, K. & Giacalone, R. A. (1985). How are Responses to Verbal Insult Related to Cultural Collectivism and Power Distance? Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 16 (1), 111127. Bonikowska, M. P. (1988). The Choice of Opting Out. Applied Linguistics, 9 (2), 169 181. Boxer, D. (1993). Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 103125. Brislin, R. W. (1994). Individualism and Collectivism as the Source of Many Specific Cultural Differences. In Brislin, R. W. & Yoshida, T. (Eds.), Improving Intercultural Interactions: Modules for Cross-Cultural Training Programs (pp. 7188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brgger, F. C. (1992). Culture, Language, Text: Culture Studies within the Study of English as a Foreign Language. London: Scandinavian University Press. Brown, P. & Fraser, C. (1979). Speech as a marker of situation. In Scherer, K. R. & Giles, H. (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 3362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). Pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.), Style in Language (pp. 253276). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1972). Pronouns of power and solidarity. In Gigliogli, P. (Ed.), Language and social context (pp. 252282). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeares four major tragedies. Language in Society, 18, 159212. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. S. (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

229

Cansler, D. C. & Stiles, B. S. (1981). Relative status and interpersonal presumptuousness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 459471. Chang, H. & Holt, G. R. (1994). A Chinese Perspective on Face as Inter-Relational Concern. In Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.), The Challenge of Facework (pp. 95132). Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Cherry, R. D. (1988). Politeness in Written Persuasion. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 63 81. Clancy, P. M. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In Schieffelin, B. & Ochs, E. (Eds.), Language Socialization Across Cultures (pp. 213250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clancy, P. M. (1990). Acquiring Communicative Style in Japanese. In Scarcella, R. C., Andersen, E. S. & Krashen, S. D. (Eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language (pp. 2740). New York: Newbury House. Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to Indirect Speech Acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 430477. Reprinted in Davis, S. (Ed.), (1991), Pragmatics: A Reader (pp. 199229). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clark, H. H. & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding What Is Meant from What Is Said: A Study in Conversationally Conveyed Requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 5672. Clark, H. H. & Schunk, D. H. (1980). Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition, 8, 111143. Clark, H. H. & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Politeness in requests: A rejoinder to Kemper and Thissen. Cognition, 9, 311315. COBUILD. (1987). COLLINS COBUILD English Language Dictionary. London: Collins. Cody, M., McLaughlin, M. & Schneider, J. (1981). The impact of relational consequences and intimacy on the selection of interpersonal persuasion tactics: A reanalysis. Communication Quarterly, 29, 91106. Cohen, A. & Olshtain, E. (1994). Researching the Production of Second-Language Speech Acts. In Tarone, E., Gass, S. L. & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Research Methodology in SecondLanguage Acquisition (pp. 143156). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Association. Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech Acts. In McKay, S. & Hornberger, N. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp. 383420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, R. (1987). Problems of Intercultural Communication in Egyptian-American Diplomatic Relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 2947. Dascal, M. (1983). Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind I: Thought in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Davis, S. (Ed.) (1991). Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davis, K. A. & Henze, R. C. (1998). Applying ethnographic perspectives to issues in cross-cultural pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 399419. Davison, A. (1975). Indirect speech acts and what to do with them. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 143185). New York: Academic Press. de Kadt, E. (1998). The concept of face and its applicability to the Zulu language. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 173191. Doi, T. (1971). Amae no Kouzou. [The anatomy of dependence] Tokyo: Koubundou. Doi, T. (1973). The anatomy of dependence. [Translated by Bester, J.] Tokyo: Kodansha.

230

Du Bois, J. W. (1994). Pragmatic universals. In Asher, R. E. & Simpson, J. M. Y. (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 32573260). Oxford: Pergamon Press. DuFon, M. A., Kasper, G., Takahashi, S. and Yoshinaga, N. (1994). Bibliography on linguistic politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 527578. Eades, D. (1982). You gotta know how to talk: Information seeking in South-East Queensland Aboriginal society. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 2, 6182. Ehlich, K. (1992). On the historicity of politeness. In Watts, R., Ide, S. & Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp. 71 107). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J. W. (1986). I Very Appreciate: Expressions of Gratitude by Native and Non-native Speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7 (2), 167185. Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J. W. (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In Kasper, G. and Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 6481). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eslamirasekh, Z. (1993). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Requestive Speech Act Realization Patterns in Persian and American English. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 4, 85103. Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal & external modification in interlanguage request realization. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 221247). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman. Forgas, J. P. & Bond, M. H. (1985). Cultural influences on the perception of interaction episodes. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 11 (1), 7588. Fraser, B. (1975). The concept of politeness. Paper presented at the 1985 NWAVE Meeting. Georgetown University. Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2), 219 236. Fraser, B., Rintell, E. & Walters, J. (1980). An approach to conducting research on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. In Larsen-Freeman, D. (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 7591). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Fraser, B. & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93109. French, J. R. P. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Fukushima, S. (1990). Offers and requests: Performance by Japanese learners of English. World Englishes, 9 (3), 317325. Fukushima, S. (1993a). Requests in British English. Unpublished manuscript. Fukushima, S. (1993b). Requests in Japanese. Unpublished manuscript. Fukushima, S. (1994). Towards Greater Comparability in Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Tsuru University Review, 41, 5766. Fukushima, S. (1995a). Solicitousness: what it is and how it works. Tsuru Studies in English Linguistics and Literature, 23, 3950.

231

Fukushima, S. (1995b). Request Strategies in British English and Japanese. Paper presented at First International Conference in Contrastive Semantics and Pragmatics at the University of Brighton, 9 April, 1995. Fukushima, S. (1996a). Solicitousness: Is it preferred? Tsuru Studies in English Linguistics and Literature, 24, 5362. Fukushima, S. (1996b). Request Strategies in British English and Japanese. Language Sciences, 18, (34), 671688. Fukushima, S. (1996c). Request Strategies in British English and Japanese. In Jaszczolt, K. & Turner, K. (Eds.), Contrastive Semantics and Pragmatics Volume II: Discourse Strategies (pp. 671688). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Fukushima, S. (1996d). Situational Assessment on Request Situations and Requesting Strategies. Poster presentation at Sociolinguistics Symposium 11, at the University of Wales, Cardiff, 5 September, 1996. Fukushima, S. (1996e). How do the British and the Japanese respond to off-record requests? Paper presented at 29th Annual Meeting, British Association for Applied Linguistics (BAAL), at the University of Wales, Swansea, 9 September, 1996. Fukushima, S. (1997a). Which requesting strategies are preferred in British English and Japanese? The Tsuru University Review, 46, 7596. Fukushima, S. (1997b). Responses to Off-record Requests. Tsuru Studies in English Linguistics and Literature, 25, 83102. Fukushima, S. (1999). A Comparative Study of Pragmatic Strategies: Requests and Responses to Off-record Requests in British English and Japanese. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Reading. Fukushima, S. & Zimmermann, H. (1993). Politeness in Japanese, British English and Swiss German: A Cross-cultural Study. Paper presented at Fourth International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA) at Shoin Womens University in Kobe, 30 July, 1993. Gallois, C. (1994). Group membership, social rules, and power: A social-psychological perspective on emotional communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 301324. Garca, C. (1993). Making a request and responding to it: A case study of Peruvian Spanish speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 127152. Gibbs, R. W. (1979). Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests. Discourse Processes, 2, 110. Giles, H. & Franklyn-Stokes, A. (1989). Communication Characteristics. In Asante, M. K. & Gudykunst, W. B. (Eds.), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication (pp. 117144). Newbury Park: Sage. Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Discourse and Culture. In van Dijk, T.A. (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction Volume 2 (pp. 231257). London: Sage. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. Gordon, D. & Lakoff, G. (1975). Conversational Postulates. In Cole. P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.),Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 83106). New York: Academic Press. Green, G. M. (1975). How to get people to do things with words: The whimperative question. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 107141). New York: Academic Press.

