POLITENESS IN REQUESTS:
SOME RESEARCH FINDINGS RELEVANT FOR
INTERCULTURAL ENCOUNTERS
Aura CODREANU*
Alina DEBU**
* PhD, MA, MSc, Regional Department of Defense Resources
Management Studies, Brasov, Romania;
** MA, Teacher of Romanian language, Fagaras, Romania
The major aim of this article is to analyze the relationship between
indirectness and politeness in requests. The research project supporting
the fi ndings of the paper was undertaken in order to fi nd out to what extent
politeness and indirectness are viewed as overlapping or mutually excluding
categories by Romanians compared to other nationalities, such as the British
and the Hebrew. Another inherent goal of the paper is to provide an example
of the socio linguistics instruments that can be employed in the investigation
of the differences and similarities likely to emerge in intercultural encounters.
Thus, we believe that only through similar research undertaken in the fi elds
contributing to the emerging fi eld of interculturality one can actually trespass the
theoretical assumptions and move on to the identifi cation of the right tools and
means through which intercultural discourse to be approached at a pragmatic
level and thus better understood and taught in educational establishments.
Key words: social linguistics, requests, politeness, indirectness,
intercultural relationships, interculturality
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the issues of major
concern when it comes to intercultural
encounters is the socio linguistic
discourse of politeness. Even though
at a theoretical and practical level
extensive reserch in the fi eld has
already been conducted (Leech,
1983: 108, S. Blum-Kulka: 1987,
Yong-Ju Rue, Grace Qiao Zhang:
2008, María Elena Placencia: 2007,
Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm: 2006),
little research has been conducted
so far into the politeness discourse
of Romanians as compared to other
nations. Therefore, we believe
that this article may contribute to
a research niche neglected so far
and, hopefully, provide a theoretical
and practical framework for further
investigations into the fi eld of polite
requests. Moreover, we would like to
emphasize the importance of taking
such a specifi c approach when it
comes to understanding intercultural
relationships from a socio linguistic
perspective. Thus, what generally is
viewed as common sense knowledge
and hence prone to misunderstandings
may become substantiated information
and assumptions contributing to a
btetter approach to intercultural
encounters between Romanians and
other nations.
2. THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND
Before presenting the research
project supporting the aim(s) of this
article, our undertaking needs some
background to the issue of politeness
in requests through indirect strategies.
Thus, in the literature on politeness
and indirectness, it is often argued
that the two notions represent parallel
dimensions. For instance, Leech
(1983:108) suggests that given the
same propositional context, it is
possible “to increase the degree of
politeness by using a more and more
indirect kind of illocution .Illocutions
tend to be more polite because they
increase the degree of optionality and
because the more indirect an illocution
is, the more diminished and tentative its
force tends to be”. On the other hand,
S. Blum-Kulka (1987) believes that, at
least for requests, such claims as those
upheld by Leech, need to be modifi ed
by distinguishing between two types
of indirectness: conventional and nonconventional,
the concept of politeness
being associated with the former
“but not necessarily with the latter”
(1987:132) [1]. Further on, from the
same study we fi nd out that for S.
Blum-Kulka politeness represents
the interactional balance achieved
between two needs: the need for
pragmatic clarity and the need to
avoid coerciveness. Thus, this balance
seems to be achieved, in Blum-Kulka’s
opinion, in the case of conventional
indirectness.
3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Starting from this theoretical
background, we tried to fi nd
out whether Romanians associate
politeness with conventional
indirectness, as Blum Kulka asserts,
or they consider non-conventional
indirectness as more polite. Moreover,
we tried to identify if there are any
similarities between the answers of
the Romanian respondents and those
of Blum Kulka’s respondents.
4. METHODOLOGY, SURVEY
QUESTIONS AND SAMPLE
DESCRIPTION
In order to attain these objectives,
we used the method called “the
discourse completion test” (DCT).
This method basically consists in
creating a certain situation, where
respondents are asked to engage in a
conversation about a certain ordinary
problem. The researcher gives the
participants the fi rst part of the
conversation along with a description
of the situation and asks the informant
to complete this situation by supplying
a continuation.
The situation designed for our
research was as follows:
“You are asked by your teacher to
make some reading notes of the last
novel you were supposed to read. You
come to school next day and realize
that you forgot to do that. You need
those reading notes, so you try to get
them from your colleagues. What do
you say?”
The next step we took consisted
in providing the respondents a
typology of request patterns, listed in
Table 1 [2], a typology that follows
the classifi cations of request strategies
on scales of indirectness achieved
by Searle (1975), Ervin-Trip (1976),
Blum-Kulka (1982). The scale is
based on postulating degrees of
illocutionary transparency. This
means that, the more “indirect” the
mode of realization, the higher will
be the interpretive demands on the
hearer’ (1987:133). Thus, the request
patterns considered as the most
direct or transparent are the ones in
which the request’s force is either
marked syntactically, or indicated
explicitly, as in Mood Derivable (1)
and Performative (2).The least direct
patterns are considered to be those in
which requestive force is not indicated
by any conventional means and hence
has to be inferred, as in Hints (8).
Between these two extremes there
are patterns that derive their relative
transparency either from conventions
in the wording of the speech act, such
as Hedged Performatives (3), or from
conventions regarding the semantic
contents which, by social conventions,
count as potential requests, such as
Obligations (4), Want Statements (5),
Suggestory Formulae (6) as well as
the group of strategies often referred
to in the literature as “conventionally
indirect” (Blum-Kulka 1987 apud
Searle 1975) referred to in the table as
Query Preparatory (7).
Table 1: Eight types of request
strategies used in the research
Descriptive
category
Example
1. Mood
Derivable
Give me your
lecture notes.
2. Performative
I’m asking you
to give me your
notes.
3. Hedged
Performative
I would like to ask
you to give me
your notes.
4. Obligation
statement
You’ll have to
give me your
notes
5. Want
statement
I would like you
to give me your
notes.
6. Suggestory
Formulae
How about giving
me your notes?
7. Query
Preparatory
Could you give
me your notes?
8. Hints
I didn’t take any
notes and I don’t
want to get a bad
mark.
This table, along with the
situation presented above, was
administered to ten people [3] aged
between 20- 40. They were asked to
rate each utterance on a one to eight
point scale for either “directness” or
“politeness”. Moreover, in order to
ensure that judgments of directness
and politeness would relate only to
these strategy types we avoided both
internal and external modifi cations,
such as hedges (i.e. “please”), in
the case of politeness strategies or
justifi cations in the case of directness.
Besides that, as the appendix makes
it obvious, the eight utterances were
typed randomly.
5. SURVEY FINDINGS
The results were as follow:
Out of the eight utterances
four were pointed out as the most
preferred, namely those belonging
to the query preparatory category
(chosen by seven respondents), to
the want statement category (by
two respondents) and to the hedged
performatives and hints by one
respondent.
In terms of directness and
indirectness, and politeness, the
answers provided by the respondents
were somewhat similar to the
previous choices. Thus, in terms
of the categories mentioned above
seven respondents came up with the
orders below:
Table 2: Directness scale
Strategy type Direct
4. Obligation statement
6. Suggestory Formulae
5. Want
statement
3. Hedged Performative
2.Performative
7. Query Preparatory
8. Hints
3. Hedged Performative
Indirect
Table 3: Politeness scale
Strategy type Most
polite
7. Query Preparatory
3. Hedged Performative
6. Suggestory Formulae
8. Hints
5. Want statement
1. Mood Derivable
2. Performative
4. Obligation statement
Least
polite
Two other respondents made
somewhat different choices presented
below:
Table 4: Directness scale
Strategy type Direct
1. Mood Derivable
2. Performative
4. Obligation statement
6. Suggestory Formulae
5. Want statement
3. Hedged Performative
8. Hints
7. Query Preparatory
Indirect
Table 5: Politeness scale
Strategy type Most
polite
3. Hedged Performative
7. Query Preparatory
8. Hints
6. Suggestory Formulae
5. Want statement
4. Obligation statement
2. Performative
1. Mood Derivable
Least
polite
The solutions chosen by one
respondent are only partially different
from the others’ respondents. Thus,
the order is the following:
Table 6: Directness scale
Strategy type Direct
1. Mood Derivable
2. Performative
4. Obligation statement
6. Suggestory Formulae
7. Query Preparatory
5. Want statement
3. Hedged Performative
8. Hints
Indirect
Table 7: Politeness scale
Strategy type Most
polite
8. Hints
3. Hedged Performative
5. Want statement
7. Query Preparatory
6. Suggestory Formulae
4. Obligation statement
2. Performative
1. Mood Derivable
Least
polite
6. DATA ANALYSIS
It is worth underlining that
only one respondent chose hedged
performatives and hints as the
answers favored in dealing with the
situation given by the researchers
correlating them both in terms of the
most polite and conventional indirect
categories. Consequently, we will
not take these answers into account
due to their singularity. However, if
the survey is to be carried out on a
larger group of respondents it would
be interesting to check if there are
any other respondents favoring hints
and hedged performatives as both
the most polite and conventionally
indirect strategies to be used in a
certain context. If these answers will
check out, then Blum Kulka’s theory
is to be confi rmed. However, due to
the limits of this research posed by
the restricted sample of respondents,
as well as by the restrictive situation
that contextualizes only certain sociopragmatic
aspects (i.e. relationship
between the language and the level of
respondents’ education, relationships
set by the imaginary situation), we
will focus on the bulk of the answers
and thus ensure the reliability of the
research.
A comparison between the
answers of the other respondents is
made through the Table no. 8.1. and
Table no. 8.2. below and comments
are made on the fi ndings.