232

Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and Conversation. Unpublished MS, from the Williams James Lectures 1967. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 4158). New York: Academic Press. Grice, H. P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp.113127). New York: Academic Press. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Grimshaw, A. D. (1980a). Mishearings, misunderstandings, and other non-successes in talk: a plea for redress of speaker-oriented bias. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 3174. Grimshaw, A. D. (1980b). Selection and labelling of instrumentalities of verbal manipulation. Discourse Processes, 3, 203229. Grimshaw, A. D. (1980c). Social interactional and sociolinguistic rules. Social Forces, 58 (3), 789810. Grimshaw, A. D. (1983). Comment on L. B. Breitborde, Levels of analysis in sociolinguistic explanation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 39, 73 87. Grundy, P. (1995). Doing Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold. Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237257. Gudykunst, W. B. (Ed.). (1983). Intercultural communication theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gudykunst, W. B. & Nishida, T. (1986). The influence of cultural variability on perceptions of communication behavior associated with relationship terms. Human Communication Research, 13, 147166. Gudykunst, W. B., Yoon, Y. & Nishida, T. (1987). The influence of individualismcollectivism on perceptions of communication in ingroup and outgroup relationships. Communication Monographs, 54, 295306. Haberland, H. & Mey, J. L. (1977). Editorial: Linguistics and pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 1, 112. Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books. Hashimoto, Y. & Intercultural Communication Study Group. (1992). Enkyokuteki communication Houryaku no Ibunkakan Hikaku. [Euphemistic Communication Strategy: Cross-cultural Studies on Indirect Speech Acts] Tokyo University Shakai Jouhou Kenkyujo Chousa Kenkyu Kiyou, 1, 107159. Hatch, E. & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator. London: Longman. Haverkate, H. (1988). Politeness strategies in verbal interaction: An analysis of directness and indirectness in speech acts. Semiotica, 71, 5971. Held, G. (1992). Politeness in linguistic research. In Watts, R., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 131 153). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hervey, S. & Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking Translation: A Course in Translation Method: French-English. London: Routledge.

233

Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A. & Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347371. Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of Advice: DCT and Multiple Choice Data. Applied Linguistics, 18 (1), 126. Hinnenkamp, V. (1995). Intercultural communication. In Verschueren, J., stman, J. & Blommaert, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics Supplement (pp. 120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ho, D. Y. E. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81 (4), 867 884. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19 (1), 155199. Holtgraves, T. M. (1984). The role of direct and indirect speech acts in social interaction. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Nevada Reno. Holtgraves, T. (1986). Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 305313. Holtgraves, T., Srull, T. K. & Socall, D. (1989). Conversation memory: The effects of speaker status on memory for the assertiveness of conversation remarks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (2), 149160. Holtgraves, T. & Yang, J. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (4), 719729. Holtgraves, T. (1991). Interpreting questions and replies: Effects of face-threat, question form and gender. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 1524. Holtgraves, T. & Yang, J. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 246256. Hoppe-Graff, S., Herrmann, T., Winterhoff-Spurk, P. & Mangold, R. (1985). Speech and situation: A general model for the process of speech production. In Forgas, J. P. (Ed.), Language and social situation (pp. 8195). New York/Berlin: Springer Verlag. Hori, M. (1986). Teinei de arukoto to Being Polite no Sa. [The difference between Teinei de arukoto and Being Polite] Paper presented at JACET Annual Meeting, September, 1986. Horn, L. R. (1992). Pragmatics, implicature, and presupposition. In William, B. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics (pp. 260266). Oxford: Oxford University Press. House, J. (1988). Oh excuse me please: Apologizing in a foreign language. In Kettemann, B., Bierbaumer, P., Fill, A. & Karpf, A. (Eds.), Englisch als Zweitsprache (pp. 303327). Tbingen: Narr. House, J. (1989). Politeness in English and German: The Functions of Please and Bitte. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:

234

Requests and Apologies (pp. 96119). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. House, J. & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness Markers in English and German. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech (pp. 157185). The Hague: Mouton Publishers. Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of face. American Anthropologist, 46 (1), 45 64. Hymes, D. H. (1986). Discourse: Scope without depth. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 57, 4989. Ide, S. (1982). Japanese Sociolinguistics Politeness and Womens Language. Lingua, 57, 357385. Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8 (2/3), 223248. Ide, S., Hill, B., Carnes, Y. M., Ogino, T. & Kawasaki, A. (1992). The concept of politeness: An empirical study of American English and Japanese. In Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 281297). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ikuta, S. (1997). Politeness no Ronri. [A theory of politeness] Gengo, 26 (6), 6671. Iwahara, S. (1965). Kyouiku to Shinri notameno Suikeigaku. [Stochastics for Education and Psychology] Tokyo: Nihon Bunka Kagakusha. Iwao, S. (1990). Recent changes in Japanese attitudes. In Romberg, A. D. & Yamamoto, T. (Eds.), Same bed, different dreams: American and Japanese Societies in transition (pp. 4166). New York: Council for Foreign Relations. Janney, R. W. & Arndt, H. (1992). Intracultural tact versus intercultural tact. In Watts, R. J., Ide, S. & Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 2141). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Janney, R. W. & Arndt, H. (1993). Universality and relativity in cross-cultural politeness research: A historical perspective. Multilingua, 12 (1), 1350. Jary, M. (1998). Relevance theory and the communication of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 119. Johnston, B., Kasper, G. & Ross, S. (1998). Effect of Rejoinders in Production Questionnaires. Applied Linguistics, 19 (2), 157182. Kasher, A. (1976). Conversational Maxims and Rationality. In Kasher, A. (Ed.), Language in Focus: Foundations, Methods and Systems (pp. 197216). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company. Kasher, A. (1986). Politeness and Rationality. In Johansen, J. D. & Sonne, H. (Eds.), Pragmatics and Linguistics: Festschrift for Jacob L. Mey on his 60th Birthday 30th October 1986 (pp. 103114). Odense: Odense University Press. Kasper, G. (1989). Variation in interlanguage speech act realisation. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Discourse & Pragmatics (pp. 3758). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic Politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 193218. Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991). Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13 (2), 215247.

235

Kasper, G. (1994). Politeness. In Asher, R. E. & Simpson, J. M. Y. (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 32063211). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Katriel, T. (1986). Talking straight: Dugri speech in Israeli Sabra culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keenan, E. (1973). The universality of conversational implicatures. In Fasold, R. W. (Ed.), Variation in the Form and Use of Language (pp. 234247). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press. Keenan, E. (1976). The universality of conversational postulates. Language in Society, 5, 6780. Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitibasi, ., Choi, S. & Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994a). Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitibasi, ., Choi, S. & Yoon, G. (1994b). Introduction. In Kim, U. et al. (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (pp. 111). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Kingwell, M. (1993). Is it Rational to be Polite? Journal of Philosophy, 90 (8), 387404. Kitade, R. (1993). Nihonjin no Taijin Kankei to Communication. [Interpersonal Relations of the Japanese and Communication] In Hashimoto, M. and Ishii, S. (Eds.), Nihonjin no communication (pp. 2354). Tokyo: Kirihara Shoten. Kitao, K. and Kitao, S. K. (1988). PolitenessNingen Kankei o Ijisuru Communication Shudan. [PolitenessMeans of Communication to Maintain Human Relationship] Nihongogaku, 7 (3), 5263. Kluckhohn, F. R. & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in Value Orientations. New York: Peterson. Kochman, T. (1984). The politics of politeness: Social warrants in mainstream American public etiquette. In Schiffrin, D. (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1984 (pp. 200209). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press. Koike, D. A. (1994). Negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests: Mitigating effects? Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 513526. Kopytko, R. (1995). Against rationalistic pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 475 491. Kroger, R. O. & Wood, L. A. (1992). Are the rules of address universal? IV: Comparison of Chinese, Korean, Greek and German usage. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 148162. Kumar, I. & Sah, P. (1994). Why are we polite? International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23, 121129. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your ps & qs. In The ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292305). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Lakoff, R. (1974). What you can do with words: politeness, pragmatics, and performatives. Berkeley studies in syntax and semantics, 1(XVI), 155. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and womans place. New York: Harper & Row. Lakoff, R. (1977). Politeness, pragmatics and performatives. In Rogers, A., Wall, B. & Murphy, J. P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives,