As it becomes obvious from the
two tables, the seven respondents
that chose to deal with the situation
presented by the survey in terms of
query preparatory utterances prove
to be constant in their choices by
pointing out to the same answer
as the most polite and as second in
indirectness on the indirect- direct
scale. In contrast, the other two
respondents, although choosing
want statements as the one they
would personally use in a specifi c
situation, select as perceiving hedged
performatives, query preparatory,
hints and sugestory formulae as the
most polite while replacing the latter
with want statements when it comes
to the indirectness scale.
Thus, narrowing the research
fi ndings by focusing only on the
fi rst four most polite utterances we
are left with the following strategy
types: Hedged Performative; Query
Preparatory; Hints; Suggestory
Formulae. Moreover, by contrasting
the last four choices for the most
indirect strategies, we are left
with only three strategies, namely
Hedged Performative; Hints; Query
Preparatory. Thus, by applying the
principle of overlapping categories,
we are left with three strategies of
conventional indirect politeness:
Hedged Performative; Hints; Query
Preparatory utterances.
7. RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS
The conclusion to be drawn
based on the fi ndings and after the
data analysis is that while most
respondents (i.e. seven) choose the
same strategy (i.e. query preparatory)
as an individual manner of selfexpression,
as well as a strategy
perceived equally polite and indirect,
the other two respondents seem to
contradict themselves. However, we
cannot claim them unreliable because
in our view there may be differences
between what one person uses on a
daily basis and what the same person
perceives as adquat, acceptable in
terms of polite indirect strategies.
Table 8: Data analysis
8.1. Directness scale
Strategy type/
No. of respondents: 7
Direct Strategy type/
No. of respondents - 2
Direct
1. Mood Derivable 1. Mood Derivable
4. Obligation statement 2. Performative
6. Suggestory Formulae 4. Obligation statement
5. Want statement 6. Suggestory Formulae
3. Hedged Performative 5. Want statement
2. Performative 3. Hedged Performative
7. Query Prepartory 8. Hints
8. Hints Indirect 7. Query Preparatory Indirect
8.2. Politeness scale
Consequently, the current paper
proposes two possible directions of
investigation. One of them should be
focused on the relationship between
what a person believes to be polite in
a certain situation and what the same
person perceives as polite. Thus, such
an investigation should be focused on
the differences/ similarities between
individual choice on one hand, and
societal and linguistic norms as
taught in school or within family on
the other hand.
The second direction of future
research should focus on checking
the fi ndings of the current research
against a larger group of Romanian
respondents. However, based on
our fi ndings according to which
Hedged Performative; Hints; Query
Preparatory utterances we will try
in the next paragraphs to draw a
comparison with Blum Kulka’s
fi ndings about the British’ and Jews’
usage of conventional indirect polite
strategies.
Strategy type/
No. of respondents: 7
More
polite
Strategy type/
No. of respondents - 2
Direct
7. Query Preparatory 3. Hedged Performative
3. Hedged Performative 7. Query Preparatory
6. Suggestory Formulae 8. Hints
8. Hints 6. Suggestory Formulae
5. Want statement 5. Want statement
1. Mood Derivable 4. Obligation statement
2. Performative 2. Performative
4. Obligation statement 1. Mood Derivable
Less polite Indirect
Romanian places such utterances on
the third or fourth position; Hebrew on
the fourth or fi fth position and English
on the second or third position. As it
is obvious, in this respect, Romanian
seems again to overlap with Hebrew.
If we restrict the categories that
are ranked as both the most polite and
the most indirect, in Hebrew we are
left with Hints, Query Preparatory
and Hedged Performatives, whereas
in English with Query Preparatory,
Hints, Hedged Performatives,
Suggestory. Comparing the situation
with Romanian, English introduces
a category that we left aside in this
research since it was selected only by
two respondents out of ten.
9. FINAL CONCLUSIONS
Thus, a conclusion that we could
draw is that Romanian is pretty close
to Hebrew in terms of the linguistic
strategies employed. However, the
current research also points out to the
fact that in Romanian we are more
likely to encounter conventional
indirect polite strategies compared to
Hebrew and English. In this respect,
we cannot claim though too much
originality of the fi ndings due to the
restricted sample of respondents. But
if further research will confi rm these
fi ndings, then this research could be
considered a pioneer in the fi eld of
applied linguistics and pragmatics.
Moreover, we emphasize the idea that
only through such research one can
actually cover in a scientifi c manner
a part of the challenging fi eld of
interculturality, and more specifi cally
of intercultural encounters at the level
of linguistic discourse markers.
8. POLITE REQUESTS IN
ROMANIAN, ENGLISH AND
HEBREW
In terms of query preparatory
utterances in all three languages the
latter are viewed as conventional
indirect polite strategies and are
ranked in the fi rst two positions.
However, if Romanians list the same
category either on the seventh or the
eighth position on the directness scale,
for Hebrew the utterances appear on
the sixth position, whereas in English
they appear on the fi fth position.
Thus, the conclusion could be that
Romanians are more likely to use
conventional indirect strategies than
other nationalities (at least in terms
of perception of what things should
be like until further research proves
otherwise).
Hedged performatives as polite
strategies are ranked second in Hebrew,
and fi rst or second in Romanian.
Unlike these two languages, English
ranks them on the fourth position.
Once again, Romanian and Hebrew
rank these utterances as to their
directness/ indirectness on the sixth
position, whereas English on the fi fth.
This second type of utterances seem
to point out to similarities between
Hebrew and Romanian, an aspect
which is to be researched in detail in
the future.
As for the last type of utterances,
hints, Romanian overlaps with Hebrew
and English in terms of politeness, in all
three languages hints being perceived
as the most indirect strategies.
However, the slight differences
between the three languages appear
when it comes to politeness. Thus,
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE
Age:
Education:
Imagine you are in the following
situation:
You are asked by your teacher to
make some reading notes of the last
novel you were supposed to read. You
come to school next day and realize that
you forgot to do that. You need those
reading notes, so you try to get them
from your colleagues. What do you say?
Choose from the list below the
sentence that seems most appropriate.
1. You’ll have to give me your notes.
(Va trebui sa-mi dai fi sele tale.)
2. Could you give me your notes?
(Imi poti da fi sele tale?)
3. Give me your lecture notes. (Dami
fi sele tale)
4. I didn’t take any notes and I don’t
want to get a bad mark. (Nu mi-am facut
fi sele si o sa iau o nota proasta)
5. I would like to ask you to give me
your notes.(As vrea sa te rog sa-mi dai
fi sele tale)
6. I would like you to give me your
notes. (As vrea sa-mi dai fi sele tale.)
7. How about giving me your notes?
(Ce-ar fi sa-mi dai fi sele tale?)
8. I’m asking you to give me your
notes (Iti cer sa-mi dai fi sele tale.)
In the tables below you have the
same sentences as above. Number them
from 1 to 8.
In Table A, order the sentences on a
scale from 1 to 8, where 1 represents the
most direct snetence possible and 8 the
most indirect one.
In Table B, order the sentences on a
scale from 1 to 8, where 1 represents the
the most polite sentence and 8 the least
polite.
ENDNOTES
[1] According to Blum Kulka (131),
an example of a non-conventional
indirect strategy is represented by the
category of hints, characterized by lack of
pragmatic clarity whereas conventional
indirectness is also called “on record”
indirectness.
[2] The descriptive categories
are similar with those used by Blum
Kulka due to the purpose of this paper,
i.e. to draw a parallel between three
nationalities based on the aforementioned
theoretician’s fi ndings and this research
fi ndings.
[3] Since the respondents were
Romanians, and the purpose of
the research was to investigate the
connection between politeness and
indirectness in the Romanian language,
the questionnaire was administered in
Romanian and the translation tried to be
as close as possible to the literal meaning
of the English expressions.
REFERENCES
[1] Blum-Kulka, S. (1987)
Indirectness and Politeness in request:
same or different? in Journal of
Pragmatics.
[2] Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005)
Politeness, Face and Perceptions of
Rapport: Unpakaging their Bases and
Interrelationships in Journal of Politeness
Research.
[3] Mey,J. (2004) Between culture
and pragmatics: Scylla and Charybdis?
The precarious conditions of intercultural
pragmatics in Intercultural Pragmatics.
[4] Blum-Kulka,S.(1992) The
metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli
in Trends in linguistics.
Table B
Most
polite
a) You’ll have to give me
your notes. (Va trebui sami
dai fi sele tale.)
b) Could you give me
your notes? (Imi poti da
fi sele tale?)
c) Give me your lecture
notes. (Da-mi fi sele tale)
d) I didn’t take any notes
and I don’t want to get
a bad mark. (Nu mi-am
facut fi sele si o sa iau o
nota proasta)
e) I would like to ask you
to give me your notes.
(As vrea sa te rog sa-mi
dai fi sele tale)
f) I would like you to
give me your notes. (As
vrea sa-mi dai fi sele tale.)
g) How about giving me
your notes? (Ce-ar fi sami
dai fi sele tale?)
h) I’m asking you to give
me your notes (Iti cer sami
dai fi sele tale.)
Least
polite
Table A
Direct
a) You’ll have to give me
your notes. (Va trebui sami
dai fi sele tale.)
b) Could you give me
your notes? (Imi poti da
fi sele tale?)
c) Give me your lecture
notes. (Da-mi fi sele tale)
d) I didn’t take any notes
and I don’t want to get
a bad mark. (Nu mi-am
facut fi sele si o sa iau o
nota proasta)
e) I would like to ask you
to give me your notes.
(As vrea sa te rog sa-mi
dai fi sele tale)
f) I would like you to
give me your notes. (As
vrea sa-mi dai fi sele tale.)
g) How about giving me
your notes? (Ce-ar fi sami
dai fi sele tale?)
h) I’m asking you to give
me your notes (Iti cer sami
dai fi sele tale.)