236

Presupposition and Implicatures (pp. 79106). Washington D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Lakoff, R. (1984). The pragmatics of subordination. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 481492. Lakoff, R. & Tannen, D. (1979). Communicative strategies in conversation: The case of Scenes from a marriage. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 5, 581592. Lebra, T. S. & Lebra, W. P. (1974). Japanese Culture and Behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese Patterns of Behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Lee-Wong, S. M. (1994). Imperatives in Requests: Direct or impolite Observations from Chinese. Pragmatics, 4 (4), 491515. Leichty, G. & Applegate, J. L. (1991). Social-cognitive and situational influences on the use of face-saving persuasive strategies. Human Communication Research, 17 (3), 451484. Leech, G. N. (1980). Explorations in semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Leech, G. N. & Thomas, J. (1990). Language, Meaning and Context: Pragmatics. In Collinge, N. E. (Ed.), An Encyclopedia of Language (pp. 173206). London/New York: Routledge. Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of collective avoidance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 125136. Levinson, S. (1981). The Essential Inadequacies of Speech Act Models of Dialogue. In Parret, H., Sbis, M. & Verschueren, J. (Eds.), Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics (pp. 473489). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lim, T. & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework, solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17 (3), 415450. LoCastro, V. (1987). Aizuchi: A Japanese Conversational Routine. In Smith, L. E. (Ed.), Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes (pp. 101113). New York: Prentice Hall. LoCastro, V. (1990). Intercultural Pragmatics: A Japanese-American Case Study. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Lancaster. Loveday, L. (1983). Rhetoric patterns in conflict: The socio-cultural relativity of discourseorganizing processes. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 169190. Lustig, M. W. & King, S. (1980). The effect of communication apprehension and situation on communication strategy choices. Human Communication Research, 7, 7482. Lustig, M. W. (1988). Value Differences in Intercultural Communication. In Samovar, L. A. & Porter, R. E. (Eds.), Intercultural Communication: A Reader (pp. 5561). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G. & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In Neu, J. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 155187). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Maher, J. C. & Yashiro, K. (1995). Multilingual Japan: An Introduction. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 16, (1) & (2), 117.

237

Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: Face revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451486. March, R. M. (1992). Working for a Japanese Company: Insights into the Multicultural Workplace. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224253. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japan. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403426. Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8 (2/3), 207221. McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J. & OHair, H. D. (1983). The management of failure events: Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication Research, 9 (3), 208224. Mead, R. (1994). International Management: Cross-Cultural Dimensions. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Meier, A. (1992). Brown & Levinsons Legacy of Politeness. Views, 1 (1), 1535. Meier, A. J. (1995). Passages of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 381392. Meier, A. J. (1996). Two cultures mirrored in repair work. Multilingua, 15 (2), 149 169. Meier, A. J. (1997). Teaching the universals of politeness. ELT Journal, 51 (1), 2128. Mey, J. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Mey, J. (1994). Pragmatics. In Asher, R. E. & Simpson, J. M. Y. (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 32603278). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Minami, H. (1994). Nihonjinron: Meiji kara Konnichi made. [The Japanese: From Meiji period to the present] Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Miyoshi, M. (1991). Off Center: Power and Culture Relations Between Japan and the United States. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Mizutani, O. & Mizutani, N. (1987). How to be polite in Japanese. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Moeran, B. (1988). Japanese Language and Society: An Anthropological Approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 427443. Morgan, J. L. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 9. Pragmatics (pp. 261280). New York: Academic Press. Morisaki, S. & Gudykunst, W. B. (1994). Face in Japan and the United States. In TingToomey, S. (Ed.), The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues (pp. 4793). Albany: State University of New York Press. Nakane, C. (1967). Tate Shakai no Ningen Kankei: Tanitsu Shakai no Riron. [Personal relations in a vertical society: A theory of homogeneous society] Tokyo: Kodansha. Nakane, C. (1970). Japanese Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Nakane, C. (1972). Tekioo no Jooken. [Conditions of Adjustments] Tokyo: Kodansha. Nomura, N. & Barnlund, D. (1983). Patterns of interpersonal criticism in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 118. Nwoye, O. G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 309328. Ogasawara, R. (1972). Nichibei no Bunka to Kotoba Joron. In Miyauchi Hideo Kyoju Kanreki Ronbunshu Henshuu Iinkai (Ed.), Nichibei no Kotoba to Bunka [Contras-

238

tive Studies of Japanese and English Language and Cultures] (pp. 1328). Tokyo: Sanseido. Okabe, R. (1983). Cultural Assumptions of East and West: Japan and the United States. In Gudykunst, W. B. (Ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory: Current Perspectives (pp. 2144). Beverly Hills: Sage. Oleksy, W. (Ed.) (1989). Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Olshtain, E. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: Nonnative reaction to native speech act behaviour. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input and Second language acquisition (pp. 303325). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Olshtain, E. & Weinbach, L. (1987). Complaints: A study of speech act behavior among native and non-native speakers of Hebrew. In Verschueren, J. & BertucelliPapi, M. (Eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective (pp. 195208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across languages. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 155173). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Penman, R. (1994). Facework in Communication: Conceptual and Moral Challenges. In Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.), The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues (pp. 1545). Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Pilegaard, M. (1997). Politeness in written business discourse: A textlinguistic perspective on requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 223244. Putnis, P. (1993). Cultural Generalizations: Help or Hindrance? In Boswood, T., Hoffman, R. & Tung, P. (Eds.), Perspectives on English for Professional Communication (pp. 3753). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Pyle, C. (1975). The function of indirectness. Paper read at N-Wave IV. Georgetown University, Washington, D. C. Rasmussen, G. (1997). Review of Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics by Thomas. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 253261. Riley, P. (1989). Well dont blame me! On the interpretation of pragmatic errors. In Oleksy, W. (Ed.), Contrastive Pragmatics (pp. 231249). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rintell, E. (1981). Sociolinguistic variation and pragmatic ability: A look at learners. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 1134. Rintell, E. M. & Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into method. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.),Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 248272). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Roberts, C. & Sarangi, S. (1993). Culture revisited in intercultural communication. In Boswood, T., Hoffman, R. & Tung, P. (Eds.), Perspectives on English for Professional Communication (pp. 97114). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Robinson, G. L. N. (1988). Crosscultural Understanding. New York: Prentice Hall. Rose, K. R. (1992). Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 4962. Rose, K. R. (1994). On the Validity of Discourse Completion Tests in Non-Western Contexts. Applied Linguistics, 15 (1), 114. Rose, K. R. & Ono, R. (1995). Eliciting Speech Act Data in Japanese: The Effect of Questionnaire Type. Language Learning, 45 (2), 191223.

239

Ruuskanen, D. D. K. (1996). The Effect of Pragmatic Factors on the Definitions of Equivalence in Translation. In Jaszczolt, K. & Turner, K. (Eds.), Contrastive Semantics and Pragmatics Volume II: Discourse Strategies (pp. 883895). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Sakamoto, N. & Naotsuka, R. (1982). Polite fictions: Why Japanese and Americans seem rude to each other. Tokyo: Kinseido. Samovar, L. A. & Porter, R. E. (Eds.). (1988). Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Sarangi, S. K. &. Slembrouck, S. (1992). Non-cooperation in communication: A reassessment of Gricean pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 117154. Sarangi, S. (1995). Culture. In Verschueren, J., stman, J. & Blommaert, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics Supplement (pp. 130). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sasagawa, Y. (1994a). Ibunkakan ni mirareru teineisa no rule no hikaku 9 gengo hikaku chosa data no saibunseki kara . [A comparison of politeness rules in crosscultures from the reanalysis of the data of 9 languages] Ibunkakan Kyouiku, 8, 4458. Sasagawa, Y. (1994b). Hatsugobaikaikoui no saikou Nihonjin no communication niokeru hatsugobaikaikoui no imi . [Reconsideration of perlocutionary act The meaning of perlocutionary act in Japanese communication] Mass Communication Kenkyu, 44, 5871. Sasagawa, Y. (1995). Cultural Studies on Politeness: A view from face-work. International Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 125. Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays.Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457484. Sbis, M. (1992). Review of Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies by Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.). Journal of Pragmatics, 17 (3), 267 274. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Individualism-Collectivism: Critique and Proposed Refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21 (2), 139157. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. B. K. (1983). Face in interethnic communication. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 156186). London: Longman. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Searle, J. R. (1965). What Is a Speech Act? In Black, M. (Ed.), Philosophy in America (pp. 221239). Reprinted in Davis, S. (Ed.), (1991), Pragmatics: A Reader (pp. 254 264). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 5982). New York: Academic Press. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shweder, R. A. & Boune, E. J. (1984). Does the concept of the person vary crossculturally? In Shweder, R. A. & Levine, R. A. (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self and emotion (pp. 158199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sifianou, M. (1987). Politeness Markers in Greek and in English. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Reading.