Indirect
SOME RESEARCH FINDINGS RELEVANT FOR
INTERCULTURAL ENCOUNTERS
Aura CODREANU*
Alina DEBU**
* PhD, MA, MSc, Regional Department of Defense Resources
Management Studies, Brasov, Romania;
** MA, Teacher of Romanian language, Fagaras, Romania
The major aim of this article is to analyze the relationship between
indirectness and politeness in requests. The research project supporting
the fi ndings of the paper was undertaken in order to fi nd out to what extent
politeness and indirectness are viewed as overlapping or mutually excluding
categories by Romanians compared to other nationalities, such as the British
and the Hebrew. Another inherent goal of the paper is to provide an example
of the socio linguistics instruments that can be employed in the investigation
of the differences and similarities likely to emerge in intercultural encounters.
Thus, we believe that only through similar research undertaken in the fi elds
contributing to the emerging fi eld of interculturality one can actually trespass the
theoretical assumptions and move on to the identifi cation of the right tools and
means through which intercultural discourse to be approached at a pragmatic
level and thus better understood and taught in educational establishments.
Key words: social linguistics, requests, politeness, indirectness,
intercultural relationships, interculturality
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the issues of major
concern when it comes to intercultural
encounters is the socio linguistic
discourse of politeness. Even though
at a theoretical and practical level
extensive reserch in the fi eld has
already been conducted (Leech,
1983: 108, S. Blum-Kulka: 1987,
Yong-Ju Rue, Grace Qiao Zhang:
2008, María Elena Placencia: 2007,
Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm: 2006),
little research has been conducted
so far into the politeness discourse
of Romanians as compared to other
nations. Therefore, we believe
that this article may contribute to
a research niche neglected so far
and, hopefully, provide a theoretical
and practical framework for further
investigations into the fi eld of polite
requests. Moreover, we would like to
emphasize the importance of taking
such a specifi c approach when it
comes to understanding intercultural
relationships from a socio linguistic
perspective. Thus, what generally is
viewed as common sense knowledge
and hence prone to misunderstandings
may become substantiated information
and assumptions contributing to a
btetter approach to intercultural
encounters between Romanians and
other nations.
2. THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND
Before presenting the research
project supporting the aim(s) of this
article, our undertaking needs some
background to the issue of politeness
in requests through indirect strategies.
Thus, in the literature on politeness
and indirectness, it is often argued
that the two notions represent parallel
dimensions. For instance, Leech
(1983:108) suggests that given the
same propositional context, it is
possible “to increase the degree of
politeness by using a more and more
indirect kind of illocution .Illocutions
tend to be more polite because they
increase the degree of optionality and
because the more indirect an illocution
is, the more diminished and tentative its
force tends to be”. On the other hand,
S. Blum-Kulka (1987) believes that, at
least for requests, such claims as those
upheld by Leech, need to be modifi ed
by distinguishing between two types
of indirectness: conventional and nonconventional,
the concept of politeness
being associated with the former
“but not necessarily with the latter”
(1987:132) [1]. Further on, from the
same study we fi nd out that for S.
Blum-Kulka politeness represents
the interactional balance achieved
between two needs: the need for
pragmatic clarity and the need to
avoid coerciveness. Thus, this balance
seems to be achieved, in Blum-Kulka’s
opinion, in the case of conventional
indirectness.
3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Starting from this theoretical
background, we tried to fi nd
out whether Romanians associate
politeness with conventional
indirectness, as Blum Kulka asserts,
or they consider non-conventional
indirectness as more polite. Moreover,
we tried to identify if there are any
similarities between the answers of
the Romanian respondents and those
of Blum Kulka’s respondents.
4. METHODOLOGY, SURVEY
QUESTIONS AND SAMPLE
DESCRIPTION
In order to attain these objectives,
we used the method called “the
discourse completion test” (DCT).
This method basically consists in
creating a certain situation, where
respondents are asked to engage in a
conversation about a certain ordinary
problem. The researcher gives the
participants the fi rst part of the
conversation along with a description
of the situation and asks the informant
to complete this situation by supplying
a continuation.
The situation designed for our
research was as follows:
“You are asked by your teacher to
make some reading notes of the last
novel you were supposed to read. You
come to school next day and realize
that you forgot to do that. You need
those reading notes, so you try to get
them from your colleagues. What do
you say?”
The next step we took consisted
in providing the respondents a
typology of request patterns, listed in
Table 1 [2], a typology that follows
the classifi cations of request strategies
on scales of indirectness achieved
by Searle (1975), Ervin-Trip (1976),
Blum-Kulka (1982). The scale is
based on postulating degrees of
illocutionary transparency. This
means that, the more “indirect” the
mode of realization, the higher will
be the interpretive demands on the
hearer’ (1987:133). Thus, the request
patterns considered as the most
direct or transparent are the ones in
which the request’s force is either
marked syntactically, or indicated
explicitly, as in Mood Derivable (1)
and Performative (2).The least direct
patterns are considered to be those in
which requestive force is not indicated
by any conventional means and hence
has to be inferred, as in Hints (8).
Between these two extremes there
are patterns that derive their relative
transparency either from conventions
in the wording of the speech act, such
as Hedged Performatives (3), or from
conventions regarding the semantic
contents which, by social conventions,
count as potential requests, such as
Obligations (4), Want Statements (5),
Suggestory Formulae (6) as well as
the group of strategies often referred
to in the literature as “conventionally
indirect” (Blum-Kulka 1987 apud
Searle 1975) referred to in the table as
Query Preparatory (7).
Table 1: Eight types of request
strategies used in the research
Descriptive
category
Example
1. Mood
Derivable
Give me your
lecture notes.
2. Performative
I’m asking you
to give me your
notes.
3. Hedged
Performative
I would like to ask
you to give me
your notes.
4. Obligation
statement
You’ll have to
give me your
notes
5. Want
statement
I would like you
to give me your
notes.
6. Suggestory
Formulae
How about giving
me your notes?
7. Query
Preparatory
Could you give
me your notes?
8. Hints
I didn’t take any
notes and I don’t
want to get a bad
mark.
This table, along with the
situation presented above, was
administered to ten people [3] aged
between 20- 40. They were asked to
rate each utterance on a one to eight
point scale for either “directness” or
“politeness”. Moreover, in order to
ensure that judgments of directness
and politeness would relate only to
these strategy types we avoided both
internal and external modifi cations,
such as hedges (i.e. “please”), in
the case of politeness strategies or
justifi cations in the case of directness.
Besides that, as the appendix makes
it obvious, the eight utterances were
typed randomly.
5. SURVEY FINDINGS
The results were as follow:
Out of the eight utterances
four were pointed out as the most
preferred, namely those belonging
to the query preparatory category
(chosen by seven respondents), to
the want statement category (by
two respondents) and to the hedged
performatives and hints by one
respondent.
In terms of directness and
indirectness, and politeness, the
answers provided by the respondents
were somewhat similar to the
previous choices. Thus, in terms
of the categories mentioned above
seven respondents came up with the
orders below:
Table 2: Directness scale
Strategy type Direct
4. Obligation statement
6. Suggestory Formulae
5. Want
statement
3. Hedged Performative
2.Performative
7. Query Preparatory
8. Hints
3. Hedged Performative
Indirect
Table 3: Politeness scale
Strategy type Most
polite
7. Query Preparatory
3. Hedged Performative
6. Suggestory Formulae
8. Hints
5. Want statement
1. Mood Derivable
2. Performative
4. Obligation statement
Least
polite
Two other respondents made
somewhat different choices presented
below:
Table 4: Directness scale
Strategy type Direct
1. Mood Derivable
2. Performative
4. Obligation statement
6. Suggestory Formulae
5. Want statement
3. Hedged Performative
8. Hints
7. Query Preparatory
Indirect
Table 5: Politeness scale
Strategy type Most
polite
3. Hedged Performative
7. Query Preparatory
8. Hints
6. Suggestory Formulae
5. Want statement
4. Obligation statement
2. Performative
1. Mood Derivable
Least
polite
The solutions chosen by one
respondent are only partially different
from the others’ respondents. Thus,
the order is the following:
Table 6: Directness scale
Strategy type Direct
1. Mood Derivable
2. Performative
4. Obligation statement
6. Suggestory Formulae
7. Query Preparatory
5. Want statement
3. Hedged Performative
8. Hints
Indirect
Table 7: Politeness scale
Strategy type Most
polite
8. Hints
3. Hedged Performative
5. Want statement
7. Query Preparatory
6. Suggestory Formulae
4. Obligation statement
2. Performative
1. Mood Derivable
Least
polite
6. DATA ANALYSIS
It is worth underlining that
only one respondent chose hedged
performatives and hints as the
answers favored in dealing with the
situation given by the researchers
correlating them both in terms of the
most polite and conventional indirect
categories. Consequently, we will
not take these answers into account
due to their singularity. However, if
the survey is to be carried out on a
larger group of respondents it would
be interesting to check if there are
any other respondents favoring hints
and hedged performatives as both
the most polite and conventionally
indirect strategies to be used in a
certain context. If these answers will
check out, then Blum Kulka’s theory
is to be confi rmed. However, due to
the limits of this research posed by
the restricted sample of respondents,
as well as by the restrictive situation
that contextualizes only certain sociopragmatic
aspects (i.e. relationship
between the language and the level of
respondents’ education, relationships
set by the imaginary situation), we
will focus on the bulk of the answers
and thus ensure the reliability of the
research.
A comparison between the
answers of the other respondents is
made through the Table no. 8.1. and
Table no. 8.2. below and comments
are made on the fi ndings.