240

Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sifianou, M. (1993). Off-record indirectness and the notion of imposition. Multilingua, 12 (1), 6979. Sifianou, M. (1995a). Indirectness and politeness: The case of English and Greek. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, Department of Linguistic Science, The University of Reading, 2, 241253. Sifianou, M. (1995b). Do we need to be silent to be extremely polite? Silence and FTAs. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (1), 95110. Sifianou, M. (1997). Silence and politeness. In Jaworski, A. (Ed.), Silence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 6384). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Simons, G. F., Vazques, C. & Harris, P. R. (1993). Transcultural Leadership: Empowering the Diverse Workforce. Houston: Gulf. Slugoski, B. & Turnbull, W. (1988). Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter, and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7 (2), 101121. Smith, P. B. (1996). National cultures and the values of organizational employees: Time for another look. In Joynt, P. & Warner, M. (Eds.), Managing Across Cultures: Issues and Perspectives (pp. 92102). London: International Thomson Business Press. Smith, P. B. & Bond, M. H. (1993). Social Psychology Across Cultures. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Spencer-Oatey, H. (1992). Cross-cultural politeness: British and Chinese conceptions of the tutor-student relationship. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Lancaster. Spencer-Oatey, H. (1993). Conceptions of social relations and pragmatic research. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 2747. Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 124. Stenstrm, A. (1994). An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman. Suzuki, K. (1985). Kikubari no susume. Tokyo: Kodansha. Suzuki, M. (1989). Kikite no Shiteki Ryouiki to Teinei Hyougen Nihongo no Teineisa wa ikanishite naritatsuka . [Hearers private territory and politeness expressions How is it possible to be polite in Japanese?] Nihongogaku, 8 (2), 5867. Tabakowska, E. (1989). Lexical markers of subjective modality and translation equivalence in English and Polish. Multilingua, 8 (1), 2136. Takahashi, S. (1987). A contrastive study of indirectness exemplified in L1 directive speech acts performed by Americans and Japanese. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Takahashi, T. & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The developmental of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131155. Tanaka, S. & Kawade, S. (1982). Politeness Strategies and Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5 (1), 1833. Tannen, D. (1981). Indirectness in Discourse: Ethnicity as Conversation Style. Discourse Processes, 4, 221238. Tannen, D. (1985). Cross-Cultural Communication. In van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Discourse Analysis in Society (pp. 203215). London: Academic Press. Tarone, E. & Yule, G. (1987). Communication strategies in East-West Interaction. In

241

Smith, L. E. (Ed.), Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes (pp. 4965). New York: Prentice Hall. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91112. Thomas, J. (1984). Cross-cultural discourse as unequal encounter: towards a pragmatic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 5, 226235. Thomas, J. (1994). Cooperative Principle. In Asher, R. E. & Simpson, J. M. Y. (Eds.), An Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 759762). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman. Thomason, R. H. (1990). Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M. E. (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 325363). Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press. Ting-Toomey, S. (1989). Identity and Interpersonal Bonding. In Asante, K. M. & Gudykunst, W. B. (Eds.), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication (pp. 351373). Newbury Park: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. & Cocroft, B. (1994). Face and Facework: Theoretical and Research Issues. In Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.), The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues (pp. 307340). Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Tracy, K., Craig., R. T., Smith, M. & Spisak, F. (1984). The Discourse of Requests: Assessment of a Compliance-Gaining Approach. Human Communication Research, 10 (4), 513538. Triandis, H., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, L., Bond, M., Leung, K., Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui, H., Martin, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J., Verma, J., Spangenberg, J., Touzard, H., & Montmollin, G. (1986). The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 257267. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing psychological context. Psychological Review, 96, 506520. Triandis, H. C. (1994a). Culture and social behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill. Triandis, H. C. (1994b). Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to the Study of Collectivism and Individualism. In Kim, U. et al. (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (pp. 4151). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Ltd. Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/nonnatives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 147167. Tsunoda, T. (1985). The Japanese Brain: Uniqueness and Universality. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten. Tsuruta, Y., Rossiter, P. & Coulton, T. (1988). Eigo no Social Skill: Politeness Systems in English and Japanese. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten. Turner, K. (1995). The principal principles of pragmatic inference: co-operation. Language Teaching, 28, 6776. Turner, K. (1996). The principal principles of pragmatic inference: politeness. Language Teaching, 29, 113.

242

Turner, K. (1997). Semantics vs. Pragmatics. In Verschueren, J., stman, J. & Blommaert, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, 1997 Supplement (pp. 123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Veltman, F. (1994). Inference. In Asher, R. E. & Simpson, J. M. Y. (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 16701671). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Verschueren, J.,stman, J. & Blommaert, J. (1995). Handbook of Pragmatics Manual. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold. Vollmer, H. J. & Olshtain, E. (1989). The language of apologies in German. In BlumKulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 197218). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Walters, J. (1979). Strategies for requesting in Spanish and English: Structural similarities and pragmatic differences. Language Learning, 29 (2), 277293. Watts, R. J. (1989). Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua, 8 (23), 131166. Watts, R. J. (1992). Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In Watts, R., Ide, S. & Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp. 4369). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, R., Ide, S. & Ehlich, K. (1992a). Introduction. In Watts, R., Ide, S. & Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp. 1 17). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, R., Ide, S. & Ehlich, K. (Eds.). (1992b). Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Weizman, E. (1985). Towards an analysis of opaque utterances. Theoretical Linguistics, 12, 153163. Weizman, E. (1989). Requestive Hints. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 7195). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Weizman, E. (1993). Interlanguage Requestive Hints. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 123137). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Werkhofer, K. T. (1992). Traditional and modern views: The social constitution and the power of politeness. In Watts, R. J., Ide, S. & Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in Language (pp. 155199). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wetzel, P. J. (1985). In-Group/Out-Group Deixis: Situational Variation in the Verbs of Giving and Receiving in Japanese. In Forgas, J. P. (Ed.), Language and Social Situations (pp. 141157). Berlin: Springer Verlag. Wetzel, P. J. (1993). The language of vertical relationships and linguistic analysis. Multilingua, 12 (4), 387406. Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T. & Bond, M. H. (1989). Collectivism-individualism in everyday social life: The middle kingdom and the melting pot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 7986. White, R. V. (1993). Saying please: Pragmalinguistic failure in English interaction. ELT Journal, 47 (3), 193202. White, R. V. (1994). Inter-cultural Communication & Training. Unpublished manuscript.

243

Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145198. Wierzbicka, A. (1986). Does language reflect culture? Evidence from Australian English. Language in Society, 15, 349373. Wierzbicka, A. (1991a). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wierzbicka, A. (1991b). Japanese key words and core cultural values. Language in Society, 20, 333385. Wierzbicka, A. (1994a). Cultural scripts: A semantic approach to cultural analysis and cross cultural communication. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 5, 124. Wierzbicka, A. (1994b). Cultural scripts: A new approach to the study of cross-cultural communication. In Ptz, M. (Ed.), Language Contact and Language Conflict (pp. 6787). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Winterhoff-Spurk, P., Herrmann, T. & Weindrich, D. (1986). Requesting rewards: A study of distributive justice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5 (1), 1331. Wolfson, N. (1983). Rules of speaking. In Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 6189). New York: Longman. Wolfson, N. (1988). The Bulge: A Theory of Speech Behavior and Social Distance. In Fine, J. (Ed.), Second Language Discourse: A Textbook of Current Research (pp. 2138). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Wolfson, N., Marmor, T. & Jones, S. (1989). Problems in the Comparison of Speech Acts Across Cultures. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), CrossCultural Pragmatics: Requests & Apologies (pp. 174196). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Wood, L. A. & Kroger, R. O. (1991). Politeness and forms of address. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10 (3), 145168. Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A Perspective from the Self. In Kim, U. et al. (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (pp. 175188). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Yamazaki, T. (1997a). Ayamari no Shoso Nichibei Koukousei no Gengo Koudou Hikaku Kenkyu. [Various Aspects of Apology A comparative study on linguistic behaviours by Japanese and American high school students] Paper presented at 6th Shakai Gengogaku Kenkyukai at Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyujo in Tokyo, January, 1997. Yamazaki, T. (1997b). Yamazaki to Fukushima. Letter dated 18th September, 1997. Yang, K. S. (1988). Will societal modernisation eventually eliminate cross-cultural psychological differences? In Bond, M. H. (Ed.), The Cross-Cultural Challenge to Social Psychology (pp. 6785). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yeung, L. N. T. (1997). Polite requests in English and Chinese business correspondence in Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 505522. Yoshida, T. (1994). Interpersonal Versus Non-Interpersonal Realities: An Effective Tool Individualists Can Use to Better Understand Collectivists. In Brislin, R. W. & Yoshida, T. (Eds.), Improving Intercultural Interactions: Modules for Cross-Cultural Training Programs (pp. 243267). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Young, L. (1994). Crosstalk and Culture in Sino-American Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

244

Appendices

Appendix 1. Graphs
1.1. Graphs of Requesting Strategies
100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

1
British Japanese

3 1 = direct requests 2 = conventionally indirect requests 3 = off-record requests

1.1.1. Requesting Strategies in Situation 1 245

100.00% 100.00%

1.1.2. Data
90.00% 90.00%

80.00% 80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00% 70.00%

60.00% 60.00%

50.00% 50.00%

40.00% 40.00%

30.00% 30.00%

20.00% 20.00%

10.00% 10.00%

0.00% 0.00%

3 1 = direct requests 2 = conventionally indirect requests 3 = off-record requests

British

Japanese

1.1.2. Requesting Strategies in Situation 2

246

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = direct requests 2 = conventionally indirect requests 3 = off-record requests

British

Japanese

1.1.3. Requesting Strategies in Situation 3

247

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = direct requests 2 = conventionally indirect requests 3 = off-record requests

British

Japanese

1.1.4. Requesting Strategies in Situation 4

248

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = direct requests 2 = conventionally indirect requests 3 = off-record requests

British

Japanese

1.1.5. Requesting Strategies in Situation 5

249

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = direct requests 2 = conventionally indirect requests 3 = off-record requests

British

Japanese

1.1.6. Requesting Strategies in Situation 6

250

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = direct requests 2 = conventionally indirect requests 3 = off-record requests

British

Japanese

1.1.7. Requesting Strategies in Situation 7

251

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = direct requests 2 = conventionally indirect requests 3 = off-record requests

British

Japanese

1.1.8. Requesting Strategies in Situation 8

252

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = direct requests 2 = conventionally indirect requests 3 = off-record requests

British

Japanese

1.1.9. Requesting Strategies in In-group

253

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = direct requests 2 = conventionally indirect requests 3 = off-record requests

British

Japanese

1.1.10. Requesting Strategies in Out-group

254

1.2. Graphs of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = demonstrating solicitousness 2 = taking an alternative means 3 = refusing a request

British

Japanese

1.2.1. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests in Situation 1

255

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = demonstrating solicitousness 2 = taking an alternative means 3 = refusing a request

British

Japanese

1.2.2. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests in Situation 2

256

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = demonstrating solicitousness 2 = taking an alternative means 3 = refusing a request

British

Japanese

1.2.3. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests in Situation 3

257

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = demonstrating solicitousness 2 = taking an alternative means 3 = refusing a request

British

Japanese

1.2.4. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests in Situation 4

258

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = demonstrating solicitousness 2 = taking an alternative means 3 = refusing a request

British

Japanese

1.2.5. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests in Situation 5

259

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = demonstrating solicitousness 2 = taking an alternative means 3 = refusing a request

British

Japanese

1.2.6. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests in Situation 6

260

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = demonstrating solicitousness 2 = taking an alternative means 3 = refusing a request

British

Japanese

1.2.7. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests in Situation 7

261

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

Strategy Choice Distribution

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

3 1 = demonstrating solicitousness 2 = taking an alternative means 3 = refusing a request

British

Japanese

1.2.8. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests in Situation 8

262

Appendix 2. Questionnaires in English

2.1. Questionnaire for the Pilot Study
RESEARCH INTO INTER-DISCOURSAL COMMUNICATION Name (Optional): Male Age: (circle one) Country of Birth: Nationality: Ethnicity: (circle one) Female 18-20 21-23 24-29 30-39 40-49 50+

White Black Caribbean Black African Black Other Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Chinese Asian Other Other (say what): Unwilling to provide information about Ethnicity

Where you have lived longest in the past 10 years: Would you please read the following nine situations carefully and tick a box, circle a number, or write your response, as directed. Each situation consists of Part A, Part B and Part C. In Part A, you will be asked about (1) the power difference; (2) the social distance; and (3) the imposition. Here are some examples of each. (1) The power difference between strangers may be small, but the power difference between a principal and a student may be big. (2) The social distance among family members may be small, but the social distance between strangers may be big. (3) The imposition on Y may be low if X asks Y for something free or a favour which requires little time or effort, but the imposition on Y may be 263

high if X asks Y for something precious or for a favour which will take time and effort.

Situation 1 X is a post graduate student. This is the second year of Xs course. X is going home tomorrow by air. In order to go to the airport, X needs transport. Last year when departing, X ordered a taxi. But the taxi did not come at the time X ordered. In danger of missing the flight, X phoned the tutor, Y, who lives quite close to the hall of residence, and Y gave X a lift to the airport. Thanks to Ys help, X caught the flight. It is a year later. X will be leaving for home tomorrow, Saturday, and is worried about getting to the airport, as X is not confident about the reliability of the local taxi service in view of last years experience. Part A 1. How do you perceive the power difference between X and Y? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. How do you perceive the social distance between X and Y? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How do you perceive the imposition on Y, if Y gives X a lift ? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 being high. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

264

Part B X is talking to the tutor. You are X. What do you do? Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. Im flying back home tomorrow. Since I had some problems getting a taxi last year, please give me a lift to the airport. 2. Im flying back home tomorrow. Since I had some problems getting a taxi last year, could you give me a lift to the airport? 3. Im flying back home tomorrow. Last year I had some problems getting a taxi to go to the airport. 4. You would not make a request in this situation. 5. Other (write what): Part C You are Y, the tutor. How would you respond if X said the following: Last year I had some problems getting a taxi to go to the airport. Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Shall I give you a lift to the airport? Oh, yes. You had some problems with the taxi, didnt you? Say nothing. Change the subject. Other (write what):

Situation 2 X is a post graduate student. X came from overseas to study at University of Reading, having purchased a computer, Macintosh, and a printer. Unfortunately, X cannot get the printer started, having tried to solve the problem by buying another transformer and by changing the cartridge of the printer. Despite all Xs efforts, the printer will not work. Since X has to submit a number of papers, X is in trouble. Xs tutor, Y, also uses a Macintosh with a printer. 265

Part A 1. How do you perceive the power difference between X and Y? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. How do you perceive the social distance between X and Y? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How do you perceive the imposition on Y, if Y prints out Xs floppy disk? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 being high. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B The tutor tells X to submit a paper by next week. You are X. What do you do? Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. I cant get my printer to work. I will bring my floppy disk. Please print it out for me. 2. I cant get my printer to work. If I brought my floppy disk, could you print it out for me? 3. I cant get my printer to work. 4. You would not make a request in this situation. 5. Other (write what):

266

Part C You are Y, the tutor. How would you respond if X said the following: I cant get my printer to work. Choose one of the following by circling the number, and if necessary, writing the response. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. If you will bring me your floppy disk, I will print it out for you. Oh, thats annoying. Say nothing. Change the subject. Other (write what):

Situation 3 X is a post graduate student. Xs tutor, Y, recommended X a book which would be helpful for Xs research. X went to the university library, but the library did not have the book in question. X noticed the book in Ys office. Y is not using the book at the moment. Part A 1. How do you perceive the power difference between X and Y? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. How do you perceive the social distance between X and Y? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

267

3. How do you perceive the imposition on Y, if Y lends Ys book to X ? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 being high. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B X is in Ys office the next day. You are X. What do you do? Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. I couldnt find the book you recommended me yesterday in the library. If you are not using your copy, please lend it to me. I will return it next week. 2. I couldnt find the book you recommended me yesterday in the library. If you are not using your copy, could you lend it to me? Ill return it next week. 3. I couldnt find the book you recommended me yesterday in the library. 4. You would not make a request in this situation. 5. Other (write what): Part C You are Y, the tutor. How would you respond if X said the following: I couldnt find the book you recommended me yesterday in the library. Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Shall I lend you my copy? Oh, is that so? Say nothing. Change the subject. Other (write what):

268

Situation 4 X is a student at University of Reading. X is not originally from Reading and lives in a university students hall. Xs parents send X some money every month, but this months money has not arrived yet. X is short of money. W is one of Xs classmates. X and W often eat their lunch together at a university canteen. Part A 1. How do you perceive the power difference between X and W? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. How do you perceive the social distance between X and W? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How do you perceive the imposition on W, if W lends X some money to pay for lunch? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 being high. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B W asks X if they can have lunch together today. X would like to have lunch with W, but X does not have enough money. You are X. What do you do? Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 269

1. Since the money my parents sent me has not arrived yet, I am short of money. Please lend me some money so that I can pay for lunch. I will pay you back as soon as I receive the money from my parents. 2. Since the money my parents sent me has not arrived yet, I am short of money. Could you lend me some money so that I can pay for lunch? I will pay you back as soon as I receive the money from my parents. 3. The money my parents sent me has not arrived yet. 4. You would not make a request in this situation. 5. Other (write what): Part C You are W, Xs classmate. How would you respond if X said the following: The money my parents sent me hasnt arrived yet. Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Shall I lend you some money? Oh, is that so? Say nothing. Change the subject. Other (write what):

Situation 5 X lives in a self-catering university students hall. X has been ill and has not been grocery shopping for two weeks. X is running out of food. X wants to have some bread and milk, but X is still not feeling well. V is Xs next door neighbour in the hall. V is about to go shopping. Part A 1. How do you perceive the status difference between X and V? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big.

270

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

2. How do you perceive the social distance between X and V? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How do you perceive the imposition on V, if V gets some bread and milk for X? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 being high. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B X and V are in the common kitchen in a hall. V is about to go shopping. You are X. What do you do? Choose one of the following by circling the number, and if necessary, writing the response. 1. I have run out of bread and milk. Im still not feeling well. Please get me some bread and milk. 2. I have run out of bread and milk. Im still not feeling well. Could you get me some bread and milk? 3. I have run out of bread and milk. 4. You would not make a request in this situation. 5. Other (write what): Part C You are V, Xs next door neighbour in the same students hall. How would you respond if X said the following: I have run out of bread and milk.

271

Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Shall I get some bread and milk for you? Oh, is that so? Say nothing. Change the subject. Other (write what):

Situation 6 X lives in a self-catering university students hall. X is cooking in the common kitchen, but discovers that there is no salt left. V, Xs next door neighbour in the hall is also cooking in the kitchen. Part A 1. How do you perceive the status difference between X and V? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. How do you perceive the social distance between X and V? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How do you perceive the imposition on V, if V gives X some salt? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 being high. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

272

Part B The dish X is cooking certainly needs some salt. You are X. What do you do? Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ive run out of salt. Please lend me some. Ive run out of salt. Could you lend me some? Ive run out of salt. You would not make a request in this situation. Other (write what):

Part C You are V, Xs next door neighbour in the hall. How would you respond if X said the following: Ive run out of salt. Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Here, you can use mine. Oh, really? Say nothing. Change the subject. Other (write what):

Situation 7 X is an overseas student at University of Reading. X is going home to collect data for Xs thesis. X has finished packing. Xs suitcase weighs more than 20 kg, which is the weight limit, because X has so many materials for data collection. Y is Xs tutor. X and Y have a common friend, Z, in Xs country. Y has some gifts for Z. One of the gifts is quite a thick book.

273

Part A 1. How do you perceive the power difference between X and Y? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. How do you perceive the social distance between X and Y? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How do you perceive the imposition on X, if X carries Ys gifts and delivers them to Z? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 being high. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B X came to Ys office to say good-bye. You are Y. What do you do? Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I have some gifts for Z. Please deliver them to Z. I have some gifts for Z. Could you deliver them to Z? I have some gifts for Z. You would not make a request in this situation. Other (write what):

274

Part C You are X, Ys supervisee. How would you respond if Y said the following? I have some gifts for Z. Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Shall I deliver them to Z? Oh, thats nice. Say nothing. Change the subject. Other (write what):

Situation 8 Y is an academic staff member at University of Reading. Y usually cycles to university. X is one of Ys post graduate students. Y lives close to Xs students hall. At five oclock X and Y happen to come out of the department building at the same time. It is pouring with rain. Y didnt bring any waterproof clothing. X is about to go home by car. Part A 1. How do you perceive the power difference between X and Y? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. How do you perceive the social distance between X and Y? Complete the following by ticking the box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

275

3. How do you perceive the imposition on X, if X gives Y a lift home? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 being high. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B You are Y, Xs tutor. You came to the university by bicycle as usual. What do you do? Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. Are you going home? Please give me a lift home. I didnt bring any waterproof clothing. 2. Are you going home? Could you give me a lift home? I didnt bring any waterproof clothing. 3. Are you going home? 4. You would not make a request in this situation. 5. Other (write what): Part C You are X, Ys supervisee. How would you respond if Y said the following: Are you going home? Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Yes. Shall I give you a lift home? Yes, I am. Say nothing. Change the subject. Other (write what):

276

Situation 9 Y is an academic staff member at University of Reading. Y has several students for tutorials. X is one of Ys students. Y has told X to come to see Y at ten oclock next Friday, their regular tutorial time. However, an urgent staff meeting will be held from ten oclock that day. X does not have any class on Friday afternoon. Part A 1. How do you perceive the power difference between X and Y? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. How do you perceive the social distance between X and Y? Complete the following by ticking the box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How do you perceive the imposition on X, if X comes for tutorial some other time? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 being high. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B Today is Thursday. You are Y. What do you do ? Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. Ive just learned that were having a special staff meeting at ten oclock tomorrow, so, please come to see me at two oclock instead of ten. 277

2. Ive just learned that were having a special staff meeting at ten oclock tomorrow, so, could you come to see me at two oclock instead of ten? 3. Ive just learned that were having a special staff meeting at ten oclock tomorrow. 4. You would not make a request in this situation. 5. Other (write what): Part C You are X, Ys supervisee. How would you respond if Y said the following: Ive just learned that were having a special staff meeting at ten oclock tomorrow. Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Shall I come some other time? Oh, is that so? Say nothing. Change the subject. Other (write what):

Thank you very much for your time and co-operation. If you have any comments, would you please write them below.

278

2.2. Questionnaire for Situational Assessment (SA 96)

SITUATIONAL ASSESSMENT ON REQUEST SITUATIONS Name (Optional): Male Age: (circle one) Country of Birth: Nationality: Ethnicity: (circle one) Female 18-20 21-23 24-29 30-39 40-49 50+

White Black Caribbean Black African Black Other Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Chinese Asian Other Other (say what): Unwilling to provide information about Ethnicity

Where you have lived longest in the past 10 years: In this questionnaire, you will be asked to assess the following items in the request described situations below: 1. How natural/authentic is each situation? In other words, is each situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? 2. If you think there is a status difference between the requester (the person who makes requests) and the requestee (the person who is asked to perform the requested act), how big is it? e.g. The status difference among friends may be small, but the status difference between a principal and a student may be big. 3. If you think there is an age difference between the requester and the requestee, how big is it? 4. Do you think that the requester and the requestee are close? e.g. One may feel close to ones family members. One may feel comfortable disclosing oneself with close persons. 279

5. How difficult do you think it is for the requestee to perform the requested act? In other words, do you think the requested act requires a lot of time or effort (psychological or financial) on the part of the requestee?

Situation 1 X is a university student. This is the second year of Xs course. X is going home tomorrow by air. In order to go to the airport, X needs transport. Last year when departing, X ordered a taxi. But the taxi did not come at the time X ordered. In danger of missing the flight, X phoned the tutor, Y, who lives quite close to the hall of residence, and Y gave X a lift to the airport. Thanks to Ys help, X caught the flight. It is a year later. X will be leaving for home tomorrow, Saturday, and is worried about getting to the airport, as X is not confident about the reliability of the local taxi service in view of last years experience. X wants Y to give a lift to the airport. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unusual or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

280

4. Do you think that X and Y are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for Y to give X a lift to the airport? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 2 X is an overseas student who has purchased a Macintosh computer and a printer in Xs country before coming to study here. The voltage is different in two countries, so X has brought a transformer along with the computer and printer set-up. Unfortunately, X cannot get the printer started, even after X bought another transformer and changed the printer cartridge. Despite all Xs efforts, the printer will not work. Since X has to submit a number of papers, X is in trouble. Xs tutor, Y, also uses a Macintosh with a printer. X wants Y to print out the documents on Xs floppy disks. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

281

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and Y are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for Y to print out Xs floppy disks? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 3 X is a university student. Xs tutor, Y, recommended X a book which would be helpful for Xs research. X went to the university library, but the library did not have the book in question. X noticed the book in Ys office. Y is not using the book at the moment. X wants to borrow the book from Y.

282

1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and Y are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for Y to lend Ys copy to X? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

283

Situation 4 X is a university student who lives in a university students hall of residence. Xs parents send X some money every month, but this months money has not arrived yet. X is short of money. W is one of Xs classmates. X and W often eat their lunch together at a university canteen. W suggested having lunch together with X. X wants to do so, but X does not have enough money to pay for the meal. X wants to borrow money for lunch from W. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and W, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and W, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and W are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

284

5. How difficult do you think it is for W to lend X some money? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 5 X lives in a self-catering university students hall of residence. Because X has been ill and has not been grocery shopping for two weeks, X is running out of food. X needs to have some bread and milk, but X is still not feeling well enough to go out shopping. V, who is Xs next door neighbour in the hall, is about to go shopping. X wants to ask V to buy some bread and milk. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and V, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and V, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

285

4. Do you think that X and V are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for V to get some bread and milk for X? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 6 X lives in a self-catering university students hall of residence. X is cooking in the common kitchen, but discovers that there is no salt left. V, Xs next door neighbour in the hall is also cooking in the kitchen. X wants to borrow some salt from V. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and V, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

286

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and V, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and V are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for V to give some salt to X? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 7 X is an overseas student. X, who is going home to collect data, has finished packing. Because X has so many materials for data collection, the suitcase weighs more than 22kg, which is just over the weight limit. Y is Xs tutor. X and Y have a common friend, Z, in Xs country. Y has some gifts for Z. One of the gifts is quite a thick book. Although Y knows that Xs suitcase is already quite heavy, Y wants X to take Ys gifts for Z so as to be sure that the gifts do not get lost. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

287

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and Y are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for X to deliver Ys gifts to Z? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 8 Y is a lecturer. Y usually cycles to university. X is one of Ys students. Y lives close to Xs students hall of residence. At five oclock X and Y happen to come out of the department building at the same time. It is pouring with rain. Y didnt bring any waterproof clothing. X is about to go home by car. Y wants X to give a lift home in Xs car.

288

1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and Y are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for X to give Y a lift home? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

289

Situation 9 Y is a lecturer who has several students for tutorials. X is one of these students. Y has told X to come for a tutorial at ten oclock next Friday, their regular tutorial time. However, an urgent staff meeting will be held from ten oclock that day. X does not have any commitments on Friday afternoon. Y wants X to come at two oclock instead of ten. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and Y are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

290

5. How difficult do you think it is for X to come at two oclock instead of ten? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 10 X is a university student who has recently bought a computer, but could not afford to buy all the software X wanted to have. X knows that Xs tutor, Y, has this software. X wants Y to lend the software to X so that X can copy it. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

291

4. Do you think that X and Y are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for Y to lend Ys software to X? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 11 X is in the last year of a university and intends to go to a graduate school in the United States. X needs a letter of recommendation to submit to a university in the United States. Y has been Xs tutor. X wants Y to write a letter of recommendation for X. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

292

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and Y are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for Y to write a letter of recommendation for X? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 12 X is a university student who belongs to a university guitar club which is going to give a concert soon. X is supposed to phone the club captain about the concert today, but X does not have the captains phone number. P is a senior member of the same club, who is close to the club captain. X wants to ask P to tell X the phone number of the club captain. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

293

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and P, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and P, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and P are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for P to tell X the phone number of the club captain? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 13 X is a university student who works part-time at a shop which is open 24 hours a day. X has become friends with U, who also works at the shop. One night X had to work until three oclock in the morning. X was about to go home, but Xs car would not start. U, who has a car, lives close to the shop. U was not on duty that day and was sleeping at home. X wants U to give X a lift home. 294

1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and U, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and U, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and U are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for U to give X a lift home? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

295

Situation 14 X is a university student who works part-time at a shop. X is supposed to work next Saturday, but X has recently received an invitation to a party which will be held next Saturday. X wants to go to that party. U also works at the same place, but U is not scheduled to work next Saturday. U does not have any commitments that day. X wants U to replace X at work next Saturday. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and U, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and U, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and U are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

296

5. How difficult do you think it is for U to replace X at work? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 15 X is a university student who belongs to a choral club at a university. X has to practice some songs for the concert which will be held soon, and has discovered that W, Xs classmate, happens to have a CD of those songs. X wants to borrow Ws CD. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and W, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and W, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

297

4. Do you think that X and W are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for W to lend Ws CD to X? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 16 T runs a shop and hires some students as part-time workers. X is a university student who works part-time at Ts shop. T needs some more people to work for T just for this coming Saturday. Today is Wednesday. T wants X to find at least five people who can work on Saturday. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and T, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

298

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and T, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and T are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for X to find five people who can work for T on Saturday? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 17 Y is a lecturer who had to rush to a class, and forgot to pick up the printed materials which Y asked the departmental to photocopy. X is one of Ys supervisees who attends Ys class. Y wants X to pick up the printed materials from the secretary. 1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

299

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and Y are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for X to pick up the printed materials from the secretary? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Situation 18 X is a university student who belongs to a university basketball club. S, captain of the club, is senior to X. They are going to have a match with another university next month. They have to get in touch with some members of the other universitys basketball club. S wants X to phone some members of the other universitys basketball club. 300

1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situation likely to occur in reality in your culture? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural or common in your culture, 5 being unnatural or rare in your culture. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a status difference between X and S, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. If you think there is an age difference between X and S, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4. Do you think that X and S are close? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5 being not close. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for X to phone some members of a basketball club of the other university? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being easy, 5 being difficult. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. If you have any comments, would you please write them below. 301

2.3. Questionnaire for the Main Study

Questionnaire on Request Situations Name: Sex: Male Female Age: Country of Birth: Nationality: Where you have lived longest in the past 10 years: This questionnaire will ask you about request situations. It consists of three parts. In each part, there are two people involved: 1. The requester, who is the person making the request. 2. The requestee, who is the person being asked to carry out the requested act. In Part A, you will be asked to assess the following items in the described request situations. 1. If you think there is a power difference between the requester and the requestee, how big is it? The power difference may be related to the relative status, role or age of the parties. e.g. The status difference between friends will usually be small, compared with that between a teacher and a student. 2. If you think there is a social distance between the requester and the requestee, how big is it? Social distance is related to the degree of closeness or familiarity between the parties. e.g. The relationship between friends will usually be close compared with that between people who are not friends. 3. How great an imposition do you think the requested act will be on the requestee? The imposition may be high if the requested act requires a lot of time or effort on the part of the requestee or will be a psychological or financial burden; or if the requester does not have a right to ask the requestee to perform the requested act; or if the requestee does not have an obligation to carry out the requested act. e.g. It would usually be a greater imposition to ask someone to lend their car than to post a letter.

302

In Part B, you are asked to choose how you would make requests in the situations described. Three choices are given for each situation. In each choice, 1. different strategies for making requests are described, and 2. examples are given. Example: 1. Strategy: Stating the problem + Making a direct request 2. Example: I couldnt find the book you recommended me yesterday in the library. If you are not using your copy, please lend it to me. Although the examples may differ from what you would actually say, please choose only the strategy which would best represent the way you would make the request concerned. Remember: choose only one strategy and circle the number. In Part C, you are asked to choose how you would respond to requests which are expressed very indirectly. Three choices are given in each situation. Each choice describes the strategy of responding to such requests. In each choice, 1. different strategies for responding to very indirect requests are described; and 2. examples are given. Example: A very indirect request: I couldnt find the book you recommended me yesterday in the library. 1. Strategy: Preempting a request, i.e., offering to lend the requester the book 2. Example: Would you like to borrow mine? Although the examples may differ from what you would actually say, please choose only the strategy which would best represent the way you would respond to the request concerned. Remember: choose only one strategy and circle the number.

303

Situation 1 X is an overseas student. X, who is going home to collect data, has finished packing. Because X has so many materials for data collection, the suitcase already weighs a lot more than 22kg, which is over the weight limit. Y is Xs tutor. X and Y have a common friend, Z, in Xs country. Y has some gifts for Z. One of the gifts is quite a thick book. Although Y knows that Xs suitcase is already quite heavy, Y wants X to take the gifts for Z so as to be sure that they do not get lost. Part A 1. If you think there is a power difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a social distance between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How big an imposition on X do you think it is to deliver Ys gifts to Z? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B You are Y. How would you make a request to X? (1) Stating the reason + Making a direct request e.g. I have some gifts for Z. I want to be sure that they dont get lost. Please deliver them to Z. 304

(2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect request e.g. I have some gifts for Z. I want to be sure that they dont get lost. Could you deliver them to Z? (3) Stating the reason e.g. I have some gifts for Z. I want to be sure that they dont get lost. Part C You are X, Ys supervisee. How would you respond if Y said the following: I have some gifts for Z. I want to be sure that my gifts to Z dont get lost. (1) Preempting Ys request e.g. Shall I deliver them? (2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourself e.g. Why dont you send them by registered mail? (3) Refusing Ys request e.g. Id love to take them for you, but Im afraid Im very overweight with my own luggage.

Situation 2 X is a university student who works part-time at a shop. X is supposed to work next Saturday, but X has recently received an invitation to a party which will be held next Saturday. X wants to go to the party. U also works at the same place, but is not scheduled to work next Saturday and does not have any commitments that day. X wants U to replace X at work next Saturday. Part A 1. If you think there is a power difference between X and U, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

305

2. If you think there is a social distance between X and U, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How big an imposition on U do you think it is to replace X at work? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B You are X. How would you make a request to U? (1) Stating the reason + Making a direct request e.g. Ive just received an invitation to a party which will be held next Saturday. Please replace me at work next Saturday. (2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect request e.g. Ive just received an invitation to a party which will be held next Saturday. Could you replace me at work next Saturday? (3) Stating the reason e.g. Ive just received an invitation to a party which will be held next Saturday. Part C You are U, who works at the same shop with X. How would you respond if X said the following: Ive just received an invitation to a party which will be held next Saturday. (1) Preempting Xs request e.g. Would you like me to replace you at work next Saturday? (2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourself e.g. Cant you ask the boss to change your work schedule? (3) Refusing Xs request e.g. Id love to replace you at work, but I want to work in the library. 306

Situation 3 X is in the last year of a university and intends to go to a graduate school in the United States. X needs a letter of recommendation to submit to a university in the United States. Y has been Xs tutor. X wants Y to write a letter of recommendation. Part A 1. If you think there is a power difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a social distance between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How big an imposition on Y do you think it is to write a letter of recommendation for X? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B You are X. How would you make a request to Y? (1) Stating the reason + Making a direct request e.g. I want to go to a graduate school in the United States. I need a letter of recommendation to submit with the application. Please write a letter of recommendation for me. (2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect request e.g. I want to go to a graduate school in the United States. I need a letter 307

of recommendation to submit with the application. Could you write a letter of recommendation for me? (3) Stating the reason e.g. I want to go to a graduate school in the United States. I need a letter of recommendation to submit with the application. Part C You are Y, Xs tutor. How would you respond if X said the following: I want to go to a graduate school in the United States. I need a letter of recommendation to submit with the application. (1) Preempting Xs request e.g. Would you like me to write one? (2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourself e.g. Why dont you ask the head of department to write one for you? (3) Refusing Xs request e.g. Im afraid I cant write one for you.

Situation 4 Y is a lecturer. Y usually cycles to university. X is one of Ys students. Y lives close to Xs students hall of residence. At five oclock X and Y happen to come out of the department building at the same time. It is pouring with rain. Y didnt bring an umbrella. X is about to leave by car. Y wants to get a lift home. Part A 1. If you think there is a power difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

308

2. If you think there is a social distance between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How big an imposition do you think it is on X to give Y a lift home? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B You are Y. How would you make a request to X? (1) Stating the reason + Making a direct request e.g. I didnt bring my umbrella. Please give me a lift home. (2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect request e.g. I didnt bring my umbrella. Could you give me a lift home? (3) Stating the reason e.g. I didnt bring my umbrella. Part C You are X, Ys student. How would you respond if Y said the following: I didnt bring my umbrella. (1) Preempting Ys request e.g. Shall I give you a lift home? (2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourself e.g. Cant you borrow one? (3) Refusing Ys request e.g. Id love to give you a lift, but Im not going straight home today.

309

Situation 5 X lives in a self-catering university students hall of residence. While cooking in the shared kitchen, X discovers that there is no salt left. V, Xs next door neighbour in the hall is also cooking in the kitchen. X wants to borrow some salt from V. Part A 1. If you think there is a power difference between X and V, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a social distance between X and V, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How big an imposition do you think it is on V to give some salt to X? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B You are X. How would you make a request to V? (1) Stating the reason + Making a direct request e.g. Ive run out of salt. Please lend me some. (2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect request e.g. Ive run out of salt. Could you lend me some? (3) Stating the reason e.g. Ive run out of salt. 310

Part C You are V, Xs next door neighbour in the hall. How would you respond if X said the following: Ive run out of salt. (1) Preempting Xs request e.g. Here, you can have some of mine. (2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourself e.g. Cant you do without salt today? (3) Refusing Xs request e.g. I dont have any salt.

Situation 6 X is a university student who belongs to a university guitar club which is going to give a concert soon. X is supposed to phone the club captain, Q, about the concert today, but X doesnt have Qs phone number. P, a senior member of the same club, is a close friend of the club captain. X wants to ask P for the club captains phone number. Part A 1. If you think there is a power difference between X and P, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a social distance between X and P, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How big an imposition do you think it is on P to tell X the phone number of Q, the club captain? 311

Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B You are X. How would you make a request to P? (1) Stating the reason + Making a direct request e.g. I have to phone Q about the concert, but I havent got Qs phone number. Please tell me Qs phone number. (2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect request e.g. I have to phone Q about the concert, but I havent got Qs phone number. Could you tell me Qs phone number? (3) Stating the reason e.g. I have to phone Q about the concert, but I havent got Qs phone number. Part C You are P, Xs senior at a university guitar club. How would you respond if X said the following: I have to phone Q about the concert, but I havent got Qs phone number. (1) Preempting Xs request e.g. Let me give you Qs phone number. (2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourself e.g. You can find Qs phone number in the membership list. (3) Refusing Xs request e.g. Im not supposed to tell anybody Qs phone number.

Situation 7 X is a university student. This is the second year of Xs course. Tomorrow, X is flying home. In order to go to the airport, X needs transport. It takes about an hour to go to the airport by car. Last year when departing, X 312

ordered a taxi. But the taxi did not come at the agreed time. In danger of missing the flight, X phoned the tutor, Y, who lives quite close to the hall of residence, and Y gave X a lift to the airport. Thanks to Ys help, X caught the flight. It is a year later. X will be leaving for home tomorrow, Saturday, and is worried about getting to the airport, as X is not confident about the reliability of the local taxi service in view of last years experience. X wants Y to give a lift to the airport. Part A 1. If you think there is a power difference between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. If you think there is a social distance between X and Y, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How big an imposition do you think it is on Y to give X a lift to the airport? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B You are X. How would you make a request to Y? (1) Stating the reason + Making a direct request e.g. Im flying back home tomorrow. Last year I had some problems getting a taxi. Please give me a lift to the airport. 313

(2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect request e.g. Im flying back home tomorrow. Last year I had some problems getting a taxi. Could you give me a lift to the airport? (3) Stating the reason e.g. Im flying back home tomorrow. Last year I had some problems getting a taxi. Part C You are Y, Xs supervisor. How would you respond if X said the following: Im flying back home tomorrow. Last year I had some problems getting a taxi. (1) Preempting Xs request e.g. Shall I give you a lift to the airport? (2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourself e.g. Youd better use another taxi firm this year. (3) Refusing Xs request e.g. Id love to give you a lift, but Im busy tomorrow.

Situation 8 X is a university student who lives in a university students hall of residence. Xs parents send X some money every month, but as this months money has not arrived yet, X is very short of money. W is one of Xs classmates. X and W often eat their lunch together. W has just suggested having lunch together today. X wants to do so, but doesnt have enough money for a meal out. X wants to borrow money for lunch from W. Part A 1. If you think there is a power difference between X and W, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

314

2. If you think there is a social distance between X and W, how big is it? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How big an imposition do you think it is on W to lend X some money? Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small, 5 being big. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B You are X. How would you make a request to W? (1) Stating the reason + Making a direct request e.g. My parents money hasnt arrived yet. Please lend me some money so that I can pay for my lunch. (2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect request e.g. My parents money hasnt arrived yet. Could you lend me some money so that I can pay for my lunch? (3) Stating the reason e.g. My parents money hasnt arrived yet. Part C You are W, Xs classmate. How would you respond if X said the following: My parents money hasnt arrived yet. (1) Preempting Xs request e.g. Shall I lend you some money till it comes? (2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourself e.g. Cant you pay by cheque? (3) Refusing Xs request e.g. Id love to lend you some, but Im a bit short myself at the moment. Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. If you have any comments, would you please write them below. 315