As it becomes obvious from the
two tables, the seven respondents
that chose to deal with the situation
presented by the survey in terms of
query preparatory utterances prove
to be constant in their choices by
pointing out to the same answer
as the most polite and as second in
indirectness on the indirect- direct
scale. In contrast, the other two
respondents, although choosing
want statements as the one they
would personally use in a specifi c
situation, select as perceiving hedged
performatives, query preparatory,
hints and sugestory formulae as the
most polite while replacing the latter
with want statements when it comes
to the indirectness scale.
Thus, narrowing the research
fi ndings by focusing only on the
fi rst four most polite utterances we
are left with the following strategy
types: Hedged Performative; Query
Preparatory; Hints; Suggestory
Formulae. Moreover, by contrasting
the last four choices for the most
indirect strategies, we are left
with only three strategies, namely
Hedged Performative; Hints; Query
Preparatory. Thus, by applying the
principle of overlapping categories,
we are left with three strategies of
conventional indirect politeness:
Hedged Performative; Hints; Query
Preparatory utterances.
7. RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS
The conclusion to be drawn
based on the fi ndings and after the
data analysis is that while most
respondents (i.e. seven) choose the
same strategy (i.e. query preparatory)
as an individual manner of selfexpression,
as well as a strategy
perceived equally polite and indirect,
the other two respondents seem to
contradict themselves. However, we
cannot claim them unreliable because
in our view there may be differences
between what one person uses on a
daily basis and what the same person
perceives as adquat, acceptable in
terms of polite indirect strategies.
Table 8: Data analysis
8.1. Directness scale
Strategy type/
No. of respondents: 7
Direct Strategy type/
No. of respondents - 2
Direct
1. Mood Derivable 1. Mood Derivable
4. Obligation statement 2. Performative
6. Suggestory Formulae 4. Obligation statement
5. Want statement 6. Suggestory Formulae
3. Hedged Performative 5. Want statement
2. Performative 3. Hedged Performative
7. Query Prepartory 8. Hints
8. Hints Indirect 7. Query Preparatory Indirect
8.2. Politeness scale
Consequently, the current paper
proposes two possible directions of
investigation. One of them should be
focused on the relationship between
what a person believes to be polite in
a certain situation and what the same
person perceives as polite. Thus, such
an investigation should be focused on
the differences/ similarities between
individual choice on one hand, and
societal and linguistic norms as
taught in school or within family on
the other hand.
The second direction of future
research should focus on checking
the fi ndings of the current research
against a larger group of Romanian
respondents. However, based on
our fi ndings according to which
Hedged Performative; Hints; Query
Preparatory utterances we will try
in the next paragraphs to draw a
comparison with Blum Kulka’s
fi ndings about the British’ and Jews’
usage of conventional indirect polite
strategies.
Strategy type/
No. of respondents: 7
More
polite
Strategy type/
No. of respondents - 2
Direct
7. Query Preparatory 3. Hedged Performative
3. Hedged Performative 7. Query Preparatory
6. Suggestory Formulae 8. Hints
8. Hints 6. Suggestory Formulae
5. Want statement 5. Want statement
1. Mood Derivable 4. Obligation statement
2. Performative 2. Performative
4. Obligation statement 1. Mood Derivable
Less polite Indirect
Romanian places such utterances on
the third or fourth position; Hebrew on
the fourth or fi fth position and English
on the second or third position. As it
is obvious, in this respect, Romanian
seems again to overlap with Hebrew.
If we restrict the categories that
are ranked as both the most polite and
the most indirect, in Hebrew we are
left with Hints, Query Preparatory
and Hedged Performatives, whereas
in English with Query Preparatory,
Hints, Hedged Performatives,
Suggestory. Comparing the situation
with Romanian, English introduces
a category that we left aside in this
research since it was selected only by
two respondents out of ten.
9. FINAL CONCLUSIONS
Thus, a conclusion that we could
draw is that Romanian is pretty close
to Hebrew in terms of the linguistic
strategies employed. However, the
current research also points out to the
fact that in Romanian we are more
likely to encounter conventional
indirect polite strategies compared to
Hebrew and English. In this respect,
we cannot claim though too much
originality of the fi ndings due to the
restricted sample of respondents. But
if further research will confi rm these
fi ndings, then this research could be
considered a pioneer in the fi eld of
applied linguistics and pragmatics.
Moreover, we emphasize the idea that
only through such research one can
actually cover in a scientifi c manner
a part of the challenging fi eld of
interculturality, and more specifi cally
of intercultural encounters at the level
of linguistic discourse markers.
8. POLITE REQUESTS IN
ROMANIAN, ENGLISH AND
HEBREW
In terms of query preparatory
utterances in all three languages the
latter are viewed as conventional
indirect polite strategies and are
ranked in the fi rst two positions.
However, if Romanians list the same
category either on the seventh or the
eighth position on the directness scale,
for Hebrew the utterances appear on
the sixth position, whereas in English
they appear on the fi fth position.
Thus, the conclusion could be that
Romanians are more likely to use
conventional indirect strategies than
other nationalities (at least in terms
of perception of what things should
be like until further research proves
otherwise).
Hedged performatives as polite
strategies are ranked second in Hebrew,
and fi rst or second in Romanian.
Unlike these two languages, English
ranks them on the fourth position.
Once again, Romanian and Hebrew
rank these utterances as to their
directness/ indirectness on the sixth
position, whereas English on the fi fth.
This second type of utterances seem
to point out to similarities between
Hebrew and Romanian, an aspect
which is to be researched in detail in
the future.
As for the last type of utterances,
hints, Romanian overlaps with Hebrew
and English in terms of politeness, in all
three languages hints being perceived
as the most indirect strategies.
However, the slight differences
between the three languages appear
when it comes to politeness. Thus,
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE
Age:
Education:
Imagine you are in the following
situation:
You are asked by your teacher to
make some reading notes of the last
novel you were supposed to read. You
come to school next day and realize that
you forgot to do that. You need those
reading notes, so you try to get them
from your colleagues. What do you say?
Choose from the list below the
sentence that seems most appropriate.
1. You’ll have to give me your notes.
(Va trebui sa-mi dai fi sele tale.)
2. Could you give me your notes?
(Imi poti da fi sele tale?)
3. Give me your lecture notes. (Dami
fi sele tale)
4. I didn’t take any notes and I don’t
want to get a bad mark. (Nu mi-am facut
fi sele si o sa iau o nota proasta)
5. I would like to ask you to give me
your notes.(As vrea sa te rog sa-mi dai
fi sele tale)
6. I would like you to give me your
notes. (As vrea sa-mi dai fi sele tale.)
7. How about giving me your notes?
(Ce-ar fi sa-mi dai fi sele tale?)
8. I’m asking you to give me your
notes (Iti cer sa-mi dai fi sele tale.)
In the tables below you have the
same sentences as above. Number them
from 1 to 8.
In Table A, order the sentences on a
scale from 1 to 8, where 1 represents the
most direct snetence possible and 8 the
most indirect one.
In Table B, order the sentences on a
scale from 1 to 8, where 1 represents the
the most polite sentence and 8 the least
polite.
ENDNOTES
[1] According to Blum Kulka (131),
an example of a non-conventional
indirect strategy is represented by the
category of hints, characterized by lack of
pragmatic clarity whereas conventional
indirectness is also called “on record”
indirectness.
[2] The descriptive categories
are similar with those used by Blum
Kulka due to the purpose of this paper,
i.e. to draw a parallel between three
nationalities based on the aforementioned
theoretician’s fi ndings and this research
fi ndings.
[3] Since the respondents were
Romanians, and the purpose of
the research was to investigate the
connection between politeness and
indirectness in the Romanian language,
the questionnaire was administered in
Romanian and the translation tried to be
as close as possible to the literal meaning
of the English expressions.
REFERENCES
[1] Blum-Kulka, S. (1987)
Indirectness and Politeness in request:
same or different? in Journal of
Pragmatics.
[2] Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005)
Politeness, Face and Perceptions of
Rapport: Unpakaging their Bases and
Interrelationships in Journal of Politeness
Research.
[3] Mey,J. (2004) Between culture
and pragmatics: Scylla and Charybdis?
The precarious conditions of intercultural
pragmatics in Intercultural Pragmatics.
[4] Blum-Kulka,S.(1992) The
metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli
in Trends in linguistics.
Table B
Most
polite
a) You’ll have to give me
your notes. (Va trebui sami
dai fi sele tale.)
b) Could you give me
your notes? (Imi poti da
fi sele tale?)
c) Give me your lecture
notes. (Da-mi fi sele tale)
d) I didn’t take any notes
and I don’t want to get
a bad mark. (Nu mi-am
facut fi sele si o sa iau o
nota proasta)
e) I would like to ask you
to give me your notes.
(As vrea sa te rog sa-mi
dai fi sele tale)
f) I would like you to
give me your notes. (As
vrea sa-mi dai fi sele tale.)
g) How about giving me
your notes? (Ce-ar fi sami
dai fi sele tale?)
h) I’m asking you to give
me your notes (Iti cer sami
dai fi sele tale.)
Least
polite
Table A
Direct
a) You’ll have to give me
your notes. (Va trebui sami
dai fi sele tale.)
b) Could you give me
your notes? (Imi poti da
fi sele tale?)
c) Give me your lecture
notes. (Da-mi fi sele tale)
d) I didn’t take any notes
and I don’t want to get
a bad mark. (Nu mi-am
facut fi sele si o sa iau o
nota proasta)
e) I would like to ask you
to give me your notes.
(As vrea sa te rog sa-mi
dai fi sele tale)
f) I would like you to
give me your notes. (As
vrea sa-mi dai fi sele tale.)
g) How about giving me
your notes? (Ce-ar fi sami
dai fi sele tale?)
h) I’m asking you to give
me your notes (Iti cer sami
dai fi sele tale.)
Indirect
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar