Politeness in British and Japanese

Requests and Culture: Politeness in British

English and Japanese

Saeko Fukushima

Peter Lang

Requests and Culture

This page intentionally left blank

Requestsand Culture

Saeko Fukushima

PETER LANGBern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Oxford • Wien

Politeness in British Englishand Japanese

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche BibliothekDie Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche National-bibliografie; 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, GreatBritain, and from The Library of Congress, USA

Cover design: Thomas Jaberg, Peter Lang AG

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

3rd printing, 2003

© Peter Lang AG, European Academic Publishers, Bern 2000, 2002, 2003Hochfeldstrasse 32, Postfach 746, CH-3000 Bern [email protected], 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 thepermission 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

5

To the memory of my father

6


7

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank many people who have supported me, encouragedme and helped me in many ways. First of all, I would like to extend mysincere gratitude to Ronald V. White, my supervisor, since this is basedon my Ph.D. thesis. He has shown a deep understanding to my workand has never failed to help me. I was inspired by his stimulatingdiscussion and trained to put my thought into words by his strict attitudeon writing style. Similarly, I would like to express my deep appreciationto Kenneth P. Turner, who has been supportive and has encouraged meto publish my work. I also would like to give my special thanks toHansmartin Zimmermann, who has been always on my side and hashelped me to make my work go out into the world. My gratitude fromthe bottom of my heart also goes to Mami Kasai, who has always guidedme with her great love. I also would like to thank all the people whocontributed to my work in giving data.

8


9

Table of Contents

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

CHAPTER 1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191.2. Contextualising This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211.3. Structure of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

CHAPTER 2Politeness Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.2. Definitions of Politeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262.3. Four Views of Politeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.3.1. The Social-norm View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282.3.2. The Conversational-maxim View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.3.2.1. Grice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292.3.2.2. Lakoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322.3.2.3. Leech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.3.3. The Face-saving View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362.3.3.1. Face, Universality and Politeness Strategies . . . . 362.3.3.2. Variables determining Politeness Strategies . . . . 412.3.3.3. Cross-cultural Variation and Distribution

of Politeness Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422.3.4. The Conversational-contract View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462.3.5. The Theoretical Position of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

2.4. Criticisms of Brown and Levinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482.4.1. Face and Universality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

2.4.1.1. Japanese Criticisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482.4.1.2. Chinese Criticisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

10

2.4.2. Evaluation of Criticisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532.4.2.1. Japanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532.4.2.2. Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

2.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

CHAPTER 3Requests and Responses to Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633.2. Requests and Speech Act Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643.3. Indirectness in Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663.4. Types of Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683.5. Payoffs of Different Types of Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723.6. Structures, Forms and Categories of Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . 743.7. Variables Affecting Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

3.7.1. Relationship of Variables and Requesting Strategies . . . 763.7.2. Components of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

3.7.2.1.Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793.7.2.2.Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813.7.2.3. Imposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3.7.3. Variables Included in This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853.7.3.1. Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853.7.3.2. Social Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863.7.3.3. Imposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

3.8. Responses to Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893.8.1. Types of Responses to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . 913.8.2. Definitions of Solicitousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.8.3. Conditions of Solicitousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943.8.4. Status of Solicitousness in Politeness Strategies . . . . . . 953.8.5. Interpretations of Solicitousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963.8.6. Solicitousness and Face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

3.9. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

CHAPTER 4Cultural Dimensions of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014.2. What is Culture? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

4.2.1. Definitions of Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

11

4.2.2. The Anthropological View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044.2.3. Problems Concerning Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

4.3. Collectivism-Individualism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094.3.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104.3.2. Criticisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1124.3.3. Features of Collectivism and Individualism . . . . . . . . . 113

4.3.3.1. The Concept of Group/Individual . . . . . . . . . . 1134.3.3.2. Communication Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

4.3.4. A Brief Summary of Collectivist Culturesand Individualist Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

4.3.5. Japanese Culture and British Culture: Collectivistor Individualist? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

4.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

CHAPTER 5Research Design and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1275.2. Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1275.3. Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

5.3.1. Hypotheses of Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1305.3.2. Hypotheses of Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

5.3.2.1. Hypotheses of Requesting Strategiesby British and Japanese Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . 130

5.3.2.2. Hypotheses concerning the Correlationbetween the Situational Assessmentand the Choice of Requesting Strategies . . . . . 131

5.3.3. Hypotheses of Responding Strategiesto Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1325.3.3.1. Hypotheses of Responding Strategies

to Off-record Requests by British andJapanese Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

5.3.3.2. Hypotheses concerning the Correlationbetween the Situational Assessment andthe Choice of Responding Strategies toOff-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

5.4. Review of Methods for Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1335.4.1. Naturally Occurring Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1365.4.2. Elicited Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

12

5.4.2.1. Role Plays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1375.4.2.2. Written Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

5.4.2.2.1.Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs). . 1385.4.2.2.2.Multiple-Choice Questionnaires

(MCQs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1405.5. Data Collection and Research Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

5.5.1. Method of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1415.5.1.1. Previous Stages of the Present Study . . . . . . . . 141

5.5.1.1.1.Project 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1415.5.1.1.2.Project 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1425.5.1.1.3.Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1425.5.1.1.4.Changes Made as a Result . . . . . . . . 1455.5.1.1.5.Situational Assessment (SA 96) . . . . 146

5.5.1.2. The Method for the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . 1505.5.2. Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

5.5.2.1. Names used in the Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . 1515.5.2.2. Request Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1525.5.2.3. Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1525.5.2.4. Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1535.5.2.5. Responding Strategies

to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1555.5.3. Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1555.5.4. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

5.5.4.1. Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1575.5.4.2. Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1585.5.4.3. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . 158

5.5.5. Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1595.5.6. Translation of the Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

5.5.6.1. Translation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1595.5.6.2. Problems and Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

5.6. Data Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1635.6.1. Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1635.6.2. Requesting Strategies and Responding Strategies

to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1645.6.3. Correlation between Situational Assessment

and Requesting Strategies and Correlationbetween Situational Assessment andResponding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . 164

5.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

13

CHAPTER 6Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1676.2. Results of Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1676.3. Results of Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1696.4. Results of Correlation between Situational Assessment

and Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1716.5. Results of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . 1736.6. Results of Correlation between Situational Assessment

and Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . 1756.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

CHAPTER 7Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1797.2. Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

7.2.1. Power Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1827.2.2. Social Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1827.2.3. Imposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

7.3. Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1857.3.1. The Choice of Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

7.3.1.1. Requesting Strategies employed by Britishand Japanese Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

7.3.1.2. Categorisation of British andJapanese Cultures from the Perspectiveof Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

7.3.2. The Relationship between the Choice ofRequesting Strategies and the Three Variables . . . . . . . 196

7.4. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . 1987.4.1. The Choice of Responding Strategies

to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1987.4.1.1. Responding Strategies to

Off-record Requests employedby British and Japanese Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . 199

7.4.1.2. Categorisation of British and JapaneseCultures from the Perspective of RespondingStrategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . 204

14

7.4.2. The Relationship between the Choice ofResponding Strategies to Off-record Requestsand the Three Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

7.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

CHAPTER 8Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2098.2. Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

8.2.1. Situational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2118.2.2. Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2118.2.3. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . 213

8.3. Evaluating This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2138.3.1. Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2148.3.2. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

8.4. Implications of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2188.5. Suggestions for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2198.6. Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Appendices

Appendix 1. Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2451.1. Requesting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2451.2. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . 255

Appendix 2. Questionnaires in English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2632.1. Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2632.2. Situational Assessment (SA 96) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2792.3. Main Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

15

List of Tables

Table 1. Brown and Levinson’s Dyadsand Politeness Strategy Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 2. Labels and Glosses for Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Table 3. Labels and Glosses for Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Table 4. Labels and Glosses for Imposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Table 5. Robinson’s View of Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Table 6. A Summary of Features of Collectivist Culturesand Individualist Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Table 7. Classification of Twelve Situations in SA 96 . . . . . . . . . 148

Table 8. Category of Twelve Situations in SA 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Table 9. 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 Britishand Japanese Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Table 15. The Number of the Subjects who SelectedEach Choice of Requesting Strategies andthe 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 Strategiesand the Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Table 17. Spearman’s rank-order Correlation Coefficientsbetween the Choice of Requesting Strategiesand the Three Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

16

Table 18. Spearman’s rank-order Correlation Coefficientsbetween the Choice of Requesting Strategies byBritish and Japanese Subjects and Power Difference . . . 173

Table 19. The Number of the Subjects who SelectedEach Choice of Responding Strategies andthe Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Table 20. Spearman’s rank-order Correlation Coefficientsbetween the Choice of Responding Strategiesto Off-record Requests and the Three Variables . . . . . . . 175

Table 21. A Summary of the Results of Situational Assessment,Requesting Strategies, and Responding Strategiesto Off-record Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Table 22. Features of British and Japanese Culturesand Requesting Strategies by British andJapanese Subjects in This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

17

List of Figures

Figure 1. Leech’s 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 Sequenceof 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 inHuman Mental Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Figure 16. Individualism and Collectivism:An Integrated Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Figure 17. Methods of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

18


19

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1. Introduction

The present study is concerned with the study of politeness in the contextof cross-cultural pragmatics. Specifically, the investigation reported heremay contribute to cross-cultural pragmatics by applying and developingBrown and Levinson’s politeness theory (Brown and Levinson, 1978; 1987),notably with respect to requests and responses to off-record requests. Brownand Levinson have made a significant contribution to theory, but as theythemselves acknowledge (Ibid.: 11), they have not provided an equallysound methodology, and in this study, I attempt to put their politenesstheory on to a more secure methodological footing, to be discussed inmore detail in chapter 5.

Since its first publication in 1978, Brown and Levinson’s theory ofpoliteness has been subject to many criticisms. Taking account of suchcriticisms, and considering their theory in more detail, I will attempt toargue that:

1. the variables determining politeness strategies proposed by Brown andLevinson are valid; and

2. Brown and Levinson’s framework is still valid for cross-culturalcomparison.

More detailed discussion will be provided in chapter 2, where I will examinethe following features of their politeness theory:

1. the variables determining politeness strategies; and2. the politeness strategies in relation to their classification of British and

Japanese cultures, i.e., that both are classified as negative politenesscultures, and the politeness strategies used in the two cultures aredistributed under Dyad II in their scheme.

20

More specifically, I will examine:

1. whether there are cross-cultural variations in the assessment of powerdifference and social distance between S and H, and the degree ofimposition 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 thedegree of imposition, are influential in deciding politeness strategies;and

3. whether their categorisation of British and Japanese cultures withinnegative politeness cultures (the politeness strategies of British andJapanese cultures are located in Dyad II) is valid.

I will discuss requesting strategies in Dyad II and the three variables infurther detail in chapters 2 and 3 respectively.

I will also attempt to develop further the area of responses to off-record strategies, based on Brown and Levinson’s theory. Such strategieshave not been developed in their account, although they (1987: 71) havebriefly mentioned a response to an off-record request when discussing off-record strategies. I will try to incorporate responses to off-record strategieswithin their framework, while also establishing a theoretical connectionbetween responding strategies to off-record requests and face, which is acentral component of their theory. I define one type of response to off-record requests, in which H preempts S’s request, as solicitousness, to bediscussed in detail in chapter 3, and investigate displays of solicitousnessby British and Japanese subjects. Since displays of solicitousness appear tobe culturally relative, the cultural dimensions of this study will be reviewedin chapter 4.

In sum, I will attempt:

1. to examine Brown and Levinson’s theory; and2. 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, focusingon requests and responses to off-record requests in the contexts of con-temporary Britain and Japan. In conducting the study, I will attempt todevise an appropriate methodology for a cross-cultural comparison, whichwill be discussed further in chapter 5.

21

Politeness strategies in British and Japanese cultures were chosen as thefocus of this study because, although there have been quite a few studiescomparing communication in a negative politeness culture (Japan) with apositive 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 myknowledge, there have not been previous studies comparing two negativepoliteness 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 tomake a contribution to this field. Basically, pragmatics is concerned withexplaining areas not covered by syntax or semantics, which is why prag-matics is often called ‘the waste-basket of linguistics’ (Mey, 1993: 12), butin thirty years pragmatics has advanced from the proverbial wastebasketto a full grown academic field (Biletzki, 1996: 455). Leech (1983: 6) redefinespragmatics for the purposes of linguistics as “the study of meaning inrelation 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 thewords and grammar of a language does not ensure successful communication. Wordscan mean more – or something other – than what they say. Their interpretationdepends on a multiplicity of factors, including familiarity with the context,intonational cues and cultural assumptions. The same phrase may have differentmeanings on different occasions, and the same intention may be expressed by differentlinguistic means. Phenomena like these are the concern of pragmatics.

She also points out the difference between early pragmatics and contem-porary pragmatics:

… much of early pragmatics research (especially speech act theory …) tended tofocus on isolated utterances. In contrast, contemporary pragmatics bases its analysesmainly on discourse – extended sequences of actual text and talk – and sets as itsgoal the development of a comprehensive theory of the relations between languageuse and sociocultural contexts. (Ibid.: 38)

22

In contemporary pragmatics, there has been a growth of interest in cross-cultural features, and “the study of differences in expectations based oncultural schemata is part of a broad area of investigation generally knownas cross-cultural pragmatics” (Yule, 1996: 87). Among the most extensivepieces of research in this area is CCSARP (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain,1984; Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper, 1989), comparing requests andapologies in eight languages and language varieties.

According to Blum-Kulka (1997: 55), in cross-cultural pragmatics thereare two approaches to analysis, which, to use the terms employed byLeech (1983), are:

1. pragmalinguistic; and2. sociopragmatic.

Leech (1983: 10–11) explains the difference as follows:

… socio-pragmatics is the sociological interface of pragmatics. … The termpragmalinguistics, on the other hand, can be applied to the study of the more linguisticend of pragmatics – where we consider the particular resources which a given languageprovides for conveying particular illocutions.

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

… socio-pragmatics would involve the assignment of variant values to the principlesand maxims.

According to Blum-Kulka (1997: 55–56), in pragmalinguistic studies, thefocus is on examining the linguistic realisations in a particular languagefor conveying a specific pragmatic function, whereas in sociopragmaticstudies, the focus is on the choice of strategies across different situations,examining the way in which pragmatic performance is subjected to socialand cultural conditions.

This study falls in the area of cross-cultural pragmatics in that itcompares politeness strategies in British English and in Japanese, followinga sociopragmatic approach.

23

1.3. Structure of This Study

In order to establish a theoretical position, I review the major politenesstheories and the criticisms of Brown and Levinson’s theory in chapter 2,while in chapter 3 I review requests and the responses to requests to finda basis for the research instrument. In chapter 4, I review cultural featuresrelated to this study, because there appears to be some relationship betweenthese features on the one hand and the choice of strategies in requestingand responding to off-record requests on the other. In chapter 5, I describethe research design, after reviewing methods for data collection. The resultsof the data are presented in chapter 6, and discussed in chapter 7. Theconclusions, including the implications for further studies, are presentedin chapter 8.

1.4. Conclusion

With pragmatics, the study of cross-cultural realisations of politenessphenomena has extended and challenged existing theories of politeness,notably that of Brown and Levinson. Among the gaps in their theory isthe area of requesting strategies in their Dyad II, and of responses to off-record requests, especially what I have defined as solicitousness. This gapprovides an opportunity to apply, extend and test their model of politenessin two-cultural settings, using comparable sets of subjects, and comparablesituations. My study focuses on

• the variables determining politeness strategies;• the requesting strategies; and• the responding strategies to off-record requests.

24


25

CHAPTER 2

Politeness Theories

2.1. Introduction

In this chapter, I outline the theoretical position of this study. In 2.2., I willconsider politeness, a major concern in pragmatics (Blum-Kulka, 1997:50), and in 2.3., I will review politeness theories using Fraser’s (1990)four views. Since this study is concerned with politeness in the context ofcross-cultural pragmatics and since it involves an empirical study withBritish and Japanese subjects, it will be necessary to find a theoreticalbasis which is sufficiently robust for a cross-cultural comparison andempirical testability.

A review of all four views of politeness reveals that the face-savingview of Brown and Levinson’s is the only one among the four which “satis-fies the criteria for empirical theories, such as explicitness, parsimony,and predictiveness,” (Kasper, 1994: 3208) and “with respect to the issueof empirical testability, it is important to realize that Brown and Levinson’sframework ultimately represents, analyzes and accounts for highly reduced,idealized, models of speech activities” (Janney and Arndt, 1993: 19) (italicsin original). Brown and Levinson also offer a framework for comparingcross-cultural differences in politeness. Therefore, it would be appropriateto take Brown and Levinson’s view as a theoretical basis in this study.

Since the publication of Brown and Levinson (1978; 1987), manycriticisms of Brown and Levinson have been made. As I am adoptingBrown and Levinson’s politeness theory as a basis for this study, it is neces-sary to review these criticisms and to attempt to argue that their theory isboth valid and appropriate for this study, which involves making a cross-cultural comparison. In 2.4.1., I will review the criticisms concerning faceand universality, most of which have been made by non-Western research-ers. Among these non-Western researchers, Nwoye (1992) criticises Brownand Levinson’s notion of face from the viewpoint of egalitarian Igbo society,in which gregariousness rather than atomistic individuals is the norm andwhere people are still to a large extent their ‘brother’s keepers’ so that

26

very few acts are considered as impositions. However, this simply meansthat the boundaries of negative politeness have been redrawn in Igbo society.As there are many acts which can be impositions in Japanese and Britishsocieties, I will discount Nwoye’s criticism. Among other non-Westernresearchers, Japanese and Chinese pragmaticists have extensively criticisedthe Brown and Levinson concept of face. de Kadt (1998: 173) notes that:

… a number of authors working with languages from the Far East, with Chineseand 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 becausethis study deals with Japanese culture.

In 2.4.2., I will attempt to evaluate these criticisms, and also try toclarify my ideas on politeness strategies in Japan, after having consideredthe criticisms made by the Japanese researchers.

2.2. Definitions of Politeness

As Thomas (1995: 149) points out, there has been a great deal of interestin politeness in pragmatics, and just as definitions of pragmatics vary, sotoo do definitions of politeness. Not only is the term used in differentways, 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 ofrational social goals such as maximising the benefit to self and other, minimising theface-threatening nature of a social act, displaying adequate proficiency in the acceptedstandards of social etiquette, avoiding conflict, making sure that the social interactionruns smoothly, etc.

Another difficulty is pointed out by Kasper (1994: 3206), noting thedifferent meanings of the term in ordinary parlance and pragmatics. Inthe former,

… ‘politeness’ refers to proper social conduct and tactful consideration for others.

27

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 islinguistic action, ‘politeness’ as a pragmatic notion refers to ways in which linguisticaction is carried out – more specifically, ways in which the relational function inlinguistic action is expressed.

LoCastro (1990: 252) points out that the term “politeness” is frequentlyconfused with related folk terms like “etiquette” and “manners” and ithas folk meanings that are not clearly distinguishable from its more tech-nical or formal meanings. Indeed, the definition of “polite” in CollinsCOBUILD English Language Dictionary (1987) is in line with the folkmeaning of the term, in the sense of referring to good manners and socialcorrectness.

Someone who is polite has good manners and behaves in a way that is sociallycorrect and considerate of other people’s feelings.

Polite describes things that you say or do simply because it is socially correct to door say them, rather than because you mean them sincerely. (Collins COBUILDEnglish 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 theJapanese translation of “politeness,” teinei, also has a similar connotation.According to Hori (1986), the Japanese concept of “being polite” includesonly negative politeness.

These views of politeness coincide with what Watts et al. (1992a) havetermed “first-order” politeness in their scheme in which they distinguishbetween the folk and pragmatic definitions of the term, the latter being“second-order” politeness in their classification. Second-order politenessis located within a theory of social behaviour and language use, and is notequated with any moral or psychological disposition towards being niceto one’s 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 ofcommunication strategies intended to maintain mutual face and to achievesmooth communication, taking into account human relationships. Thepromoting and maintaining of politeness calls for displays of appropriatebehaviour. What is considered to be appropriate varies from situation tosituation and culture to culture, while personal values and tastes may alsoinfluence judgements of appropriateness.

28

2.3. Four Views of Politeness

Fraser (1990) reviews four current approaches to politeness: (1) the social-norm view; (2) the conversational-maxim view; (3) the face-saving view;and (4) the conversational-contract view. In this section, these four viewsare 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 thesocial-norm view which assumes that each society has a particular set ofsocial norms consisting of more or less explicit rules that prescribe a certainbehavior, a state of affairs, or a way of thinking in a context. A positiveevaluation (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 politenessto be associated with speech style, whereby a higher degree of formalityimplies greater politeness” (Fraser, 1990: 221). The social-norm viewcorresponds to “first-order politeness” suggested by Watts et al. (1992a).According to them (1992a: 3), first-order politeness corresponds to thevarious ways in which polite behaviour is perceived and talked about bymembers of socio-cultural groups. It encompasses, in other words, common-sense notions of politeness. According to Fraser (1990: 221), “the social-norm approach has few adherents among current researchers.” This maybe 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 atheoretical basis for this study.

2.3.2. The Conversational-maxim View

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

29

Cooperative Principle (CP). Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983) have adoptedand elaborated Grice’s Cooperative Principle. I will review Grice’s view in2.3.2.1., Lakoff’s view in 2.3.2.2., and Leech’s view in 2.3.2.3.

2.3.2.1. Grice

Grice’s (1975) paper “Logic and conversation” gave rise to the study oflinguistic politeness within the framework of Anglo-American pragmaticsand the ensuing attempt to develop second-order politeness concepts (Wattset al., 1992a: 3). It aims at representing and accounting for a certain sub-class of “nonconventional implicatures” (also known as “conversationalimplicatures”) as “essentially connected with certain general features ofdiscourse” (Grice, 1975: 45). These general features he embodied in whathas become known as the Cooperative Principle. It is based on the followingassumption:

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 atleast, 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 CooperativePrinciple (CP).

Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which itoccurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you areengaged.

The Cooperative Principle entails four maxims, each of which furtherentails submaxims. Grice named these maxims after Kant’s categories:Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner, each of which is as follows (Grice,1975: 45–46):

1. Quantity(1) Make your contribution as informative as required (for the purpose of theexchange).(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.

30

3. RelationBe 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: 113–114) says that:

I have suggested a Cooperative Principle and some subordinate maxims, with regardto which I have suggested: (i) that they are standardly (though not invariably) observedby participants in a talk exchange; and (ii) that the assumptions required in order tomaintain 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 theconversational type.

The cooperative principle and its associated conversational maximsconstituted a part of a systematic philosophical theory of language whichwas predicated upon the assumption that the primary purpose of conversa-tion is the maximally effective exchange of information (Turner, 1997: 5).

Grice (1975: 48) expressed the desire to have a rational basis for thestandard type of conversational practice:

I would like to be able to think of the standard type of conversational practice notmerely as something that all or most do IN FACT follow but as something that it isREASONABLE for us to follow, that we SHOULD NOT abandon.

The important notion that Grice is trying to explicate is conversationalrationality, although Grice (1989: 369) admits that:

… some refinement in our apparatus is called for. First, it is only certain aspects ofour conversational practice which are candidates for evaluation, namely those whichare crucial to its rationality … it is the rationality or irrationality of conversationalconduct which I have been concerned to track down rather than any more generalcharacterization of conversational adequacy.

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

31

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

Keenan (1976), Eades (1982), and Loveday (1983) argue against theuniversality of the maxims of quality, quantity, and manner respectively,while Wierzbicka (1985: 175) argues convincingly that the attested uni-versality of the ‘logic of conversation’ seems ethnocentric. It is worth notingAttardo’s (1998: 631) comment on Keenan’s criticism:

Keenan (1976), a widely quoted apparent counterexample to the CP has been refutedrepeatedly; … It is an interesting fact that despite the overwhelming amount ofevidence against Keenan’s claim of falsification her article is still quoted as a refutationof Grice’s 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’ be-havior, such as arguing, lying, hurling abuse, may yet be perfectly coopera-tive according to some interpretations of Grice’s (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: 390–391) notes a troubling ambiguity withrespect to the conversational tactics associated with politeness.

Although there are some limitations in Grice’s CP as shown by theabove criticisms, I prefer to align myself with Thomas (1994: 762), whoconcludes 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 Grice’s work, one majorasset of which is the flexibility to describe the violation and not just the observanceof the postulates. None of the scholars who have criticized various aspects of hisviews fails to acknowledge his significant contribution to the study of conversationand utterance interpretation.

Brown and Levinson (1987: 5) also admit the importance of Grice’smaxims, which

… are not merely statements of regular patterns in behaviour; they are backgroundpresumptions, which by virtue of that special status are robust to apparent counter-evidence.

32

And they assign Grice’s theory the status of a general theory of communi-cation (Sarangi & Slembrouck, 1992: 120).

To sum up, although Grice’s work has been subject to criticism, it hasprovided a basis for a conversational-maxim view, and has provided afoundation for Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory to be discussed in2.3.3., because as Brown and Levinson (1987: 3) note,

The original essay presumes that Grice’s theory of conversational implicature andthe framework of maxims that give rise to such implicatures is essentially correct.

2.3.2.2. Lakoff

Lakoff (1973), adopting Grice’s construct of Conversational Principles inan effort to account for politeness (Fraser, 1990: 223), suggested that Grice’smaxims should be reformulated as pragmatic rules according to whichutterances could be classified as well-formed or non-well-formed (Wattset al., 1992a: 3). Lakoff (1973: 296) proposes two rules of PragmaticCompetence:

1. Be clear.2. Be polite.

Lakoff (Ibid.: 297–298) points out “… when Clarity conflicts with Polite-ness, in most cases Politeness supersedes: it is considered more importantin a conversation to avoid offense than to achieve clarity.” She (Ibid.: 298)lists the rules of politeness:

1. Don’t 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, don’t intrudeinto ‘other people’s business.’” The second rule operates sometimes alongwith the first rule, sometimes in cases where the first rule would beinappropriate. Lakoff (Ibid.: 299) explains that “certain particles may beused to give the addressee an option about how he is to react.” The ultimateeffect of the third rule is “to make the addressee feel good: that is, itproduces a sense of equality between Sp and A, and (providing Sp is actuallyequal or better than A) this makes A feel good” (Ibid.: 301). It accounts

33

for the cases in which the speaker employs devices which will make theaddressee feel wanted, or feel like a friend.

In a later development of her theory, Lakoff (1975: 65) reformulatedthese rules as follows:

1. Formality: keep aloof.2. Deference: give options.3. Camaraderie: show sympathy.

Lakoff’s rules of politeness have also been criticised, mainly on the groundsof theoretical weakness. Fraser (1990) points out that Lakoff does notexplicitly say what she understands politeness to be, while Sifianou (1992:22) states that Lakoff does not define the terms she uses so that they aresusceptible to misinterpretation. Turner (1996: 6) also points out that “heraccount (i) leaves these rules in this state of imprecision and, in spite ofher numerous appeals to the importance of context and situation for linguis-tic description, (ii) makes no attempt to theorise the notion of context.”Yeung (1997: 506) criticises Lakoff’s position on the grounds that she“never goes into the question of how the choice is made.” Overall, Lakoff’sview does not seem to be sufficiently well-formulated to provide a basis ofthis 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 theCP. He (1983: 82) notes that:

The CP enables one participant in a conversation to communicate on the assump-tion that the other participant is being cooperative. In this the CP has the functionof regulating what we say so that it contributes to some assumed illocutionaryor discoursal goal(s). It could be argued, however, that the PP has a higher regula-tive role than this: to maintain the social equilibrium and the friendly relationswhich enable us to assume that our interlocutors are being cooperative in the firstplace.

Essentially, as Kingwell (1993: 395) notes, “Leech’s PP clarifies what isobscured in Grice…”

Leech’s framework consists of (1) Interpersonal Rhetoric and (2) TextualRhetoric. (Figure 1.)

34

Maxim of QuantityCooperative Maxim of QualityPrinciple (CP) Maxim of Relation

Maxim of Manner

Maxim of TactInter- Politeness Maxim of Generositypersonal Principle (PP) Maxim of Approbationrhetoric Maxim of Modesty

Maxim of AgreementMaxim of Sympathy

Irony Principle

ProcessibilityPrinciple

Textualrhetoric Clarity Principle

Economy Principle

Expressivity Principle

Figure 1. Leechís Maxims (Modified version of Leech, 1983: 16)

Leech (1983: 132) proposes six maxims of the politeness principle, whichare 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]

35

Leech (1983: 123) further proposes that each of these maxims has a set ofscales which must be consulted by the hearer in determining the degree ofapplication of the maxim required in a given speech situation. These scalesare as follows:

(1) The cost-benefit scale on which is estimated the cost or benefit of the proposedaction A to s or to h.

(2) The optionality scale on which illocutions are ordered according to the amountof choice which s allows to h.

(3) The indirectness scale on which, from s’s point of view, illocutions are orderedwith respect to the length of the path (in terms of means-ends analysis) connectingthe illocutionary act to its illocutionary goal.

In addition to the above scales, Leech (1983: 126) proposes two furtherscales 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 Gilman’s (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 orauthority of one participant over another, and it is an asymmetric measure.The horizontal axis measures solidarity, or social distance. The overalldegree of respectfulness, for a given speech situation, depends largely onrelatively permanent factors of status, age, degree of intimacy, etc., butalso, to some extent, on the temporary role of one person relative to another(Leech, 1983: 126).

Leech (1983: 127) summarises the way these various parametersinfluence 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 “rela-tive” politeness. The former can be analysed as a scale with a positive anda 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.

36

Leech’s Politeness Principles have also been criticised. One of the criti-cisms is that politeness is never explicitly defined (Watts et al., 1992a: 6).There are criticisms concerning the difficulty of application of his principlesto actual language usage or of testing them empirically (e.g. Fraser, 1990;Watts et al., 1992a: 7; Yeung, 1997: 506). Another criticism is that thenumber of the maxims is unconstrained (e.g. Thomas, 1995: 167; Turner,1996: 6; Yeung, 1997: 506). Considering the above criticisms, it would notbe appropriate to take Leech’s 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 bestknown is that of Brown and Levinson (1978; 1987). In contrast to Leech,they maintain that Grice’s CP has a very different status in their theoryfrom any so-called politeness principles. Brown and Levinson assert thatlinguistic politeness constitutes a message, a conversational implicatureof the sort proposed by Grice (Fraser, 1990: 228), and they propose apoliteness model that aims to account for the deviations from Grice’sCooperative Principle. In other words, as noted in 2.3.2.1., Grice’s CP hasprovided a foundation for Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, butBrown and Levinson’s theory is different from that of Grice, as they (1987:5) explain that while the CP defines an ‘unmarked’ or socially neutralpresumptive framework for communication and the essential assumptionis ‘no deviation from rational efficiency without a reason,’ politenessprinciples 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 isendowed with the properties of rationality and face, the latter being centralto 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 definablemode of reasoning from ends to the means that will achieve those ends. By ‘face’ wemean something quite specific again: our MP is endowed with two particular wants

37

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

Brown and Levinson (Ibid.: 64) further define rationality as “the applicationof a specific mode of reasoning … which guarantees inferences from endsor goals to means that will satisfy those ends.”

Their notion of face is derived from that of Goffman (1967) who definesface as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself bythe line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is animage of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes…” Goffman(Ibid.: 7) sees face not as a private or an internalized property lodged in oron an individual’s body, but as an image located in the flow of events,supported by other people’s judgments, and endorsed by impersonalagencies in the situation. Goffman (Ibid.: 15–23) specifies two kinds offace-work: the “avoidance process” (avoiding potentially face-threateningacts) and the “corrective process” (performing a variety of redressive acts).

Another source of Brown and Levinson’s notion of face is the Englishfolk concept of face, which is linked to notions like “being embarrassedor humiliated, or losing face.” Mao (1994: 454) points out that such notionsof face seem to be Chinese in origin. Thomas (1995: 168) also states thatthe term ‘face’ in the sense of ‘reputation’ or ‘good name’ seems to havebeen first used in English in 1876 as a translation of the Chinese term ‘diulian’ in the phrase ‘Arrangements by which China has lost face.’

Brown and Levinson (1987: 61) define face as “the public self-imagethat every member wants to claim for himself,” and state that “face issomething 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. Positiveface refers to an individual’s desire to be accepted and valued by others,and negative face pertains to one’s want to have the freedom to act withoutbeing impeded. They maintain that the notion of face constituted by thesetwo basic desires is universal, although they recognise that the content offace is culture-specific and subject to much cultural elaboration (Brownand Levinson, 1987: 13).

Central to our model is a highly abstract notion of ‘face’ which consists of twospecific kinds of desires…: the desire to be unimpeded in one’s actions (negativeface), and the desire (in some respects) to be approved of (positive face). This is thebare bones of a notion of face which (we argue) is universal, but which in anyparticular society we would expect to be the subject of much cultural elaboration.

38

On the one hand this core concept is subject to cultural specifications of manysorts – what kinds of acts threaten face, what sorts of persons have special rights toface-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 notionsof face naturally link up to some of the most fundamental cultural ideas about thenature of the social persona, honour and virtue, shame and redemption and thus toreligious concepts… (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 13)

Brown and Levinson (Ibid.: 62) also assume that “the mutual knowledgeof members’ public self-image or face, and the social necessity to orientoneself to it in interaction, are universal.” In Kasper’s (1990: 195) words,“… interactants ensure … the different kinds of face wants postulated byBrown and Levinson, positive and negative face, which they claim to beuniversally valid social needs.” This claim to universality has been contestedby other researchers (See 2.4.1.).

Brown and Levinson’s key concept regarding face is Face-ThreateningActs (FTAs), which means that “certain kinds of acts intrinsically threatenface, namely those acts that by their nature run contrary to the face wantsof 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 hearer’s positive face (by,for example, insulting H or expressing disapproval of something which H holdsdear), or H’s negative face (an order, for example, will impinge upon H’s freedom ofaction); or the illocutionary act may potentially damage the speaker’s own positiveface (if S has to admit to having botched a job, for example) or S’s 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. Brownand 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, baldlyon record

2. positive politenesswith redressive action

Do the FTA 3. negative politeness4. off record

5. Don’t do the FTA

Figure 2. Possible Strategies for Doing FTAs (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 69)

39

The difference between on record and off record lies in whether thecommunicative intention is clear to participants (on record) or whetherthere is more than one unambiguously attributable intention so that theactor cannot be held to have committed himself to one particular intent(off record) (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 68–69).

On record is subcategorised into:

1. Without redressive action, baldly; and2. 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 recordwithout 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 suspendedin the interests of urgency or efficiency; (b) where the danger to H’s face is verysmall, as in offers, requests, suggestions that are clearly in H’s interest and do notrequire great sacrifices of S (e.g., ‘Come in’ or ‘Do sit down’); and (c) where S isvastly superior in power to H, or can enlist audience support to destroy H’s facewithout losing his own. (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 69)

Thomas (1995: 170–171) rephrases the above, also adding her own viewas 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. inemergencies);

• when the overall ‘weightiness’ of the FTA is very small (e.g. whenmaking a trivial request of someone you know well and who has nopower over you);

• when the FTA is perceived as being in the H’s 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 Thomas’s addition to Brown and Levinson.)

Redressive action “attempts to counteract the potential face damage ofthe 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

40

that S in general recognizes H’s face wants and himself wants them to beachieved” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 69–70).

Redressive action is subcategorised into:

1. positive politeness; and2. negative politeness.

“Positive politeness is oriented toward the positive face of H, the positiveself-image that he claims for himself.” “Negative politeness, on the otherhand, is oriented mainly toward partially satisfying (redressing) H’s negativeface, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination.”Positive politeness is “approach-based” and negative politeness is “avoid-ance-based” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 70).

Brown and Levinson’s fourth strategy is “off record,” by which theymean that a communicative act is done “in such a way that it is not possibleto attribute only one clear communicative intention to the act” (Brown andLevinson, 1987: 211). Explaining how off-record strategies help S avoidthe responsibility of doing an FTA, Brown and Levinson (Ibid.) say that:

… the actor leaves himself an ‘out’ by providing himself with a number of defensibleinterpretations; he cannot be held to have committed himself to just one particularinterpretation of his act. Thus, if a speaker wants to do an FTA, but wants to avoidthe responsibility for doing it, he can do it off record and leave it up to the addresseeto decide how to interpret it.

They (Ibid.) further explain that:

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

They (Ibid.) suggest that there is essentially a two-stage process to arriveat 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 actuallysaid, this last providing a sufficient clue for the inference.

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

41

The detailed strategies of off-record strategies are based on the violationof 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 consistin ‘raising the issue of’ some desired act A, for instance, by stating motivesor reasons for doing A (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 214–215). Here is anexample: “It’s cold in here. (c. i. Shut the window.)” (Brown and Levinson,1987: 215)

Brown and Levinson’s fifth strategy is “Don’t do the FTA.” In thisstrategy, nothing is said because the risk of face loss is extremely great.

Brown and Levinson argue that not only ‘face,’ but also the strategiesof face redress, are universal. They further claim that the underlyingrational, motivational, and functional foundations of politeness are assumedto be, to some extent, universal, and are assumed to influence, and bereflected by, speech in many different languages and cultures (Janney andArndt, 1993: 14).

In Brown and Levinson, as in Leech, scales are involved in assessingthe degree of politeness required. A speaker must determine the seriousnessof a face-threatening act in terms of three independent and culturally-sensitive variables: (1) social distance; (2) power; and (3) absolute rankingof 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 seriousnessof 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) + Rxwhere 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 ameasure of the power that H has over S, and Rx is a value that measures the degreeto which the FTAx is rated an imposition in that culture.

42

They note that “all three dimensions P, D, and R contribute to the serious-ness of an FTA, and thus to a determination of the level of politeness withwhich, other things being equal, an FTA will be communicated” (Ibid.:76). According to them (Ibid.: 76–77), in many cases D “is based on anassessment of the frequency of interaction and the kinds of material ornon-material goods (including face) exchanged between S and H.” They(Ibid.: 77) define P as “the degree to which H can impose his own plansand his own self-evaluation (face) at the expense of S’s plans and self-evaluation.” According to them, the sources of P are twofold: (1) materialcontrol (over economic distribution and physical force) and (2) meta-physical control (over the actions of others, by virtue of metaphysicalforces 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 at-tached not to individuals at all, but to roles or role-sets. Thus in the role-set manager/employee, or parent/child, asymmetrical power is built in.”

R is defined as “a culturally and situationally defined ranking of imposi-tions by the degree to which they are considered to interfere with an agent’swants of self-determination or of approval (his negative- and positive-face wants)” (Ibid.: 77). They contend that the ranking of impositions isrelated to (1) services (including the provision of time) and (2) goods, aswell as actor’s rights and obligations. They (Ibid.: 79) also state that “…impositions can still situationally vary in value; to ask for a dollar is gen-erally to ask for more than to ask for a dime, yet to ask for a dime just out-side a telephone booth is less than to ask for a dime for no apparent rea-son 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 complexparameters; such factors are certainly culture-specific.

I think culture-specificity of factors of each variable may result in thecultural differences in the perceptions of situations which I will review inthe 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 Levinson’s theory with re-spect to face, universality and politeness strategies, and variables determin-

43

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 amgoing to use their model as a basis of the present study which attempts anempirical cross-cultural comparison between British and Japanese cultures.By now, it is clear that Brown and Levinson’s theory is well formulated forsuch an empirical study, but there seems to be a need to consider furtherhow it can explain cross-cultural variation.

Brown and Levinson (1987: 242) claim that their quite specific universalprinciples can provide the basis for an account of diverse cultural differencesin interaction. In Holtgraves and Yang’s (1992: 247) words, Brown andLevinson’s theory is significant in providing a comprehensive frameworkfor explaining cultural similarities and differences in language use.

Similarities arise from the assumption of a universal concern with face and thelinguistic means for conveying face concerns. … It is important to note thatthe theory also includes mechanisms for explaining cultural differences in languageuse.

The basic resources Brown and Levinson (1987: 242) use to show culturaldifferences 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 inoriginal) which can explain why there might be cultural differences inpoliteness in the same situation.

Brown and Levinson (1987: 244–245) list the following as the apparatuswith which to describe cross-cultural variations:

(i) The general level of Wx in a culture, as determined by the sum of P, D, and Rvalues.(ii) The extent to which all acts are FTAs, and the particular kinds of acts that areFTAs 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.

44

(iv) Different modes of assignment of members to the sets of persons whoman actor wants to pay him positive face, and the extent to which those sets are ex-tended …(v) The nature and distribution of strategies over the most prominent dyadic relationsin a particular society …

With reference to dimension (i), Brown and Levinson (Ibid.: 245) notethat they can distinguish between positive-politeness cultures and negative-politeness cultures. According to them (Ibid.), both British and Japanese,which are dealt in this study, are characterised as negative politeness cul-tures. (This is also claimed by Blum-Kulka (1987: 140) and Scollon andScollon (1983)). Brown and Levinson (1987: 245) explain that in positivepoliteness 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 relativepower as never very great. These are the friendly back-slapping cultures, as in thewestern 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 politenessculture should show a greater preference for the two more polite strategies(negative politeness and off-record strategies) than individuals in a positivepoliteness culture (Holtgraves and Yang, 1990: 721). Noting that sub-cultural 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; dominatinggroups have negative-politeness cultures. That is, the world of the upper and middlegroups 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 socialcloseness, symmetrical solidarity and reciprocity. (Ibid.)

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

45

In dimension (iii), the varying importances attached to P, D, and R,and the different scales for their assessment, seems to be similar to dimen-sion (ii), Brown and Levinson (Ibid.: 248) noting that these observations(those in dimension (ii)) overlap with our third dimension of cross-culturalvariation.

Concerning dimension (iv), Brown and Levinson (Ibid.: 249) note that:

… the different ways in which positive-face wants are distributed over an ego’ssocial network allow us to capture an important variable: in some cultures (orsubcultures) there is a dramatic distinction between those whom you really want tobe similar to and appreciated by as a more or less whole person and those whomyou wish to value some special trait or ability that you possess, but nothing more.

In considering some patterns resulting from the fifth dimension, the distri-bution of strategies (from bald on record through positive and negativepoliteness to indirectness), they (Ibid.: 250–251) formulate “a set of fourkinds of dyads (or generalized social relationships) specified by two polarvalues (high and low) attributed to S and H, on the two dimensions P andD.” Table 1 is a brief summary of their dyads and distribution of politenessstrategies

Dyad Features Politeness Strategies Countries/ Societies

I The majority of Bald on record Indiapublic relations (to inferiors)are dominated by Negative politeness/high P relations off record

(to superiors)

II High D relations High-numbered Japan; Madagascar;dominate in public strategies Englandencounters

III Low D is the Symmetrical use western U.S.A.emphasis and of bald on recordP is minimized Positive politeness

IV Low P relations Symmetrical low- between men;prevail without numbered strategies between women;high D in an egalitarian society

Table 1. Brown and Levinsonís Dyads and Politeness Strategy Distribution

46

Brown and Levinson (1987: 251) consider that Japan and England belongto the same dyad, although they note that there is a difference in the degreeto what extent Japan and England belong to Dyad II, saying, “In societieswhere high D relations dominate in public encounters (of which Japan byall accounts is one, Madagascar another, and England to a lesser degree yetanother), one would expect symmetrical use of high-numbered strategies1

to be most evident” (Ibid.). This means that in Dyad II, “negative and off-record strategies will prevail in social encounters” (Sifianou, 1992: 96).

A question is raised concerning the validity of categorising British andJapanese cultures together as negative politeness cultures (e.g. Matsumoto,1988: 408–409). I will take Brown and Levinson’s view of categorisingBritish and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures as a generalhypothesis, and I will investigate the validity of Brown and Levinson’scategorisation of British and Japanese cultures as negative politenesscultures, their politeness strategies being distributed in Dyad II, by analysingthe results of the requesting strategies selected by British subjects andthose by Japanese subjects. If Brown and Levinson’s categorisation is valid,it can be hypothesised that the requesting strategies selected by Britishand Japanese subjects will be similar. That is, the high-numbered requestingstrategies, i.e., negative politeness strategies and off-record strategies, willbe employed by both British and Japanese subjects.

2.3.4. The Conversational-contract View

The fourth approach to politeness is the conversational-contract view whichhas been presented by Fraser (1975) and Fraser and Nolen (1981) and

1 Brown and Levinson did not explain what the high-numbered strategies were whenthey 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 havenumbered their strategies as follows:1. Bald-on-record strategies;2. Positive politeness strategies;3. Negative politeness strategies;4. Off-record strategies; and5. Don’t do the FTA.Therefore, what they mean by the high-numbered strategies are negative politenessand off-record strategies, as Sifianou (1992: 96) notes.

47

elaborated by Fraser (1990). Adopting Grice’s (1975) notion of the Co-operative Principle in general, it recognises the importance of Goffman’snotion of face, but differs from Brown and Levinson’s 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 thatwill determine, at least for the preliminary states, what the participants can expectfrom 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: thetwo parties may readjust just what rights and what obligations they hold towardseach other.

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

2.3.5. The Theoretical Position of This Study

In this section, I have reviewed four major approaches to politeness: thesocial-norm view, the conversational-maxim view, the face-saving viewand the conversational-contract view. The social-norm view is more likean everyday view of etiquette or manners, rather than a theory of politeness,and this fails to provide a theoretical base. The conversational-maximview has some limitations and it is not sufficiently well formulated to betested empirically, although Grice’s work has provided a foundation forBrown and Levinson’s politeness theory. The face-saving view, proposedin Brown and Levinson’s theory provides a precise formulation of politenessand a basis for making cross-cultural comparison. The conversational-contract view is not yet sufficiently well formulated for empirical research.Since this is an empirical study, dealing with cross-cultural pragmatics, it

48

requires a theoretical base, which is well formulated for a cross-culturalcomparison and testability. As Brown and Levinson’s view is the only onewhich satisfies these among the four major approaches, theirs will be takenas the theoretical basis for the present study.

2.4. Criticisms of Brown and Levinson

As Thomas (1995: 176) points out, “Brown and Levinson’s work has beenextraordinarily influential and very widely discussed. It is not surprising,therefore, that a number of criticisms have been made of their model ofpoliteness.” Since I am taking Brown and Levinson’s theory as the basisfor 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 Levinson’s three variables, too,some studies having shown different results from Brown and Levinson’sprediction, i.e., “a positive correlation between the weight of contextualfactors (social distance, power, and imposition) and politeness investment”(Kasper, 1994: 3209). I will not consider the criticisms concerning thevariables in this section, but I will discuss this issue in 3.7.1. My purposein this section is to show that Brown and Levinson’s theory is valid as atheoretical basis for this study, despite all the criticisms, which are notwithout 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 “thenotion that politeness is motivated by the desire to maintain face isproblematical for many scholars” (Janney and Arndt, 1993: 17). Japaneseresearchers, Matsumoto (1988; 1989) and Ide (1989), criticise Brown andLevinson from this perspective.

49

Matsumoto (1988) claims that the Japanese notion of ‘face’ is differentfrom Brown and Levinson’s, which provides wrong predictions for Japanesepoliteness phenomena. Matsumoto gives examples from formulaic expres-sions (e.g. Doozo yoroshiku onegaishimasu. (lit.) ‘I ask you to please treatme 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 desireto be unimpeded in one’s actions is alien to Japanese culture. According toher, this notion of individuals and their rights has long been acknowledgedas playing an increasingly dominant role in European and American culture,but such a notion cannot be considered as basic to human relations inJapanese culture and society (Matsumoto refers to Nakane, 1967, 1972;Doi, 1971, 1973; Lebra, 1976). What is important for a Japanese is under-standing where s/he stands in relation to other members of the group orsociety, and acknowledging his/her dependence on others.

Matsumoto (1988) also argues that the concept of imposition in Japa-nese 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 careof me.” The speaker is making a direct request embodying an unveiledimposition. The imposition on the addressee here is the one in which thespeaker expresses deference by humbling him- or herself and placing him-or 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 interdependenceis encouraged in Japanese society. The concept of imposition as defined byBrown 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 ofFTAs, and further argues that:

Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness fails in Japanese not because the strategiesfor achieving politeness are different but because the postulated motivation underlyingpoliteness phenomena seems unsuited to Japanese culture and language. A closerelation between politeness and one’s desire to save face is likely in any culture. Yet,evidence from Japanese makes it questionable to assume that the given universaldefinition of face can provide the right predictions of Japanese politeness phenomena.

50

She (Ibid.: 209) demonstrates that it is impossible in Japanese to avoidmarking the relationship between speaker and hearer, giving an example,“Today is Saturday.” In Japanese the copula would be plain, polite, orsuper 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 toconstruct a sentence that can be used in all situations.

In sum, Matsumoto (1989) asserts that Brown and Levinson’s claim,that politeness strategies are used to minimise FTAs, does not apply to theJapanese language, in which honorifics are necessary even in the absenceof FTAs.

Ide (1989) also argues that Brown and Levinson’s claim for the univer-sality of politeness principles is questionable from aspects of language andusage which are distinctly relevant to linguistic politeness in Japanese.Those are (1) ‘formal linguistic forms’ among varieties with different de-grees of formality; and (2) ‘discernment’: the speaker’s use of polite expres-sions according to social conventions rather than interactional strategy.

Ide (1989: 226–227) objects to the way Brown and Levinson treatsome formal forms:

Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) treat some of those formal forms as expressionsof negative politeness strategies. However, they should not be categorized as strategies,since there are some fundamental differences between the choices of formal formsand the use of strategies. Formal forms are 1) limited in choice, 2) socio-pragmaticallyobligatory, 3) grammatically obligatory, and 4) made in accordance with a personwho is not necessarily the addressee, the referent or the speaker him/herself.

She (Ibid.: 239) further objects to Brown and Levinson’s strategy, “Givedeference”:

… honorifics are found under the strategy ‘Give deference’: the speaker humblesand 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 isobligatory even for a non-FTA utterance in Japanese. Thus, the primary use is forshowing discernment.

According to Ide (1989: 230), another aspect which Brown and Levinsonneglected is wakimae.

The practice of polite behavior according to social conventions is known as wakimaein Japanese. To behave according to wakimae is to show verbally and non-verballyone’s sense of place or role in a given situation according to social conventions.

51

Ide (Ibid.) chooses ‘discernment’ as used by Hill et al. (1986) as the closestequivalent term for wakimae. By discernment, Hill et al. (Ibid.: 348) meanthat:

… once certain factors of addressee and situation are noted, the selection of anappropriate 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 rolesof the participants as well as to accommodate to the prescribed norms of theformality of particular settings. The speaker regulates his or her choice of linguisticforms so as to show his or her sense of place. The sense of proper place isdetermined 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 backgroundof the social norm.

Ide (1989: 223) subscribes to the view that discernment rather than face isthe motivating force behind Japanese politeness. The choice of forms ismade in order to show discernment. Ide’s claim is the same as Matsumoto’s(1989) in the sense that in the Japanese language (1) the choice of forms isobligatory according to the formality of the setting and the relationshipamong the participants; and (2) the choice of forms is not always relatedto FTAs, stating that “honorifics are used even for a non-FTA utterance,i.e., even where neither the speaker’s nor the addressee’s ‘face’ has anythingto do with the utterance” (Ide, 1989: 242).

2.4.1.2. Chinese Criticisms

In criticising Brown and Levinson’s theory, some Chinese researchers,Gu (1990) and Mao (1994), have a similar perspective to that of Matsu-moto and Ide, in the sense that they place more importance on the groupthan the individual. “A contrast between private versus public face viewsof politeness is made by Gu (1990), although indirectly. If Brown andLevinson’s theory represents a private face view that implicitly elevatesthe individual over the group, Gu’s approach represents a public faceview that emphasizes group rather than the individual” (Nwoye, 1992:312).

Gu (1990: 241–242) claims that Brown and Levinson’s model is notsuitable for Chinese data for two reasons.

52

The Chinese negative face is not threatened by the speaker’s impedingthe hearer’s freedom to act, but it is threatened when self cannot live up towhat s/he has claimed, or when what the self has done is likely to incur illfame or reputation.

Brown and Levinson see politeness as an instrumental system of meansto satisfy individual face wants, while the Chinese view politeness as exercis-ing a normative function in constraining individual speech acts as well asthe sequence of talk exchanges. Failure to observe politeness will incursocial sanctions.

Mao (1994) also criticises Brown and Levinson’s claim for the univer-sality of face, pointing out that in Chinese, notions of face refer to “prestigeor reputation,” i. e., mianzi, and “the respect of the group for a man witha good moral reputation,” i.e., lian. Mao (Ibid.: 459–462) states thatthere are two major differences between the Chinese and Brown andLevinson’s use of the term, which undermine Brown and Levinson’s claimfor universality. Those differences are (1) the overall conceptualization offace and (2) the content of face. Concerning the first, Brown and Levinson’sface is a self-image in which they center their definition upon the individual– rather than the communal – aspect of face, whereas the Chinese conceptof face emphasizes not the accommodation of individual ‘wants’ or ‘desires’but the harmony of individual conduct with the views and judgement ofthe community (Ibid.: 459–460). What Mao (Ibid.: 450–460) claims isthat Brown and Levinson’s concept of face is defined in terms of indi-vidualism, whereas Chinese face is defined in communal terms. Chineseface encodes a reputable image that individuals can claim for themselvesas they interact with others in a given community, and emphasises theharmony of individual conduct.

Concerning the second difference, the content of face, Mao (Ibid.: 460)argues that Brown and Levinson’s “negative face refers to, and values, anindividual’s need to be free of external impositions.” But mianzi “identifiesa Chinese desire to secure public acknowledgement of one’s prestige orreputation” (Ibid.).

Mao (Ibid.: 471–473) regards the Chinese and Japanese concept offace to be similar. According to him (Ibid.: 471), the Chinese and Japaneseconcept of face may be regarded as centripetal force, and the concept offace by Brown and Levinson may be regarded as centrifugal. Chinese andJapanese face gravitates toward social recognition and hierarchical inter-dependence, and Anglo-American face spirals outward from individualdesires or wants, and sees the self as the initiating agent.

53

While Mao claims that Chinese face is different from that defined byBrown and Levinson, he (Ibid.: 461) admits lian’s resemblance to positiveface.

In varying degrees, both lian and positive face identify an individual’s desire to beliked and to be approved of by the others. However, the distinctive moral overtoneevidenced in lian is not registered in positive face.

The discussions by the Chinese researchers are based on the distinction ofmien-tsu and lien by Hu (1944) and Ho (1976). Hu explains mien-tsu andlien as follows:

Mien-tsu stands for the kind of prestige that is emphasized in this country: a reputationachieved through getting on in life, through success and ostentation. This is prestigethat is accumulated by means of personal effort or clever maneuvering. Lien is therespect of the group for a man with a good moral reputation: the man who willfulfill his obligations regardless of the hardships involved, who under all circumstancesshows himself a decent human being (Hu, 1944: 45). Lien refers to the confidence ofsociety in the moral character of ego. Mien-tsu differs greatly from lien in that it canbe borrowed, struggled for, added to, padded,– all terms indicating a gradual increasein volume (Ibid.: 61).

Mien-tsu is face that has to be achieved, and lien is that to which everyindividual is entitled as a member of society. Therefore, it can be said thatmien-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 Levinson’s theory does notapply to Japanese language or society; so that the universality claimed byBrown and Levinson is not considered to be valid. Their criticisms aremainly concerned with the following.

1. The concept of face in Japan is different from that of Brown andLevinson, especially that of negative face. The notion of negative facewants as the desire to be unimpeded in one’s action is alien to Japanese

54

culture. Instead of the desire to be unimpeded, the relation to othermembers of the group or society is important in Japan (Matsumoto,1988) and factors of addressee and situation are important in theselection of appropriate linguistic forms (Ide, 1989). They demonstratethat language choices in Japanese are obligatory. Consequently, polite-ness strategies are used even in the absence of FTAs in Japanese, whereas,according to Brown and Levinson, politeness strategies are employedin order to minimise FTAs.

2. Ide (1989) claims that it is not face in Brown and Levinson’s sense, butit is discernment, or wakimae, which is the motivating factor ofpoliteness in Japan.

3. Matsumoto (1988) believes that the concept of imposition in Japan isdifferent from that of Brown and Levinson, the former even enhancingthe face of the addressee, the latter being something to be avoided.

Although Matsumoto and Ide have tried to refute Brown and Levinson’stheory by showing that some linguistic choices are obligatory in theJapanese language according to situations, this does not amount to a totalrefutation. What they have done is simply explaining some characteristicsof the Japanese language. Because of these features, a choice of appropriateforms is obligatory, and is thus more obvious than in other languages.One important thing to note is that both Matsumoto and Ide focus on thelevel of syntax. They simply explain how polite forms work in the Japaneselanguage. It is true that the language choice is determined by the relationshipbetween the addresser and the addressee, and one has to be sensitive tothe group, as Matsumoto suggests, and one has to discern one’s place, asIde claims. However, politeness is not manifested by those obligatory lin-guistic choices alone. And those features pointed out by Matsumoto andIde are a sociolinguistic aspect of Japanese language, which can be sum-marised as follows: “The study of discernment politeness is thus predomi-nantly a sociolinguistic, rather than a pragmatic concern” (Kasper, 1994:3207).

In fact, Matsumoto and Ide seem to confuse sociolinguistics withpragmatics, and to confuse deference with politeness. How then doespragmatics differ from sociolinguistics? According to Thomas (1995: 185),while there are areas of overlap,

… sociolinguistics is mainly concerned with the systematic linguistic correlates ofrelatively fixed and stable social variables (such as region of origin, social class,

55

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

Thomas (Ibid.: 150–154) also discusses the difference between deferenceand 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 ofJapanese. Deference is connected with politeness, but is a distinct phenomenon; it isthe opposite of familiarity. It refers to the respect we show to other people by virtueof 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. … Deferenceis 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 theuse of a particular form is obligatory in a particular situation. She pointsout 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 isdictated by sociolinguistic norms. (Ibid.)

As noted in 2.4.1.1., Matsumoto (1989: 209) demonstrates that it is im-possible in Japanese to avoid marking the relationship between speakerand hearer, giving examples of the choice of different form of copula ac-cording to the status of the addressee. Since the choice of the form ofcopula, as Matsumoto shows, is obligatory, according to Thomas (1995),it is not significant pragmatically. Matsumoto and Ide seem to emphasisethe uniqueness of the Japanese language, and, taking the “obligatory”choices, they have tried to refute Brown and Levinson’s universality, butas Thomas points out, all they have done is to demonstrate sociolinguisticaspects 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 theaspect of discernment, and formal linguistic forms to show discernment,as noted in 2.4.1.1. Although she criticises Brown and Levinson’s theory,she (Ibid.: 231) uses Brown and Levinson’s three variables as the basis torecognise proper place. I find her argument to be contradictory becausealthough she criticises Brown and Levinson’s variables of power, distance

56

and imposition on the grounds that “it is not clear how these variablescan help a speaker choose an expression or a strategy” (Ibid.: 240), yetshe claims that the speaker regulates his or her choice of linguistic formsto 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 variablesoperate, she nonetheless uses them as a basis for regulating the choice oflinguistic form or showing discernment.

I am also doubtful about Ide’s (1989) claim that in the Japanese lan-guage, honorifics are used in order to show discernment, and face is notinvolved. In fact, speakers who misuse honorifics are regarded as peoplewho do not wakimaeru their place, and consequently it is they who loseface. As Mao (1994: 469) points out, face is related to acknowledging andmaintaining role or status in relation to others, which is important in asociety in which the group is emphasised. Thus, despite Ide’s claim thatface applies only to societies in which individualism is important, the lossof face which occurs when an individual displays lack of discernment inthe choice of honorifics suggests that Ide’s claim cannot be sustained.

Ide (1989) argues that in Japanese society wakimae is important, givingthe impression that wakimae is something unique to Japanese society. Ifind it difficult to accept that claim. In every society, one is expected, orwould like to act according to the norms of that society, unless someonedeliberately intends to violate those norms for a certain purpose. In orderto 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 thedegree to which one may have to conform to those norms. As Kasper(1990: 196) states, “While to date no language has been shown to entirelyfall short of forms for social indexing, nor to lack contexts where socialmarking is mandatory, the extent to which social indexing is obligatoryvaries greatly across languages.” Because of the characteristics of theJapanese language, the degree to which social indexing is obligatory maybe stronger than in English, for example, but that does not mean wakimaeapplies only to Japanese society.

Indeed, Hill et al. (1986: 351) hypothesised that “all human speakersuse language according to politeness, which we believe is fundamentallydetermined by Discernment,” and their results showed that Discernmentwas 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 preroga-tive of Japanese society.

57

Concerning the third point as summarised above, Matsumoto’s (1988)claim that the concept of imposition in Japanese culture is different fromthe one proposed by Brown and Levinson, can be counter argued by themultifunctionality 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 addressee’s negative face (because it may prevent theaddressee’s freedom of action);

2. undermining the speaker’s positive face (because he or she is seen tonot be able to act without assistance); and

3. anointing the addressee’s positive face (because the speaker is selectingthe addressee as a reliable and responsible person to undertake thisparticular 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 impositionenhances the good self-image of the addressee since the acknowledgmentof interdependence is encouraged in Japanese society. However, as Turner’sexample shows, the function of interdependence is also found elsewhere.So, I suggest that the concept of imposition in Japanese society, as describedby Matsumoto, cannot be considered to be uniquely Japanese.

I have further doubts about Matsumoto’s claim, because the anthro-pological studies on which it is based, were published some decades ago(Nakane, 1967, 1972; Doi, 1971, 1973; Lebra, 1976). It is doubtful thatJapanese society has remained unchanged after so many changes, especiallyin values (See chapter 4). I believe that in contemporary Japanese societythe 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 Japaneseresearchers shows that they have some important limitations, and thatthey are far from refuting Brown and Levinson’s theory, which can also beapplied to Japanese language or society. Next, I would like to clarify myidea on politeness strategies in Japan, taking a different position fromMatsumoto and Ide.

First of all, I believe that the notion of “face” is important in Japanesesociety. Sasagawa (1994b) also claims that communication in Japanesecan be strongly accounted for by Brown and Levinson’s concept of face.While admitting the importance of context or situation, and the necessityof acknowledging one’s position in relation to others in Japanese society,

58

I believe that the importance of these factors is much related to face,because people try to acknowledge their position in a context and selectappropriate politeness strategies so as not to threaten others’ face, and notto lose one’s own face.

Secondly, I believe that in contemporary Japan, in which individualismhas also developed as the economy has grown (See chapter 4), the aspectof negative face wants in Brown and Levinson’s sense is important.

Thirdly, wakimae is not the prerogative of Japanese society, but it appliesuniversally. In figure 3, I have tried to clarify my idea concerning the roleor the function of wakimae. Appropriate behaviours, the behaviours mani-fested as an outcome of considering situation, would be politeness strategies(e.g. going off-record), linguistic choices (e.g. using honorifics), or theconsideration of interaction, such as considering how we carry on a con-versation, as Ikuta (1997) explains, or a combination of those.

context process outcome

situation -----> wakimaeru -----> appropriate behaviours

Figure 3. How Wakimae Works

When people wakimaeru their own position or place in society, theyconsider 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. (See3.7.2.). There may be cultural differences in the degree of importance of aparticular element (e.g. status of S or H) when acknowledging one’s ownposition, but I believe that wakimae applies universally.

Fourthly, positive face wants are quite strong in Japan. Neither Ide norMatsumoto have discussed positive face as defined by Brown and Levinson,but I believe that the desire to be approved by others is a strong motivationfor people to conform to social conventions in “collectivist” Japan as wellas in “individualist” America or Britain. I believe that people try to actaccording to the norm in order to satisfy their own positive face wants. TheJapanese researchers imply that Brown and Levinson’s concept applies onlyto individualist societies. However, the satisfaction of positive face wantsin conformity with social conventions by acknowledging one’s position ina group would appear to be an example of positive face in a collectivistsociety. This suggests that the concept of positive face exists not only in

59

individualist societies, but also in a collectivist society like Japan. From thisI conclude that the desire to conform to social conventions, acknowledgingone’s 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 thegroup. These constituents of face are summarised in figure 4.

the desire to be approved by others the desire to conformto social conventions

(positive face)

the desire to be unimpeded by others

(negative face)

Figure 4. Constituents of Face

So far, I have attempted to counter argue Japanese researchers’ criticismsof Brown and Levinson. Their criticisms have some weaknesses. One ofthem is that they have simply shown the obligatory choices of the Japaneselanguage, which can be considered as a sociolinguistic aspect of the Japaneselanguage. Another weakness is that they emphasise the uniqueness of Japa-nese society, using such a concept as wakimae (Ide), and the concept ofimposition in Japanese culture (Matsumoto), but both wakimae and theconcept of imposition in Japanese culture can be found elsewhere. There-fore, their criticisms of Brown and Levinson’s do not amount to a refutation.I have also attempted to show the importance of both negative and positiveface in Japanese society, and I have noted that Japanese researchers havenot 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 Levinson’s theory does not apply to Chinesesociety; so that the universality claimed by Brown and Levinson was notconsidered to be valid. Their criticisms of Brown and Levinson can besummarised as follows: the Chinese concept of politeness and face, whichemphasises the group, cannot be accounted for by Brown and Levinson’sconcept of politeness and face, which puts more importance on the indi-vidual.

60

What the Chinese researchers claim concerning face is similar to thatclaimed by the Japanese researchers, as noted in 2.4.1.1., both emphasisingthe importance of the group rather than the individual. They stress theimportance of harmony, and the exercise of social sanctions if appropriatepoliteness is not displayed. I think people try to conform to socialconventions in order to avoid such social sanctions, which I suggested asa subcategory of positive face in 2.4.2.1., but the Chinese researchers, liketheir Japanese counterparts, have not fully discussed Brown and Levinson’spositive face, although Mao admits lian’s resemblance to positive face.Instead, they have mainly criticised Brown and Levinson’s negative face.It seems to me that they have discussed some features of positive face,when they were attacking Brown and Levinson’s negative face. Therefore,I do not think that their claim amounts to a refutation of Brown andLevinson’s theory in terms of face and universality.

The criticisms by the Chinese researchers of Brown and Levinson’sclaim for universality are based on Ho (1976), but Ho (Ibid.: 867) admitsthat face behaviour is universal, and that there are two fundamentallydifferent orientations in viewing human behavior:

… the Western orientation, with its preoccupation with the individual, and the Chineseorientation, 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 comple-mentary. The Chinese researchers’ criticisms of Brown and Levinson’s nega-tive face can be also countered by reference to Ho’s interpretation of face.

2.5. Conclusion

In this chapter, I have considered “politeness,” pointing out some problemsof usage, and indicating that I will be using the term in a pragmatic sensein this study. In reviewing the four major views on politeness in 2.3., Ihave concluded that Brown and Levinson’s face-saving view is the mostappropriate for this study, which deals with cross-cultural pragmatics,because it is the only one among the four views which is well formulatedfor empirical study and cross-cultural comparisons.

61

In 2.4., I have reviewed and evaluated the main criticisms of Brownand Levinson’s concept of face and universality which have been made bynon-Western researchers. I paid a special attention to those by Japaneseresearchers, since this study deals with Japanese culture. Their main criti-cism was that Brown and Levinson’s theory, especially their notion ofnegative face, is based on Western notions of individualism so that it doesnot apply to Japanese society, in which the group has priority. Matsumoto(1988) emphasises the importance of individual understanding where s/hestands in relation to other members of the group or society, and the impor-tance of acknowledging his/her dependence on others; and Ide (1989) claimsthe importance of wakimae, acknowledging the factors of addressee andsituation in selecting appropriate politeness behaviours. Matsumoto (1989)and Ide (1989) further claim that in the Japanese language, the choices offorms are obligatory according to the relationship between speaker andhearer, so that politeness strategies are used even in the absence of FTAs.

In fact, Matsumoto and Ide have simply discussed some sociolinguisticcharacteristics of the Japanese language, which are not significant prag-matically. They have emphasised the uniqueness of the Japanese notion ofimposition or wakimae, but I have argued that the notion of imposition orwakimae are not unique to Japanese culture. I have claimed that face,which was not given importance by Matsumoto and Ide, was importantin Japanese society, and I have also argued that negative as well as positiveface wants were important in Japan. Matsumoto and Ide have not refutedBrown and Levinson’s universality of politeness, and Brown and Levinson’sframework could be applied to Japanese society.

While many criticisms have been made of Brown and Levinson’s theory,it has not been refuted, and those who criticise their theory have not yetbeen successful in setting up a theoretical framework to replace it. Anddespite the criticisms, it is important to note that Brown and Levinson’sapproach provides a useful framework for investigating many differentaspects of social interaction, as Holtgraves and Yang (1990: 727) note.And Brown and Levinson’s theory provides us with a framework for across-cultural comparison, although Brown and Levinson (1987: 14) admitthat their folk notion of tact perhaps reflects the bias of a culture obsessedwith individual rights and wants as criticised by Wierzbicka (1985), forexample. However, they (Ibid. 15) still maintain that “for the purpose ofcross-cultural comparison developed here, we consider that our frameworkprovides a primary descriptive format within which, or in contrast towhich, such differences can be described.”

62

It seems to me that those who object to universality as claimed byBrown and Levinson overlook the fact that they have acknowledged culturalvariations, as noted in 2.3.3.1., arguing that they would expect the notionof face “to be the subject of much cultural elaboration” (Brown andLevinson, 1987: 13), and their claim as noted in 2.3.3.3., i.e., that theiruniversal principles can provide the basis for an account of diverse culturaldifferences in interaction. In short, they argue for the universality ofpoliteness 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 theoreticalapproaches reviewed in 2.3., that of Brown and Levinson is the mostapplicable to the kind of cross-cultural comparison which forms the focusof the present research. Despite the limitations of their framework, asdiscussed by the critics reviewed above, it provides a means of specifyingand comparing the variables involved in the selection of politeness strategyand linguistic forms. Furthermore, their framework provides a basis forcross-cultural comparison, since the categories they propose have wide-spread application, even to languages and cultures which are claimed todiffer from English and Anglo-Saxon culture in respect of concepts of faceand ranking of imposition. For the purposes of the present research, Brownand Levinson’s framework provides the most workable means of analysingrelationship between such variables as power, distance and impositionand the choice of requesting and responding strategies to off-record re-quests. In particular, their model provides a basis for generating hypothesesto be tested empirically, and any limitations in the predictive power oftheir model will be revealed in the data which will form the basis of thecurrent study.

63

CHAPTER 3

Requests and Responses to Requests

3.1. Introduction

In our everyday life, we make and respond to many requests. Makingrequests is inseparable from politeness strategies, mainly because of theneed to avoid threats to H’s face, and to gain compliance from H. Requestsare chosen as the focus of the study, because they are important in everydaylife as well as in politeness theories.

When considering requests, we cannot omit responses. Although re-search has been done on responses to direct requests and conventionallyindirect requests (e.g. Clark, 1979; Clark and Schunk, 1980), to my knowl-edge, there are no studies concerning responses to off-record requests.1

Off-record requests can be interpreted in many ways, because S does notmake explicit that the utterance is a request, so that different ways ofinterpreting off-record requests are possible. Because of this, there aremany possibilities of responding to off-record requests, which can createmisunderstanding between S and H, because H’s response sometimes doesnot match S’s expectation. This kind of misunderstanding is likely to occurwhen S and H do not share the same cultural background. Thus, a cross-cultural comparison of responses to off-record requests is to be the focusof this study.

In this chapter, I will consider requests and responses to requests. Withregard to requests, I will review the conditions of requests in 3.2., indirect-ness in requests in 3.3., types of requests in 3.4., the payoffs of differenttypes of requests in 3.5., and structures, forms and categories of requestsin 3.6. I will also discuss the variables affecting requesting strategies in3.7.

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

64

As far as responses to off-record requests are concerned, I will considersome types of responses to off-record requests in 3.8.1., and define onetype of response as solicitousness in 3.8.2. I will consider the conditionsof solicitousness, the status of solicitousness in politeness strategies, someinterpretations 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, parti-cularly 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 Austin’s (1962) work on speech act theory and subsequentwork 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 normalcourses 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 howthese sentences, which have one illocutionary force as part of their meaning, can beused to perform an act with a different illocutionary force. Each type of illocutionaryact has a set of conditions that are necessary for the successful and felicitousperformance 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.

65

In discussing indirect speech acts, that is, cases in which one illocutionaryact is performed indirectly by way of performing another, Searle (1975:65–66) lists some of the sentences that could quite standardly be used tomake indirect requests and other directives such as orders.

1. Sentences concerning H’s ability to perform Ae.g. Can you reach the salt?

2. Sentences concerning S’s wish or want that H will do Ae.g. I would like you to go now.

3. Sentences concerning H’s doing Ae.g. Officers will henceforth wear ties at dinner.

Will you quit making that awful racket?

4. Sentences concerning H’s desire or willingness to do Ae.g. Would you be willing to write a letter of recommendation for me?

5. Sentences concerning reasons for doing Ae.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. Youíre standing on my foot.I canít see the movie screen while you have that hat on.

6. Sentences embedding one of these elements inside another; also, sentencesembedding 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 ofrecommendation?

White (1993: 194), listing one to five of the above as the conditions forthe 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 befulfilled, either, and I suggest excluding a condition such as “A request isa future act of H,” because “requests are always pre-event acts: requestsare made in an attempt to cause an event or change one” (Blum-Kulkaand Olshtain, 1984: 206).

In addition to excluding a condition, I would like to add some detail tothe 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 reasonfor S to make a request, this being the same as one of Gordon and Lakoff’s(1975: 90) reasonableness conditions, i.e., “A request is reasonable only if

66

the speaker has a reason for wanting it done.” Therefore, I would like toadd “for some reason” to the condition “S wants H to do A.” As a con-sequence of the above discussion, I suggest the following as the conditionsof 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 bymany 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), indirectspeech acts always have more than one meaning, or illocutionary force.Haverkate (1988: 62–63), explaining indirect speech acts, cites Searle’sfollowing 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 indirectspeech act, because the speaker performs two illocutionary acts at thesame time: he/she explicitly formulates a question, and, by implication,intends that question to be taken as a request. What distinguishes thesetwo 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 canunderstand that this question concerning the hearer’s ability is uttered asa request. Example (2) does not contain a formal reference to the heareror a specific description of the action to be performed. So, the request toclose 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 hearerhas sufficient relevant background information to work out which par-ticular action is prospected by the speaker.

Haverkate (1988: 63) explains further that the pragmalinguistic dif-ference between example (1) and example (2) derives from the speakerreferring to particular preconditions underlying the performance of directiveillocutionary acts, that is, a reference to the ability of the hearer to performthe act in the former case, and a reference to the reason the speaker hasfor having the act performed in the latter.

67

It must be assumed that indirectness is not unmotivated, and Dascal(1983: 158–163) gives a good summary of the motivation ofindirectness in interaction. He begins by pointing out that:

Indirect expression is costly and risky. It requires more processing time by bothspeaker and listener, it presupposes the mastery, by both, of a rather complex set ofdevices and the sharing of many specific assumptions, and consequently it increasesthe 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 whenthere is no clear advantage in efficacy of communication? (Ibid.: 159)

In answering this question, he (Ibid.: 159–163) clarifies the motivationfor 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 thelistener (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 conveysomething while at the same time eschewing (full) responsibility forwhat he is conveying.

4. Indirectness is used to save face.

One of the issues in indirect speech acts is the relationship between literalmeaning and the conveyed meaning. Searle (1975) argues that there is adifference between “literal sentence meaning” and “speaker utterancemeaning.” Morgan (1978) distinguishes “conventions of language,” whichrefer to the literal meanings of an utterance, from “conventions of usage,”which govern the use of utterances, and argues that both are necessary tounderstand what the speaker intends to convey.

A study by Clark and Lucy (1975) reports the importance of literalmeaning, indicating that the listener constructs the literal meaning beforethe conveyed meaning. By contrast, Gibbs (1979) emphasises the impor-tance of situational context, rather than literal meaning, based on theresults of his experiments which suggest that an individual understandingan indirect request in context need not construct the literal interpretationbefore deriving the conveyed request.

68

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

3.4. Types of Requests

S chooses appropriate requesting strategies in order to maintain the faceof H and sometimes also the face of S, as well as to try to gain compliancefrom H, because there is a possibility that H will refuse the request. Tracyet al. (1984: 514) note this characteristic of a request which,

… while seeking compliance, recognizes the hearer’s right not to comply. The hearer’sright not to comply distinguishes the request from a closely related speech act, thecommand.

Based on Brown and Levinson’s (1987: 68–70) strategies for doing FTAsas 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 recorde.g. It’s hot in here.

As noted in 2.3.3.1., Brown and Levinson distinguish between going onrecord and off record. An actor has gone on record when there is just oneunambiguously attributable intention with which witnesses would concur;whereas when there is more than one unambiguously attributable intentionan 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 waypossible (for example, for a request, saying ‘Do X!’) (Brown and Levinson,1987: 69). Following Brown and Levinson, I will call this type directrequests.

69

As also noted in 2.3.3.1., another category of on record strategies iswith redress. By redressive action Brown and Levinson (1987: 69–70)mean action that “gives face” to the addressee, showing that face threat isnot intended. Such redressive action takes one of two forms, negativepoliteness or positive politeness, depending on which aspect of face (nega-tive or positive) is being attended to. In negative politeness, there is a ten-sion between (a) the desire to go on record as a prerequisite to being seento pay face, and (b) the desire to go off record to avoid imposing. Acompromise is reached in conventionalized indirectness, because whateverthe indirect mechanism used to do an FTA, once it is fully conventionalizedas a way of doing that FTA, it is no longer off record. Following Brownand Levinson, I will call this type conventionally indirect requests.According to Clark (1979), examples of conventionally indirect requestsare Can you reach the salt? Are you able yet to pass the salt? and Is itpossible for you to pass me the salt?, in which S requests H indirectly todo a particular act by questioning H’s ability to do that act. Examples ofconventions of form are Can you pass the salt? and Could you pass thesalt? (See also 3.2., in which more examples were cited from Searle.)

Requests which are not on record I will call off-record requests, follow-ing Brown and Levinson (1987: 211), who explain that a communicativeact is done off record if it is done in such a way that it is not possible toattribute only one clear communicative intention to the speaker. If a speakerwants 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 tointerpret the utterance.

In order to consider the three types of requests more in detail, I will referto Sifianou’s (1995a: 244) examples of on record and off record requests:

1. Give me an aspirin, please.2. Can you give me an aspirin?3. I’ve got a splitting headache.

The above examples are respectively a direct request, a conventionallyindirect request, and an off-record request in my terminology. Sifianouexplains that direct utterances have one literal meaning, but indirect actshave both a literal and an implied meaning. Example (1) is a direct utter-ance, which has one literal meaning, whereas example (2) is a questionconcerning the addressee’s ability to perform the act but is intended as arequest, while in example (3) the speaker has made a statement providinga piece of information which, nevertheless, is intended as a request.

70

In example (1), utterance meaning (literal meaning) is identical withconveyed 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 anybodythat it is not asking the addressee’s ability, but that the addresser is makinga request. It is such conventions that link specific linguistic items withspecific pragmatic functions. Example (3) is not conventionalised and theintended or conveyed meaning is different from the utterance meaning.Examples (1) and (2) have one interpretation, but example (3) could havemore than one interpretation, depending on the inference made by H. Theinterpretation of example (3) is open-ended. In other words, example (3)can be interpreted as just a statement, or as a request, depending on theuptake by H. Explaining the difference between conventional and non-conventional indirectness, Blum-Kulka (1989: 42) says that:

For conventional indirectness, conventions of propositional content (means) andlinguistic form combine to signal requestive force. Nonconventional indirectness,on the other hand, is in principle open ended, both in terms of propositional contentand linguistic form as well as pragmatic force.

She (Ibid.: 45) further notes that:

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

“Nonconventional indirectness” in the above is identical with “off-recordstrategies” in Brown and Levinson’s terminology.

In summary, I would suggest that the features of off-record requestsare as follows:

1. S does not make explicit that the utterance is a request, i. e., S does notuse direct requests or conventionalised indirect requests. In other words,S does not make an explicit reference to H or a specific description ofthe action to be performed.

2. Due to feature (1), utterance meaning is not identical with intendedmeaning.

3. H has to make some kind of inference to arrive at the meaning intendedby S.

4. Due to features (1), (2) and (3), more than one interpretation of theutterance is possible. The interpretation is left to H.

5. Due to feature (4), H does not lose face even if s/he interprets an off-

71

record request as just a statement, not as a request. Likewise, S does notlose face, either, if H’s interpretation or uptake does not match S’s inten-tion.

The process for off-record requests to be understood as requests will be asfollows:

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 Levinson’s (1987: 211) term, “A trigger servesnotice 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 S’s off-record requestand complies with S’s request, by listing some stages between the initialstate and the final, desired state, when S says “Cold in here, isn’t it?”

Initial state: S feels cold.Action 1: S says “Cold in here, isn’t 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 1corresponds to the first process, “S utters an off-record request.” Thesecond process, “H notices that the intended meaning by S is differentfrom the literal meaning” was not included in Thomas’ stages, because inintermediate state 1, H understands the literal meaning of what S uttered.In intermediate state 2, H performs the third process, i.e., H makes someinference. For example, H knows that there is a heater H can operate andby switching on the heater, S will feel warmer. To switch on the heatermay 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 berelated to cultural differences, as Holtgraves and Yang (1990: 727) pointout:

If off-record strategies are used with someone from another culture who tends notto use off-record strategies (and does not expect others to use them), then the intendedmeaning of these remarks may be missed.

72

Off-record requests have common features with requestive hints suggestedby Weizman (1985; 1989; 1993).

Requestive hints have the potential of letting both the speaker and the hearer optout. This potential has to do with the fact that Hints are both indirect andnonconventional in form. (Weizman, 1989: 73)

These features are the same as the first, the fourth and the fifth featuresnoted above, i.e., (1) S does not make it explicit that the utterance is arequest; (4) More than one interpretation of the utterance is possible, theinterpretation being left with H, and (5) H does not lose face even if s/hetakes an off-record request as just a statement, not as a request. Likewise,S does not lose face, either, if H’s interpretation or uptake does not matchS’s intention. Weizman further describes the features of requestive hintswhich are shared with off-record requests.

The interpretation of indirect meanings may require of the hearer an elaborateprocess, 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 divergesfrom the speaker’s meaning; computing an alternative utterance meaning; checkingwhether it may plausibly converge with an alternative speaker’s meaning; and, if so,assigning the alternative speaker’s meaning, involve the exploitation of all kinds ofimmediate and second-channel contextual clues. (Weizman, 1989: 74)

These features are the same as the second and the third features notedabove, 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 meaningintended by S.

Although off-record requests and requestive hints share common features,in this study, I will use the term “off-record requests,” not “requestivehints,” 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 reasonwhy some types of requests are used may have to do with the payoffsinvolved. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the payoffs of different

73

types of requests. I will now review the payoffs as explained by Brownand Levinson (1987: 71–73).

By going on record, S

1. can get credit for honesty;2. can get credit for outspokenness;3. can avoid the danger of being misunderstood; and4. 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 theaddressee that S considers himself to be ‘of the same kind’, that helikes him and wants his wants; and

2. can avoid or minimize the debt implications of FTAs (Ibid.: 71–72).

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 famil-

iarity towards the addressee;3. can give a real ‘out’ to the addressee; and4. can give conventional ‘outs’ to the addressee as opposed to real ‘outs’,

that is, pretend to offer an escape route without really doing so, therebyindicating that he has the other person’s 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;

and4. can give (non-overtly) the addressee an opportunity to be seen to care

for S (Ibid.: 71).

The payoff for the fifth strategic choice, ‘Don’t do the FTA’, is:

S avoids offending H at all with this particular FTA (Ibid.: 72).

74

In summary, I would suggest the following payoffs for different types ofrequests used in this study (direct requests, conventionally indirect requestsand off-record requests).

1. Payoffs for direct requestsEfficiency; Clarity

2. Payoffs for conventionally indirect requestsS 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 H’s 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 Levinson’s off-record strategies as theones which minimise impositions by leaving the option for the addresseeto interpret them, and she (1993: 71) claims that in Greek society, off-record strategies are employed in order to provide an addressee with anopportunity to express their generosity and solicitude for the interlocutorby offering, rather than not to minimise the imposition. It should be noted,however, that Brown and Levinson (1987: 71) acknowledge that a speakercan give the addressee an opportunity to be seen to care for S, which,Sifianou (1993) claims, is a motivation for off-record indirectness in Greeksociety. Whereas Brown and Levinson (1987: 71) give this payoff for off-record indirectness low priority, Sifianou (1993) gives it high priority foroff-record indirectness. In other words, both Brown and Levinson (1987:71) and Sifianou (1993) agree on the payoffs of off-record strategies, whileprioritising them differently.

3.6. Structures, Forms and Categories of Requests

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

75

peripheral elements, or alerters and supportive moves mitigate or aggravatethe force of requests. Requests can be realised only by the core parts,while the peripheral elements may precede or follow the core requests. Inoff-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: 74–75)

“The kitchen is in a terrible mess.” in the first example is an off-recordrequest, but “The kitchen is in a terrible mess.” in the second example isa supportive move, i.e., a peripheral element to a request “Could youplease clean it up?” The peripheral element in the second example servesas an off-record request in the first example.

Forms of requests are as follows:

1. Imperatives;2. Interrogatives;3. Negatives;4. Declaratives; and5. Elliptical constructions(Sifianou, 1992: 125–156).

In Declaratives, there are two groups: (1) need statements; and (2) hints.There are two categorises in requests:

1. Requests for information; and2. Requests for action(Sifianou, 1992: 121–122).

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

76

3.7. Variables Affecting Requesting Strategies

I have reviewed Brown and Levinson’s variables in 2.3.3.2. I will nowconsider these variables in this section from the two perspectives: (1) therelationship between those variables and requesting strategies; and (2) thecomponents of those variables. In 3.7.1., I will consider the first; and in3.7.2., I will review the components of the three variables used in the pre-vious studies; and in 3.7.3., I will clarify the components of power, socialdistance, 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, andR contribute the seriousness of an FTA, and thus to a determination of thelevel of politeness with which, other things being equal, an FTA will becommunicated.” That is, the bigger the face threat (computed by the threevariables), the higher the number of the strategy is employed. In Holtgravesand Yang’s (1992: 246) words,

… increases in the hearer’s power, relationship distance, and degree of act imposition(e.g. asking for a loan is more imposing than asking for the time) will increase theweightiness of an act (i.e., the extent to which the act is face threatening). Increasedweightiness is assumed to result in the use of greater politeness.

In Kasper’s (1994: 3209) words, there is

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

Brown and Levinson’s predictions have been both confirmed and contra-dicted by various studies, not all of which were concerned with requests.The variable of distance (D) is the one which has received the most contra-dictory results, as well as criticisms. In a review of some studies, Brownand Levinson (1987: 15–16) themselves acknowledge that:

… a number of experiments have shown opposing results to the predictions of ourmodel for the D variable. For example, Holtgraves (1984) found that subjects judgeda high degree of encoded politeness as indicating higher reciprocal liking between

77

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

Among the studies which produced results inconsistent with Brown andLevinson’s predictions is that by Brown and Gilman (1989) who, havinganalysed the text of plays, concluded that social distance did not explainpoliteness behaviour. According to them, the two components of D,interactive closeness and affect, were not closely associated in the playsthey examined. Affect strongly influenced politeness (increased likingincreased politeness and decreased liking decreased politeness); interactivecloseness had little or no effect on politeness. In a study of apologies inNew Zealand English, Holmes’ (1990) results did not support Brown andLevinson’s model in the distance variable, but supported Wolfson’s (1988)bulge theory, i. e., the two extremes of social distance – minimum andmaximum – seem to call forth very similar behaviour. However, Holmes’results do not refute Brown and Levinson’s model, because as she (1990:186) notes, the elaboration of apologies depends much on the type ofoffense involved. Therefore, further investigation is needed on how thedistance variable affects apologies.

The main criticism on distance concerns affect. That is, some researchersclaim that affect should be separated from distance. For example, Brownand Gilman (1989) claim that the variable of distance may need to besplit into two dimensions, distance (or familiarity) and affect (or liking).Similarly, Slugoski and Turnbull (1988) argue that affect should be treatedas a separate factor from distance. However, there is a lack of consensuson the status and relative importance of affect as a pragmatic variable, asSpencer-Oatey (1996) notes. As there must be some doubt as to the valueof separating the affect and distance variables, those criticisms do notrefute Brown and Levinson’s theory on variables. I will discuss this issuefurther in 3.7.3.2.

Only a few studies have contradicted Brown and Levinson on powerand imposition. For instance, McLaughlin, Cody & O’Hair (1983) foundthat power did not predict the level of politeness in offender accounts,and Cherry (1988), examining a set of letters written by academics atseveral different ranks to the president of an American university, foundthat relative power did not predict the relative politeness of requests, whileimposition provided no predictive force in accounting for politeness in thestudy of compliance-gaining (Baxter (1984)).

Although Brown and Levinson’s predictions have not been supported

78

by such studies, others have been more supportive. While the distancevariable 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 increasein familiarity in the context of requesting in Israeli society, which was inline with Brown and Levinson’s predictions. Holtgraves and Yang (1992:251) also found that distance contributed significantly to politeness in thecontext of requesting, i.e., increases in perceived relationship distanceresulted in significant increases in the overall politeness of requests, whichshows support for Brown and Levinson.

Several studies also support Brown and Levinson’s predictions on thepower (P) variable. Baxter (1984) found that persons with power usedless politeness than less powerful persons in the context of compliance-gaining. Blum-Kulka, Danet & Gherson (1985) found that there was anincrease in directness with an increase in power in the context of requesting.Brown and Gilman (1989) found the power variable was consistent withBrown and Levinson’s theory in Shakespeare’s tragedies they examined.Holtgraves and Yang (1992) found the power variable to be consistentwith Brown and Levinson’s theory in the context of requesting. Canslerand Stiles (1981), Cody, McLaughlin & Schneider (1981), Holtgraves(1986), Holtgraves, Srull & Socall (1989), Lustig and King (1980) alsofound support for the power variable.

It is often the case that the researchers have not defined what theymeant by each variable (I will discuss this issue further in 3.7.2.), but ifage and status can be considered as components of power, Adegbija’s (1989)study also showed support for Brown and Levinson’s power variable.Adegbija (1989) collected data in naturalistic settings, showing that inNigerian English, Yoruba and Ogori, the greater the age and the higherthe cultural and social status attained by an addressee, the greater theneed 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 imposi-tion. In examining Shakespeare’s tragedies, Brown and Gilman (1989)found rating of imposition to be consistent with Brown and Levinson’spredictions of politeness. Likewise, Holtgraves and Yang (1992) foundthe imposition variable to be consistent with Brown and Levinson’s predic-tions in request strategies by Americans and Koreans. McLaughlin, Codyand O’Hair (1983) also found support for the weighting of impositionvariable in managing failure events.

79

In this section, I have reviewed the previous studies from the viewpointof the relationship between Brown and Levinson’s three variables andpoliteness strategies. Although there were some studies which contradictedtheir predictions, there were many studies which supported Brown andLevinson. In 3.7.2., I would like to consider variables from the viewpointof their components.

3.7.2. Components of Variables

It is often the case that researchers do not define what they mean by eachvariable. Spencer-Oatey (1996: 1) also points out that the authors of prag-matics studies often use the same terms with different meanings, or differentterms with the same meaning, while the variables are rarely explicitlydefined. I think this is one of the causes of confusion in the discussion ofvariables. As noted in 3.7.1., most of the studies which contradicted Brownand Levinson’s variables were concerned with distance. I think one of theproblems in those studies is that what distance meant was not consistentamong the studies, as Holtgraves and Yang (1992: 246) note:

… this may be because researchers have confounded familiarity and relationshipaffect (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 areto be used in this study.

3.7.2.1. Power

Spencer-Oatey (1996: 8) lists a number of studies that have investigatedpower, questioning whether the various terms are equivalent, or whetherthe different researchers conceptualise the ‘vertical’ dimension of inter-locutor relations in slightly different ways (Ibid.: 7). In table 2, I haveadded nine more studies (the last nine) to Spencer-Oatey’s table (1996: 8).

80

Author(s) Main term Alternative Labels for scaleterm/gloss extremities

Baxter (1984) Power Status High/lowBeebe & Takahashi (1989a) Status High/lowBlum-Kulka et al. (1985) Power High/equal/lowBlum-Kulka & House (1989) Social power Dominance High/lowBrown & Gilman (1972 [1960]) Power Superiors-

inferiors/EqualsBrown & Gilman (1989) Power A higher station H higher than S/

S higher than H/EqualsBrown & Levinson (1987 Power Degree to which[1978]) H can impose

own plansCansler & Stiles (1981) Status Social rank High/lowHolmes (1990) Power H with more P/S

with more P/EqualsHoltgraves (1986) Status Equality/ Higher/lower

inequalityHoltgraves et al. (1989) Status High/equal/lowHoltgraves & Yang (1990) Power High/equal/lowLeech (1983) Authority Authoritative

status, PowerLeichty & Applegate (1991) Power High/equal/lowLim & Bowers (1991) Power High/equalOlshtain (1989) (Social) power S lower than H/ S & H

equals/S higher than HTrosborg (1987) Dominance Status equals/ Plus/minus dominance

unequalsVollmer & Olshtain (1989) (Social) status (Social) power High/lowWood & Kroger (1991) Status Subordinate/equal/

superordinateBargiela-Chiappini & Harris Status High-low(1996)Becker et al. (1989) Status Powerful-weakBergman & Kasper (1993) Status relation- High-low

shipBilbow (1995) Relationship High-low

PowerBlum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984) Dominance High-lowFukushima (1990) Social status High-lowHashimoto, et al. (1992) Age Elder-younger

Social status High-lowSasagawa (1994a) Age/generation Elder-younger

differenceSasagawa (1995) Age/generation Elder-younger

difference

Table 2. Labels and Glosses for Power

81

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 studieshave emphasised one or more of the following aspects in their interpreta-tions 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., thesecond aspect, social status or rank, is the basis of the others, in otherwords, the source of power. Power of control, authority or the legitimateright to exert influence, and a general notion of equality-inequality, donot exist by themselves, but depend on status or rank. I think this inter-pretation of power is supported by Spencer-Oatey’s (1992) definition oflegitimate power: One person has the right to prescribe or request certainthings by virtue of role, age or status. Thomas (1995: 127) states that‘legitimate power’ remains fairly constant within a relationship. One ofthe five bases of power proposed by French and Raven (1959: 156),legitimate power is based on the perception by P (person) that O (socialagent) 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 ofpragmatics seem to have given the most varied interpretations. Spencer-Oatey (1996: 3) lists a number of studies that have investigated the effectof distance on people’s use of language, and identifies the terms the authorsused for labeling and describing this variable. In table 3, I have addedeight more studies (the last eight) to Spencer-Oatey’s table (1996: 3).

82

Author(s) Main term Alternative term/ gloss Labels for scaleextremities

Baxter (1984) Distance Intimacy Close-distantBlum-Kulka et al. (1985) Social distance Degree of familiarity High-lowBlum-Kulka & House (1989) Social distance Familiarity High-lowBoxer (1993) Social distance Degree of friendship/

intimacyBrown & Gilman (1972 [1960]) Distance Interactive Closeness, High-low

Interactive intimacy,Interactive Distance

Brown & Levinson (1987 Distance Distant (e.g. strangers) High/great[1978]) Close (e.g. known -low/small

to each other)Holmes (1990) Social distance How well they know Close-distant

each otherHoltgraves (1986) 1. Closeness High-low

2. Attraction Liking for one another High-lowHoltgraves & Yang (1990) Distance Close-distantLeichty & Applegate (1991) Familiarity Familiar-

UnfamiliarLim & Bowers (1991) Relational

intimacy High-lowOlshtain (1989) Social distance FamiliaritySlugoski & Turnbull (1988) 1. Distance Teaching together Distant-intimate

for 10 years/ Virtually High-lowno contact

Positive-negative2. Affect Like/dislike affect

Trosborg (1987) Social distance Intimates/non-intimates Plus/minus socialdistance

Vollmer & Olshtain (1989) Social distance Familiarity High-lowWood & Kroger (1991) Solidarity Solidary-non-

solidaryBergman & Kasper (1993) Distance Closeness Close-distantBilbow (1995) Social distance Relationship closeness Close-distantBlum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984) Social distance Plus-minusFukushima (1990) Social distance Familiarity Close-distantHashimoto et al. (1992) Familiarity Close-distantSasagawa (1994a) Social distance Familiarity Acquaint-

non-acquaintSasagawa (1995) Social distance Close-distantTanaka & Kawade (1982) Psychological Like-dislike

distance

Table 3. Labels and Glosses for Distance

83

As Spencer-Oatey (1996: 4) points out, definitions of distance varies amongthese authors. The major difference among the definitions in the abovestudies seems to be whether affect is included in distance or not. As notedalso in 3.7.1., Slugoski and Turnbull (1988) do not include affect as acomponent of distance, but Baxter (1984) and Brown and Levinson (1978)do. Although Slugoski and Turnbull (1988) treat distance and affect asseparate factors, they do not define those terms explicitly, as Spencer-Oatey (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. frequency of contact;2. length of acquaintance;3. amount of self-disclosure; and4. amount and type of affect.

Spencer-Oatey (1996: 7) concludes that distance has been interpreted ascomprising one or more of the following (often overlapping) components:

1. Social similarity/difference (e.g. Brown and Gilman, 1972)2. Frequency of contact (e.g. Slugoski and Turnbull, 1988)3. Length of acquaintance (e.g. Slugoski and Turnbull,1988)4. Familiarity, or how well people know each other (e.g. Holmes, 1990)5. Sense of like-mindedness (e.g. Brown and Gilman, 1972)6. Positive/negative affect (e.g. Baxter, 1984)

Thomas (1995: 128) explains social distance as a composite of psycho-logically real factors (status, age, sex, degree of intimacy, etc.) which ‘to-gether determine the overall degree of respectfulness’ within a given speechsituation.

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 requestthan 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 difficultiesis due to the fact that the relationships among speakers are dynamic andopen to negotiation, as Wolfson (1988) and Aronsson and Sätterlund-Larsson (1987) state. Another kind of difficulty lies in social changes.Berscheid et al. (1989: 64) point out that the traditionally assumed relation-

84

ship types need special scrutiny. It was assumed that marital relationshipsand parent-child relationships were regarded as exemplars of a close rela-tionship, but with the increase of divorce and some other new socialorganizations, such as more variations in family patterns, it is risky tojudge the relationship between people on the basis of these traditionalassumptions.

3.7.2.3. Imposition

There were few studies whose definitions of imposition differed from thatof Brown and Levinson (1987), and it seems that the meaning of impositiondoes not vary very much among researchers. The only differences foundin the literature are (1) the terminology; and (2) whether rights and obliga-tions are included in imposition. As for the terminology, table 4 showswho uses which terms. Concerning the issue of whether rights and obliga-tions are included in imposition or not, Brown and Levinson (1978; 1987)include them, but Thomas (1995: 130–131) separates them. What Thomas(1995: 130) means by imposition subsumes the value of what is beingasked for, citing Goffman’s (1967) ‘free’ and ‘non-free’ goods. That is, thesize of imposition becomes big when someone asks something of highvalue.

Author(s) Main term Labels for scaleextremities

Baxter (1984) Magnitude of the request not at all-a great dealBrown & Gilman (1989) Ranked extremity (R)

of a face threatening act Low-highBrown & Levinson (1987 [1978]) Ranking (R) of imposition Small-greatLeichty & Applegate (1991) Magnitude of imposition Small-largeSasagawa (1994a) Ranking of imposition Low-HighScollon & Scollon (1995) Weight (W) of imposition +/-Thomas (1995) Size of imposition

Table 4. Labels and Glosses for Imposition

85

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 tosome 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 ethnicidentity. 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 tocontext. The degree of importance of each component may vary fromculture to culture or from situation to situation, so that in an egalitarianculture, for example, social class may not be an important component,but in a culture which emphasises vertical relationships, social class, orsocial status may become important, as is evidently the case in Japan,previous studies having shown that the Japanese place more importanceon status than the Americans in disagreement (Beebe and Takahashi, 1989a)and in refusal (Beebe et al., 1990).

Figure 5 shows the structure of power.

Componentssocial statussocial classinstitutionalised role

Power Control/ ageAuthority, the legitimate right sex to exert influence wealth

physical strengthregional/ethnic identities

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 thatH necessarily has power over S, but means that the power differencebetween S and H is big; while “small” does not mean that H has lesspower over S, but that the power difference between them is small.

86

Wetzel (1993) points out that in the West the term power is closelyassociated with domination and control, and so often has strong negativeconnotations, but in China and Japan, where Confucian philosophy hasinfluenced people’s conceptions of social relationships, members of unequaldyads are somewhat analogous to a parent-child relationship. In suchcontexts, inequality is not regarded as ‘bad.’ Wetzel (Ibid.) suggests ‘verticalrelationship’ as an alternative, which is neutral in connotation in a rangeof cultures. However, Spencer-Oatey (1996: 21) comments on the vaguenessof ‘vertical relationship’, saying that “it gives no indication as to the natureof 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 rolerelationship given as an example in the rubric of the questionnaire used inthis study was “friends-not friends.” (The relationship between friendswill usually be close compared with that between people who are notfriends.) Closeness is determined by one or more of the following factors:

1. Whether people are similar/different2. How well people know each other3. 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 berelevant in all cultures or in all situations. The second may consist oflength of acquaintance, or frequency of contact. The third may be deter-mined 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, andthey know each other well, they may or may not like each other. Whethersomeone likes another or not may vary situationally, individually or cross-culturally. 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 relation-ships among the speakers are dynamic, and the traditionally assumed relationshiptypes need special scrutiny. However, since the written questionnaire is used in thisstudy, I do not think there is a need to worry about the changes of the relationshipsamong the interactants.

87

and they know each other. Even with the same conditions (the first factorand the second factor being the same), they may like or dislike each otherfor some reason, not related to either of these factors.

Closeness can be determined by all three factors. Closeness may alsobe determined by the amount of self-disclosure as noted by Spencer-Oatey(1996: 5). According to Gallois (1994: 308), self-disclosures are used as ameans of increasing intimacy. “The appropriate amount of self-disclosureperceived by interactants, varies both with the level of acquaintance andrelationship between them, and with the sex and social power of thediscloser” (Ibid.). That is, the amount of self-disclosures may be determinedby all three factors included in this study, and it may also vary individuallyor cross-culturally.

As noted in 3.7.1., there is a debate regarding the separation of affectfrom distance. Slugoski and Turnbull (1988) argue that affect should betreated as a separate factor from distance. Similarly, Brown and Gilman(1989) claim that the distance variable may need to be split into twodimensions, distance (or familiarity) and affect (or liking). However, Iwill include affect in social distance in this study for the following reason.

Slugoski and Turnbull (1988) do not provide convincing evidence forthe independent influence of distance, so it could well be that affect anddistance did not function as independent variables, but rather that theaffectual component of distance varied in importance (Spencer-Oatey, 1996:13) (italic in original).

The components of social distance are summarised in figure 6.

Components(1) Whether people are similar/different age

social classoccupationsexethnicitybeliefs

Social Distance–Closeness value systems

(2) How well people know each other length ofacquaintance

frequency ofcontact

amount ofself-disclosure

(3) Whether people like each other affect

Figure 6. Social Distance

88

As noted earlier, “Big-small” was used as the labels for scale extremitiesin this study. Big social distance means that people are not close, andsmall distance means that people are close.

3.7.3.3. Imposition

Imposition arises when something is asked for. What is asked for may bematerial 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 beinvolved:

• time;• effort;• financial burden; and• psychological burden.

Imposition will be determined by how much of each of the above factorsis included. For example, if S asks for something expensive, the financialburden on H may be big. In such a case, the degree of imposition of the re-quested act will be high. A burden may not be always financial, but maybe psychological, as when the requested act requires much responsibility,or when the requestee does not want to perform the requested act for somereason. If what was asked for was non-material, and if it requires a lot oftime or effort by H, the degree of imposition will be high, too. The valueattached to what is asked for may vary culturally, individually and situa-tionally.

My standpoint toward imposition is to include rights and obligations,since imposition will also be influenced by whether the requester has aright to make a certain request and whether the requestee has an obliga-tion to pursue the request. The degree of imposition of the requested actwill 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 arequester has a right or not is related to the power variable. This showsthat the variables are not independent, but they are related to each other,as noted by Turner (1996: 5). Whether someone has rights or obligationsmay again vary culturally and individually. For example, in a certainculture, a teacher has a right to ask his/her student to do something whichis not related to classroom activities, but in another culture, this maynot be the case.

89

The degree of imposition of the requested act may also be influencedby situational reasonableness. The degree of imposition will be lower ifthe request is situationally reasonable than if the request is not situationallyreasonable. Brown and Levinson’s (1987: 79) examples, to ask for a dimejust outside a telephone booth and to ask for a dime for no apparentreason in the middle of the street, indicate the relationship between thesituational reasonableness and the degree of imposition. Situational reason-ableness may be connected to standard/non-standard situations which wereproposed by Hoppe-Graff et al. (1985: 90). Standard situations are often-recurring routine situations and non-standard situations are uncommonor rarely occurring ones. In standard situations there may be more situa-tional reasonableness than in non-standard situations.

My interpretation of imposition is summarised in figure 7.

What is asked for

MaterialNon-material Value

What is required for H to pursue the request

Imposition < TimeEffortFinancial burden

Rights & Obligations Psychological burdenSituational 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 Brownand Levinson (1987: 10–11) acknowledge the importance of analysingpoliteness as a constituent of conversational structure:

<

<

90

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 forcesa sentence-based, speaker-oriented mode of analysis, requiring attribution of speechact categories where our own thesis requires that utterances are often equivocal inforce. … FTAs need not be realized in sentence-like units, and the upshot of all thisis that we must now acknowledge that the speech act categories that we employedwere an underanalysed shorthand, but one which, were we to try again today, wouldstill be hard to avoid.

As requests and responses to requests form adjacency pairs, responses torequests are important elements in requests. Considering not only requestsbut 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 singleacts …

To avoid focusing on isolated acts, in this study, I will consider responsesto requests. As it is beyond the scope of the present study to investigate alltypes of responses to requests, I will confine myself to responses to off-record requests. Responding to off-record requests was chosen as the focusof this study because it is more difficult or problematic to respond to off-record requests than to respond to direct or conventionally indirect requestsas noted below.

1. Making appropriate responses to requests is closely related to theexplicitness of the intentions of S. Since the intention of the speaker tomake a request is expressed explicitly in direct requests, it may not bedifficult for H to interpret those as requests. Thus, it may not beproblematic for H to respond to direct requests.

2. As noted in 3.3. and 3.4., indirect requests have both a literal meaningand an intended/conveyed meaning. If H interprets indirect requests asrequests, i.e., H interprets an indirect/conveyed meaning of indirectrequests, H can respond to indirect requests appropriately.

3. As noted in 3.4., off-record requests also have a literal meaning and apotential indirect meaning, and H has to infer a potential indirectmeaning in order to understand the intention of S. There are someclues for H to infer an indirect meaning of conventionalised indirectrequests, such as conventional forms, but there are not many clues forH to interpret an intended/conveyed meaning of off-record requests.

91

Therefore, more than one interpretation of the utterance is possible, asnoted in 3.4., and it is more difficult or less likely for H to interpretoff-record requests as requests than conventionalised indirect requests(e.g. Holtgraves, 1991). These factors mean that responding to off-record requests appropriately is more difficult than responding to directand indirect requests appropriately, and that the responses to off-recordrequests have more variation than the responses to direct and indirectrequests. Misunderstanding is likely to occur in the interpretation ofoff-record requests.

Despite the difficulty of responding to off-record requests as summarisedabove, responses to off-record requests have not been the focus of previousstudies, which means that dealing with responses to off-record requestsmerits attention.

3.8.1. Types of Responses to Off-record Requests

When off-record requests are made, the intention of the speaker to makea request is not explicitly expressed. There are two ways of interpretingsuch 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 thefollowing ways of responding are possible, based on the results ofFukushima (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/herselffor 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 excusevery politely, or just responding to what S has said, or H ignores S bysaying nothing, or by changing the subject).

Figure 8 summarises possible interpretations and ways of responding tooff-record requests.

92

[Interpretations by H] [Decisions by H] [Example actions by H]

(1) H preempts H makes an offer.S’s request. (Solicitousness)

(2) H takesan alternative H makes a suggestion.means other thandoing something H gives S advice.him/herself for S.

(a) H recognisesS made a requestto H. H refuses politely.

(e.g. I’d love to, but…)(3) H refusesa request. H just responds to

what S said.He says nothing.

S –––> HOff-record H changes the subject.requests

(b) H does notrecognise S made H just responds toa request to H. 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 thisstudy, what S wants H to do, i.e., the intention of S (e.g. S wants H towrite a letter of recommendation.) is made explicit in the prompt, so thatthere 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 evadethe responsibility of damaging H’s face by leaving the option for H tointerpret off-record requests; and (2) S can give H an opportunity to beseen to care for S. Brown and Levinson (1987: 71) further comment onthe case of (2):

93

… if H chooses to pick up and respond to the potentially threatening interpretationof the act, he can give a ‘gift’ to the original speaker. Thus, if I say ‘It’s hot in here’and you say ‘Oh, I’ll open the window then!’, you may get credit for being generousand cooperative, and I avoid the potential threat of ordering you around.

I will term this “gift” by H solicitousness. Solicitousness is a means wherebyH, in response to an off-record request, shows consideration for S, thisbeing 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, butas the above explanation by Brown and Levinson shows, the performer ofsolicitousness can gain credit if the beneficiary takes solicitousnesspositively, i.e., the beneficiary appreciates what the performer has done(See 3.8.5.).

The basic idea behind solicitousness is concern for someone’s well-being 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 asfollows:

Solicitousness is a response to off-record requests which takes the formof offering.

Solicitousness can be defined as preemptive responses to

1. circumstances or situations,2. verbal cues or3. nonverbal cues. (See figure 9.)

Circumstances

Verbal cues by a beneficiary à Performer -----> Solicitousness

Nonverbal cues by a beneficiary

Figure 9. Mechanism of Solicitousness

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

94

1. Solicitousness responding to circumstances/situationsCircumstances/situations: It is very hot. Your supervisee comes intoyour room for her supervision.Possible solicitousness: You switch on a fan.

2. Solicitousness responding to verbal cues by the beneficiary of solicitous-ness

Verbal cue: Your supervisee said, “It’s hot in here.” when she cameinto your room for her supervision.Possible solicitousness: You switch on a fan.

3. Solicitousness responding to nonverbal cues by the beneficiary of solici-tousness:

Nonverbal cue: Your supervisee was using a hand fan and she wasperspiring.Possible solicitousness: You switch on a fan.

When solicitousness is demonstrated, the performer of solicitousness hasnot been asked to act by the beneficiary. Solicitousness can be expressedboth verbally and non-verbally, although solicitousness in the aboveexamples 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. Respondingto off-record requests, H in the above could choose to demonstrate solici-tousness. There are also occasions when H could choose not to demonstratesolicitousness. What, then, are the conditions for H to demonstratesolicitousness? I propose that these are as follows:

1. H of off-record requests interprets that S wants him/her to do A. Inother words, H of off-record requests interprets that a request has beenmade, and s/he infers S’s desires.

95

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 in3.8.2.

4. H of off-record requests wants to be of some help to S of off-recordrequests.

H of off-record requests decides to demonstrate solicitousness under theabove conditions, the first and the second conditions being necessary atall times, while the third and the fourth conditions are not.

The following example of an off-record request is illustrative of theabove conditions in application.

Damn, I’m 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 needssome money (the first condition), and if H has some money to lend (thesecond condition), solicitousness may be displayed. H may just want toshow care for S and get credit (the third condition), or H just wants to beof some help to S (the fourth condition), or H wants to do both. Thefollowing are possible solicitousness responses to the above off-recordrequest.

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 itsstatus in Brown and Levinson’s (1987: 60) politeness strategies will bethat of responding to off-record strategies. (See figure 10.)

96

1. without redressive action, baldly

on record 2. positive politeness

with redressive Do the FTA action 3. negative

politeness

4. off record ß Solicitousness

5. Don’t 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 concernedwith the well-being of the beneficiary (the fourth condition in 3.8.3.). Forexample, while some people may appreciate having an air conditionerturned on, others may feel too cold and so do not appreciate a display ofsolicitousness which involves turning it on.

In terms of Conversation Analysis, interpretations of solicitousness canbe classified as “follow-up” which “ratifies the response” (Stenström, 1994:125) (See figure 11). That is, “appreciation” is ratified in a positiveinterpretation of solicitousness and “annoyance” is ratified in a negativeinterpretation. I will discuss further how positive/negative interpretationsof solicitousness affect face in 3.8.6.

[Initiation] (Off-record requests)↓

[Response] (Solicitousness)↓

[Follow-up] (Interpretation of solicitousness)

Figure 11. Interpretation of Solicitousness in the Sequence of Exchanges

97

Solicitousness can be regarded as officious because of the frequency withwhich it is displayed. The degree to which the beneficiary feels solicitousnessis excessive or insufficient may depend not only on personal tastes, butalso cultural differences. This kind of mismatch between the expectationof the beneficiary and the display of solicitousness can cause problems,especially in cross-cultural communication, because it is likely that thevalues concerning solicitousness differ from culture to culture. For example,solicitousness may not be valued in an individualist culture as highly as ina collectivist one (See chapter 4). This may be because giving choices is avalued politeness strategy (e.g., Lakoff, 1973) in an individualist culture.Overuse of solicitousness reduces choice, however, violating individualfreedom of action, while those towards whom solicitousness is offeredmay feel emotionally indebted.

This does not mean that solicitousness will not be practised in indi-vidualist cultures, only that it will be realised in different ways. In a col-lectivist culture, solicitousness is displayed through preemptively satis-fying people’s wants by inferring from context and shared knowledge whatthese wants might be. Freedom of choice is less highly valued in a collectivistculture than preemptive fulfillment of inferred wants whereby the actoralso displays solidarity with the receiver. In an individualist culture,however, freedom of choice is more highly esteemed than displays ofpreemptive fulfillment of wants, since such preemptive behaviour is seento reduce freedom of action, in other words, it is interpreted as an imposi-tion. To display concern for freedom and to avoid imposition, the actoroffers a choice. In both cases, solicitousness is being practiced, but in eachcase, it is being realised differently.

Besides the cultural element noted above, social variables such as socialdistance are also linked to the interpretation of solicitousness, and in thiscontext it is relevant to note Sifianou’s (1997: 68) point.

… when there is social distance, doing things for other without being requested tocould be perceived as an imposition, since these actions may require reimbursement.

Although she does not use the term solicitousness, “doing things for otherwithout being requested to” is what I have defined as solicitousness, andif it is perceived as an imposition, it can be interpreted negatively.

98

3.8.6. Solicitousness and Face

Face is a central concept in Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness, asnoted in 2.3.3. Since this study is based on Brown and Levinson’s theoreticalframework, I would like to consider the relationship between solicitousnessand face.

As noted in 3.8.2. and 3.8.3., the performer of solicitousness sometimesdemonstrates solicitousness, because s/he wants to show care, thus gettingcredit for being generous and cooperative. When solicitousness is takenpositively by the beneficiary (e.g. The beneficiary may think, “How niceof him/her!”), the performer of solicitousness may enhance his/her face(See figure 12).

Beneficiary <------------------ PerformerSolicitousness↓

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 solicitous-ness when it is taken negatively by the beneficiary. We have seen that aperformer may demonstrate solicitousness by trying to be considerate, orattending to the well-being of the beneficiary. However, the beneficiarymay not want what the performer has offered; indeed, the beneficiarymay consider solicitousness to be officious. (e.g. “This is not what I want-ed.”) And if the beneficiary makes that explicit, by refusing the performer’soffer verbally or nonverbally, the refusal can be interpreted as loss of facefor the performer (See figure 13).

Beneficiary <------------------ PerformerSolicitousness↓

Beneficiary regards solicitousness as officious.↓

Refusal of solicitousness by the beneficiary↓Face loss -------------->Performer

Figure 13. Solicitousness and Face Loss

99

There is also the case in which someone can suffer loss of face if solic-itousness is not demonstrated. This may more likely happen in a collectivistthan in an individual culture (See chapter 4). In Japanese society, forinstance, solicitousness is highly valued and even expected to a certainextent. So, if someone does not demonstrate as much solicitousness asexpected by the members of society, s/he would suffer loss of face, becauses/he was not sensitive enough to preempt the other party’s desires, thusfailing 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 certaintypes of requests are employed in some situations, whether there are anyrelationships between the variables affecting politeness strategies and thechoice of requesting choices, and whether there are any similarities ordifferences between the choice of requesting strategies by British and Japa-nese subjects, I have attempted to clarify some features of requests, suchas the conditions, indirectness, some types of requests, and the payoffs ofdifferent types of requests. I have reviewed requesting strategies with regardto the relationship between the choice of requesting strategies and thevariables affecting requesting strategies. In reviewing the components ofvariables, I clarified what I think to be the components of the threevariables, as many researchers in pragmatics have not defined what theymean by each variable, as noted in 3.7.1. However, these are my inter-pretations, and the subjects in this study may have different componentsof each variable in mind, but it is not the purpose of this study to revealwhat each subject considers to be the components of each variable. AsBrown and Levinson (1987: 76) note, the factors compounded to estimatethe three variables are certainly culture-specific. Therefore, it can be assum-ed that subjects in British culture and those in Japanese culture may differin the components of each variable.

The purposes of this study are to investigate how the subjects perceiveeach variable in the situations provided, how those perceptions influencetheir behaviors in requesting or responding strategies to off-record requestsand whether there are any cross-cultural differences between British and

100

Japanese cultures. With British and Japanese subjects in this study, I willtest out Brown and Levinson’s predictions, i.e., the bigger the face threat(computed by the three variables), the higher the number of the strategyemployed, by investigating the correlations between the perceptions ofeach variable and the requesting and responding strategies to off-recordrequests.

In this study, I have decided to focus on responses to off-record requests.Off-record requests leave some options for interpretation, so that severalresponses are possible. I have confined myself to considering responses tooff-record requests in which H has recognised that a request has beenmade. I have attempted to consider such responses, and I have defined oneway of responding to off-record requests as solicitousness, in which Hpreempts S’s requests, and does something for the benefit of S. I have triedto clarify the conditions of solicitousness, the status of solicitousness inBrown and Levinson’s framework, and I have offered some interpretationsof solicitousness and the relationship between solicitousness and face. Iwill investigate whether there are any similarities or differences in thedisplay of solicitousness between British and Japanese subjects. I will alsoinvestigate in what kind of situations solicitousness is chosen by Britishand Japanese subjects as a response to off-record requests. The displayand the preference of solicitousness may be much related to different valuesystems in different cultures, which is the focus of the next chapter.

101

CHAPTER 4

Cultural Dimensions of the Study

4.1. Introduction

Politeness strategies, which are the focus of this study, are considered to beinfluenced by culture. In this chapter, some features of culture relevant tothis study will be considered, and I will attempt to establish a contrastiveframework of Japanese and British cultures, and to consider some featuresof Japanese and British cultures relevant to the interpretation of the polite-ness data.

‘Culture’ is a very broad ranging concept, but it is not my purpose toconsider all aspects of culture in this chapter in which I will confine myselfto those cultural dimensions which may influence communication strate-gies, language use and politeness strategies. I will review some definitionsof culture, and since the anthropological view of culture seems to be especiallyrelevant to this study, it will be reviewed in 4.2.2. where I will considersome 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 thedefinitions, and discuss some criticisms of the collectivism-individualismdichotomy, some of the major features of this dimension, and will considerJapanese 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 summaryof views of culture below.

102

Robinson (1988: 8–12) 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 explainobservable events

Cognitive An internal mechanism for organizing and interpreting inputs

Symbolic The meaning which results from the dialectic process betweenexternal events and internal mechanisms

Table 5. Robinsonís View of Culture

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

From the behaviorist point of view, culture consists of discrete behaviors or sets ofbehaviors, e.g., traditions, habits or customs, as in marriage or leisure. Culture issomething which is shared and can be observed. (Ibid.: 8)

The functionalist approach to culture is an attempt at making sense out of socialbehaviors. … Again, culture is viewed as a social phenomenon. However, what isshared are reasons and rules for behaving. (Ibid.: 8–9)

The cognitive definition shifts attention from the observable aspects of what is sharedto what is shared “inside” the “cultural actor.” What is shared is a means of organizingand interpreting the world, a means of creating order out of the inputs. … Thecognitive approach emphasizes the mechanism of organizing inputs. That is, cultureitself is a process through which experience is mapped out, categorized andinterpreted. From this perspective, culture is like a computer program. The programdiffers from culture to culture. (Ibid.: 10)

While cognitive anthropologists focus on the product of processing, i.e., the meaningsderived. Symbolic anthropologists view culture as a system of symbols and meanings.… Symbolic anthropology is concerned with the dynamic inter-relationship betweenmeaning, experience and reality. Culture (which is the product of this inter-relationship) is a dynamic system – an ongoing, dialectic process, giving rise tosymbols which may be viewed historically. Past experience influences meaning, whichin turn affects future experience, which in turn affects subsequent meaning, and soon. (Ibid.: 11)

Robinson (Ibid.: 12–13) notes the danger of a particular definition ofculture and the merit of combining concepts of culture and learning.Therefore, I am not going to take any particular view of culture reviewedhere.

Adler (1997: 15) describes culture as:

103

1. Something that is shared by all or almost all members of some socialgroup;

2. Something that the older members of the group try to pass on to theyounger members; and

3. Something (as in the case of morals, laws and customs) that shapesbehavior, or … structures one’s perception of the world.

In figure 14, Adler (Ibid.: 16) shows how individuals express culture andits normative qualities through the values that they hold about life and theworld around them. These values in turn affect their attitudes about theform of behavior considered more appropriate and effective in any givensituation.

Culture

Behavior Values

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

Choosing politeness strategies can be considered as behaviour. Fromfigure 14, it can be said that the choice of politeness strategies isinfluenced 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; and4. it influences the behavior of group members in uniform and predictable

ways.

ValuesBehavior

Attitudes

Culture

104

Values are defined by Lustig (1988: 61) as “powerful unseen forces thatare collectively shared within a culture.” Culture is an important influenceon communication, which is influenced by the values unique to one culturein this study. Schiffrin (1994: 139–140) describes the relationship betweenculture and communication in the terms which emphasise the way in whichculture 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 betweenpersons who are participating in some kind of interactive situation. Thus, the waywe communicate with each other is constrained by culture, but it also reveals andsustains culture. … Language use is also a type (and a part) of social behavior inmany different institutional realms (e.g. political, economic, religious, family) thatare themselves bound to culture.

Scollon and Scollon (1995: 126) note that there are two normal uses ofthe word “culture”: (1) high culture, focusing on “intellectual and artisticachievements”; and (2) anthropological culture, meaning “any of thecustoms, worldview, language, kinship system, social organization, andother taken-for-granted day-to-day practices of a people which set thatgroup apart as a distinctive group.” They note that in studying interculturalcommunication, their concern is not with high culture, but with anthro-pological culture. Since this study deals with a cross-cultural comparisonof politeness strategies, linked to intercultural communication, anthro-pological 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, all-embracing concept, including the behavioural (customs), the creative-material (arts), the normative and institutional (morals and law), and thecognitive (knowledge and belief), not to mention any other capabilitiesand habits (Brøgger, 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 andpatterns of learned behaviour that are handed down from one generation to the nextthrough the means of language and imitation. A person is destined to learn thepatterns of behaviour prevalent in the society in which he grows up.

105

According to Brøgger (1992), such definitions view culture as configurations,structures, systems and control mechanisms or programmes. Culture isseen as being a totality, tied together by various webs or patterns of beliefsand 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 ofmental programmes and the “software of the mind,” using the analogy ofthe way in which computers are programmed. Hofstede is careful to pointout that people’s behaviour is only partially determined by their mentalprogrammes. All individuals have a basic ability to deviate from theseprogrammes and to react in ways which are new, creative, destructive orunexpected. The sources of one’s mental programmes lie within the socialenvironments in which one grew up and one’s life experiences. Hofstede(Ibid.: 10) notes that “as almost everyone belongs to a number of differentgroups and categories of people at the same time, people unavoidablycarry several layers of mental programming within themselves, correspond-ing to different levels of culture,” and lists the following:

• a national level according to one’s country (or countries for peoplewho migrated during their lifetime);

• a regional and/or ethnic and/or religious and/or linguistic affiliationlevel, 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 aboy;

• a generation level, which separates grandparents from parents fromchildren;

• a social class level, associated with educational opportunities and witha person’s occupation or profession;

• for those who are employed, an organizational or corporate levelaccording to the way employees have been socialized by their workorganization.

Hofstede’s scheme is summed up in figure 15, in which he depicts therelationship between personality (which is unique), culture (which isacquired) and human nature (which is innate and universal).

106

Specific to individual Inherited and learned

PERSONALITY

Specific CULTURE Learned to group or category

Universal 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 programmingof the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category ofpeople from another.” Hofstede describes four dimensions along whichcultural value systems can be ordered: (1) power distance; (2) individualism-collectivism; (3) masculinity-femininity; and (4) uncertainty avoidance.Lustig (1988: 58–60) explains these dimensions as follows:

Power distance indicates the degree to which the culture believes that institutionaland organizational power should be distributed unequally. … Individualism-collectivism indicates the degree to which a culture relies upon and has allegiance tothe self or the group. … Masculinity-femininity indicates the degree to which aculture values “masculine” behaviors such as assertiveness and the acquisition ofwealth or “feminine” behaviors such as caring for others and the quality of life. …Uncertainty avoidance indicates the degree to which the culture feels threatened byambiguous situations and tries to avoid uncertainty by establishing more structure.

Of the above dimensions, individualism-collectivism seems to be the mostrelevant to this study, since this dimension is concerned with the relationshipbetween the self and the group, and it may influence communicationstrategies, as communication is the activity which is conducted interperson-ally.1

1 Mead (1994: 50) cites Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) six basic culturalorientations, and one of them is the person’s relationship to other people, the rangeof variations of which is collectivist and individualist.

107

In cross-cultural communication, there are many studies which haveused the dimension of individualism-collectivism as a way of framing theresearch. For example, in explaining cultural differences in language use,Holtgraves and Yang (1992: 253–254) use differences in social interactionbetween individuals from individualistic and collectivist cultures. Holt-graves and Yang (Ibid.: 246) note that speakers in any culture can say thesame thing in many different ways.

In order to explain some cross-cultural differences between politenessstrategies chosen by British subjects and those by their Japanese counter-parts, I will use the dimension of individualism-collectivism, which I willreview more in detail in 4.3.

4.2.3. Problems Concerning Culture

Sarangi (1995: 24) points out there are two problems concerning culturein cross-cultural pragmatics: (1) over-emphasising consistency within acultural group and (2) not attempting to understand culture. Concerningthe second problem, culture has not been well defined in the study ofcross-cultural pragmatics. One reason for this situation may be the difficultyof 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 summarisesthe elusive nature of the culture concept from the viewpoint of culturalagents in given societies as well as cultural analysts bound by differentdisciplines when he says that:

… culture hides much more than it reveals, and strangely enough what it hides, ithides most effectively from its own participants.

On the basis of the definitions of culture reviewed above, I have come tothe conclusion that the anthropological view offers a useful approach forthe present study.

Concerning the first problem, i.e., over emphasis of consistency withina cultural group, the features in one culture seem to be regarded as consist-ent in many studies in cross-cultural pragmatics. However, there are manysubcultures in one culture, and each subculture is often different from

108

another. I think it is necessary to consider Hofstede’s (1991: 10) viewagain here. That is, “as almost everyone belongs to a number of differentgroups and categories of people at the same time, people unavoidablycarry several layers of mental programming within themselves, cor-responding to different levels of culture.” Many factors, such as, socialstatus, social class, institutionalised roles, age, sex, wealth, regional/ethnicidentities, constitute many different subcultures within one culture. I agreewith Sarangi’s warning of the danger of over-emphasising consistencywithin a cultural group. It is dangerous to generalise about one culture byexamining only certain representatives of one culture. In order to avoidsuch a problem, I have confined my subjects to university students, andwhen I refer to the data of British or Japanese cultures in this study, it is asrepresented by the students concerned.

The problem of over-emphasising consistency within a cultural groupundoubtedly has to do with stereotyping. As noted in 4.2.1., culture issomething that is shared by all or almost all members of some socialgroup, but it is not always the case that all members have the same orsimilar perspectives. Trompenaars (1993: 25) points out that:

People within a culture do not all have identical sets of artefacts, norms, values andassumptions. Within each culture there is a wide spread of these. This spread doeshave a pattern around an average. So, in a sense, the variation around the norm canbe seen as a normal distribution. Distinguishing one culture from another dependson 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 ofextremes. … Using extreme, exaggerated forms of behaviour is stereotyping.

However, not all stereotyping involves focusing on extremes, as is clear inthe definition offered by Smith and Bond (1993: 168–169).

A stereotype is a group of beliefs about persons who are members of a particulargroup. Gender, ethnicity, age, education, wealth and the like may form the basis fora stereotype, as indeed can any identifiable marker. Stereotypes may vary in manyaspects: they may be widely shared by others, even by the stereotyped personsthemselves, or they may be idiosyncratic to the individual holding them; they mayinvolve beliefs about the traits, values, behaviours, opinions or, indeed, beliefs oftypical persons from that other group; they may be simple or differentiated, positiveor negative, confidently or unsurely held.

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

109

been developing more balanced appreciation of stereotypes,” many notingthe ‘kernel of truth’ that stereotypes possess, while it has also been observedthat “interacting social groups often hold positive stereotypes about oneanother,” and that stereotypes for some groups “may be defined acrossmany dimensions, giving opportunity for judges to ascribe broad, dif-ferentiated identity to their own and other group members.” Indeed, thislast outcome, they suggest, “may in fact be an important component insustaining 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 informationabout the other … so that attention may be devoted to other aspects of theinteraction. This redeployment of consciousness may be especially usefulin cross-cultural encounters, where surprises are likely to abound.”

Roberts and Sarangi (1993: 99) point out that recently, anthropologistshave come to regard generic conceptualisations of culture as misleading.They point out that culture is constantly being made and remade, beingneither static nor monolithic, but multi-voiced and contested. What is im-portant in this view is not what something means but how it came to beproduced, to be the way it is, while the focus is on the critical analysis ofculture-specific features.

4.3. Collectivism-Individualism

As noted in 4.2.1., the anthropological view of culture seems to be the onemost applicable to this study, and as noted in 4.2.2., the dimension ofindividualism-collectivism proposed by Hofstede (1991), which is relatedto communication, and will thus provide a useful analytical category. Inthis section, I will discuss this dichotomy further, reviewing the definitionsof collectivism and individualism in 4.3.1., reviewing and considering somecriticisms in 4.3.2., and discussing some of the features of collectivismand individualism which are related to this study in 4.3.3.

110

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 onwardsare integrated into strong, cohesive ingroups, which throughout people’s lifetimecontinue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

Kim et al. (1994b: 2) explains individualism and collectivism in similarterms to Hofstede (1980).

According to Hofstede (1980), individualist societies emphasize “I” consciousness,autonomy, emotional independence, individual initiative, right to privacy, pleasureseeking, financial security, need for specific friendship, and universalism. Collectivistsocieties, on the other hand, stress “we” consciousness, collective identity, emotionaldependence group solidarity, sharing, duties and obligations, need for stable andpredetermined friendship, group decision, and particularism.

They also (Ibid.: 2–3) quote from Markus and Kitayama (1991) who:

… similarly propose the independent view and interdependent view of the self. Theydescribe individuals who uphold the independent view as being “egocentric, separate,autonomous, idiocentric, and self-contained” (p.226). Interdependent individualsare “sociocentric, holistic, collective, allocentric, ensembled, constitutive,contextualist, and relational” (p.227).

Brislin (1994: 78–80), comparing individualism and collectivism, claimsthat:

Individualists are socialized to be self-reliant and to have more of a sense of separationfrom their extended family and from their community. … The most importantdistinction between collectivists and individualists is the emphasis placed on thefeelings and opinions of group members and the psychological closeness between aperson and others. Collectivists are more willing to downplay their own goals infavor of group preferences.

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

111

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

Fundamental Assumption Fundamental Assumption Rationality, Reason Relatedness

Principles Regulations, Collective Roles,Rules, welfare, Duties,Laws Harmony Obligations

Individuation Autonomy Self- Inter-cultivation dependency

Self-fulfillment Freedom of Succorance Nurturancechoice

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 seemto be bipolar, but I think it is important to note that individualist andcollectivist tendencies can coexist, as Triandis (1994b: 42) suggests:

…individual-level factor analyses suggest that the two can coexist and are simplyemphasized more or less in each culture, depending on the situation. All of us carryboth individualist and collectivist tendencies; the difference is that in some culturesthe probability that individualist selves, attitudes, norms, values, and behaviors willbe 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, whilecollectivism reminds us of both more traditional societies and the failure of thecommunist experiment. … these dimensions are complementary, not opposing,preferences.

112

4.3.2. Criticisms

I would like at this point to review the criticisms of the dichotomy ofindividualistic and collectivist cultures. Schwartz (1990: 140) considersthat “the individualism-collectivism dichotomy revolves around the pre-sumed conflict between personal interests and ingroup interests,” and claimsthat this dichotomy is insufficient. Schwartz (Ibid.: 151) points out that:

First, the dichotomy leads us to overlook values that inherently serve both individualand collective interests (e.g., maturity values). Second, the dichotomy ignores valuesthat foster the goals of collectives other than the ingroup (e.g., universal prosocialvalues). Third, the dichotomy promotes the mistaken assumption that individualistand collectivist values each form coherent syndromes that are opposed to one another.It fails to recognize that the subtypes of individualist and of collectivist valuessometimes do not vary together and are sometimes not opposed.

However, Schwartz (op. cit.: 151–152) also admits the validity of theindividualism-collectivism dichotomy.

This is not to contend, however, that the individualism-collectivism dichotomy andits psychological counterpart of idiocentrism-allocentrism are without merit. … Thedichotomy therefore remains useful for broad-brush analyses, and it can certainlysuggest fruitful research hypotheses.

Wierzbicka (1994a: 19) criticises collectivist-individualist categories asbinary ones, when pointing out the advantage of her “cultural scripts2”:

… the use of unique and yet comparable cultural scripts allows us to develop atypology of communication patterns which does not necessitate trying to fit cultures

2 Wierzbicka (1994a) suggests the “cultural scripts,” i. e., “a framework within whichboth the differences in the ways of communicating and the underlying differences inthe way of thinking can be fruitfully and rigorously explored” (Ibid.: 2). She (Ibid:17) claims that:

Cultural scripts are not statement about people’s behaviour, they are statementsabout “ideas” – expectations, thoughts, assumptions, norms. … one extremelyrich source of evidence for cultural scripts lies in a culture’s “key words”, thatis, frequently used lexical items encapsulating core cultural concepts. For example,in Japanese culture certain key cultural concepts regulating human interactionare encapsulated in key words such as amae, enryo, wa or on, words which haveno equivalent in English but whose meaning can be portrayed accurately inEnglish … in terms of lexical universal such as ‘want’, ‘know’ or ‘think.’

113

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

Although Wierzbicka (1994a: 19) criticises collectivist-individualist catego-ries as binary, she admits that her cultural scripts are also binary in nature(‘I can say X’ and ‘I can’t say X’). She (Ibid.) defends herself by sayingthat:

Binary oppositions between scripts along the lines of ‘I can say X’ vs. ‘I can’t say X’are possible and can be used whenever appropriate but they are not forced by theanalytical framework itself.

I think these criticisms of the dichotomy of collectivist-individualist culturescan be counter argued by Trompenaars’ concept of individualism andcollectivism and Triandis’ suggestion, as noted in 4.3.1. That is, the dichot-omy of collectivist-individualist cultures is sometimes complementary andindividualist and collectivist tendencies can coexist. Schwartz’s (1990)criticism of collectivism and individualism can also be countered by thepossibility of individualist and collectivist tendencies co-existing in eachculture. Therefore, I do not think that there is a problem in using thedimension of individualism-collectivism as a basis for considering Britishand 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 beimportant, and relationships within the group are important; whereas inindividualist cultures, more importance is placed on individuals. Thisdifference in values between collectivism and individualism gives rise tothe following differences, as Yoshida (1994: 243) explains:

A society that values collectivism will obviously place a higher value on harmonyand good interpersonal relationships while an individualistic society is likely toencourage behavior that brings merit to specific people.

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

114

review of Japanese culture, Doi (1971) claims that amae, the desire todepend on others, is the key concept to understanding Japanese society.Yoshida (1994: 253) uses the word, interdependence, rather than de-pendence for amae. In her view, “collectivists see people as interdependentbeings that exist only in conjunction with others. An individual is not anentity of his or her own but is, rather, an integral component of a largerstructure called society” (Ibid.: 253–254). As an explanation of this per-spective, Yoshida refers to the character for people in Chinese as well asJapanese. It literally means “individual’s interactions with his fellow humanbeings” and the character for person is made up of two strokes, one sup-porting the other (Ibid.: 253). In my view, independence and inter-dependence are not mutually exclusive, any more than individualism andcollectivism are. That is, there may be some elements of independenceeven 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 collectivistcultures is that of interdependence, and that of individualist cultures isindependence.

Group identity is also differently perceived in individualist and collec-tivist cultures. Ting-Toomey (1989: 353) refers to Triandis et al. (1986)who note that while the boundary conditions between ingroups and out-groups are fairly diffused and loosely structured in individualistic cultures,the boundary conditions between ingroups and outgroups, and also betweenmemberships in various ingroups (e.g., kin, coworkers, neighbors), aremore sharply defined and tightly structured in collectivistic cultures. Com-menting on group identity, Hall (1976), using the term, high-/low- contextcultures, points out that “High-context cultures make greater distinctionsbetween insiders and outsiders than low-context cultures do” (Ibid.: 113).This is also illustrated by Trompenaars’s (1993: 82) observation that:

There is a growing evidence, for example, that westerners working for Japanesecompanies are never wholly “inside.” It is similarly hard to feel fully accepted withinthe richness of French culture with its thousands of diffuse connections.

Bond et al. (1985) investigated the responses to verbal insult by HongKong Chinese, being ranked high in collectivism (C), and those by Ameri-cans, who are ranked low in collectivism. They noted that “the greaterthe C, the greater the importance of in-group as opposed to out-groupmembership of the actor vis-à-vis the target” (Ibid.: 113). They (Ibid.:122) also report that the hypothesis, “markers of status and group mem-

115

bership would have greater significance in guiding the perceptions of per-sons from societies higher in power distance (PD) and collectivism (C),”was confirmed.

Further studies describe the importance of group identity. For instance,Wetzel (1985: 142–143) explains the importance of group identificationin Japan, while Moeran (1988) points out that group identity is reflectedin language choice in Japanese.

Since the group is important in collectivist cultures and an individualis 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 interactionsbetween two or more people. Good interpersonal reality is characterized by thegeneration of pleasant feelings, and bad interpersonal reality is reflected throughdisagreement or conflict. (Ibid.: 256)

External reality is valued in individualist cultures, and interpersonal realityis valued in collectivist cultures.

With regard to interpersonal reality, Yoshida (Ibid.: 257) refers to aJapanese book entitled Kikubari no susume (Suzuki, 1985) and explainskikubari, which

… figuratively means putting yourself in another person’s place and providing themwith whatever they need most. … The main characteristic of kikubari is that theperson is sensitive enough to offer help or kindness without being asked. … In short,kikubari is something that makes other people feel good, thus fostering goodinterpersonal reality. (Yoshida, 1994: 257)

Kikubari is one example of interpersonal reality. The characteristics ofkikubari can also be described as “sasshi” (lit. inference), which is prag-matic politeness in Japanese (Suzuki, 1989: 59). This means that in Japanesesociety, it is considered to be polite if somebody infers the other party’swants, desires, etc., because the hearer’s private territory is trespassed onif they are asked about their wants, desires, etc. In order to demonstratekikubari, it is necessary to infer the other party’s wants. I will discussfurther the importance of inference in Japanese society in 4.3.3.2.

As kikubari is highly valued in Japanese culture, someone who does alot of kikubari acquires a reputation as someone who is “yoku kigatsuku(very attentive), doing whatever the other party wishes before the other

116

party expresses his/her wishes explicitly” (Fukushima, 1995a: 39). Japanesepeople are expected to possess sufficient sensitivity to display kikubari inmany 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 onJapanese culture and society suggested by Wierzbicka (1994a: 6).

6. it is good if I can know what another person feels/thinks/wantsthis person doesn’t have to say anything to me

The interpersonal reality which can be created by kikubari is esteemed incollectivist cultures, because close and mutual supportive relationshipsamong group members are valued.

4.3.3.2. Communication Patterns

The different concept of group and individual in collectivist and individua-list cultures influences communication patterns. Scollon and Scollon (1995:134) note that one consequence of the cultural difference between individual-ism and collectivism has to do with the difference between speaking tomembers of one’s own group and speaking to others, and they explain therelationships between the concept of group and its influence on communica-tion in individualist and collectivist cultures as follows.

In an individualistic society, groups do not form with the same degree of permanenceas they do in collectivist society. As a result, the ways of speaking to others aremuch more similar from situation to situation, since in each case the relationshipsare being negotiated and developed right within the situation of the discourse.

On the other hand, in a collectivist society, many relationships are establishedfrom one’s birth into a particular family in a particular segment of society in aparticular place. These memberships in particular groups tend to take on a permanent,ingroup character along with special forms of discourse which carefully preservethe boundaries between those who are inside members of the group and all otherswho are not members of the group. (Scollon and Scollon, 1995: 134)

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

117

boundary conditions between ingroups and outgroups are fairly diffusedand loosely structured, whereas in collectivist cultures, they are moresharply defined and tightly structured. This difference on group boundarybetween individualist and collectivist cultures influences communicationpatterns, as Scollon and Scollon note in the above. That is, in individualistcultures, there are not many differences in the ways of speaking to others,whereas in collectivist cultures, people differentiate the ways of speakingaccording to the group membership of the other party.

I would like to consider the features of communication patterns incollectivist and individualist cultures further. Triandis (1994a), explainingthe 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 bestand looks at all the evidence to understand what is communicated. Thus, collectivistsare not as explicit, direct, or clear as the individualists. (Triandis, 1994a: 184)

The important attributes of the communicator are age, sex, family background, andstatus 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 tostatus than American counterparts, indicating that Japanese subjects dis-played more features of collectivism than did American subjects. Hashi-moto et al. (1992), examining requests in English and Japanese, foundthat the requesting strategies by native speakers of English (their nationalitywas not specified in their study) were influenced by closeness-noncloseness,while those by native speakers of Japanese were influenced by high-lowposition (measured by social status and age).

Triandis (1994a: 184) also explains the features of communicationpatterns in individualist cultures:

In low-context (individualistic) cultures people distrust what is not said clearly. Thecommunicator is the focus of the communication, and the important attributes arecredibility, intelligence, and expert knowledge of the subject matter. … Explicit logic,proofs, linear organization of the argument, emphasis on what is said, emphasis onspecificity, and precision in word usage are valued.

118

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 becausemost 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 ofcommunication is frequent in collectivist cultures. … A low-context communicationis one in which the mass of information is vested in the explicit code, which istypical for individualist cultures. Lots of things which in collectivist cultures areself-evident must be said explicitly in individualist cultures.

Hall (1976: 113) explains the characteristics of high-context communica-tion in terms of the implicit features of communication patterns as well asthe necessity of inference by the hearer in arriving at an understanding ofwhat the speaker intends.

People raised in high-context systems expect more of others than do the participantsin low-context systems. When talking about something that they have on their minds,a high-context individual will expect his interlocutor to know what’s bothering him,so that he doesn’t have to be specific. The result is that he will talk around andaround the point, in effect putting all the pieces in place except the crucial one.Placing it properly–this keystone–is the role of his interlocutor.

In order for people to know “what’s bothering him” in Hall’s terms,people have to infer what the problem is. While not using the same termsas Hall, Triandis (1994a: 184) believes that inference is important incollectivist cultures, since “the collectivist must keep relationships within-group members at their best and looks at all the evidence to understandwhat is communicated.” It appears, then, that inference is related to theconcept of group. As Hall (1976: 113) notes, people in collectivist culturesexpect more of others than do people in individualist cultures. This maymean that people in collectivist cultures expect others to infer their wants,problems, etc., which may help account for the fact that in collectivistcultures, people do not say as much or as explicitly as those in individ-ualist cultures.

To summarise, it is claimed that:

1. people in collectivist cultures distinguish forms of discourse, i.e., theway of speaking to others, between those who are in-group membersand out-group members more than people in individualist cultures;

2. people in collectivist cultures pay more attention to context than peoplein individualist cultures;

3. people in collectivist cultures do not say as much or explicitly as people

119

in individualist cultures, i.e., people in collectivist cultures express them-selves implicitly and indirectly; and

4. people in collectivist cultures infer more than people in individualistcultures.

I will now review some empirical studies which will lend support to theseconclusions.

The study by Holtgraves and Yang (1992), examining request strategiesby Koreans (collectivist culture) and those by Americans (individualisticculture), supports the point that people in collectivist cultures pay moreattention to context than people in individualist cultures, and their studysuggests that paying attention to context is also connected to the distinctionmade by people in collectivist cultures between in-group and out-group.

The politeness of the Korean requests varied more (in the predicted direction) as afunction of power and distance than did the American requests. …These resultssuggest that rather than characterizing Koreans as more polite than Westerners …,it may be more accurate to describe Korean use of language as being more responsiveto the interpersonal features of situations. (Ibid.: 252–253)

In collectivist cultures, strong distinctions are drawn between in-groups and out-groups…, and this results in greater overall variability in social interaction. (Ibid.:253)

Holtgraves and Yang (Ibid.) review previous studies which showed morevariability in social interaction by subjects from collectivist cultures thanthose from individualist cultures. Wheeler, Reis and Bond (1989), forinstance, found greater reported variability in the control of interactionsfor Hong Kong Chinese than for Americans. Leung (1988) found thatChinese were more likely to pursue an argument with a friend than with astranger, whereas Americans showed less variability in this way. Gudykunst,Yoon and Nishida (1987) found that differences in perceptions of commu-nication with in-group and out-group members were more variable forKorean subjects than for American subjects. These results confirm thepoint that people in collectivist cultures distinguish forms of discourse,i.e., the way of speaking to others, between those who are in-group mem-bers and out-group members more than people in individualist cultures.

Concerning the point that people in collectivist cultures are more indirectthan those in individualist cultures, Clancy (1986: 213) notes that thecommunicative style of the Japanese is intuitive and indirect, especiallycompared with that of Americans. Agar (1994: 222) notes that:

120

In several different studies conducted in the IC field, a correlation holds between thevariables individualistic/collectivistic and low/high context. The first variablemeasures whether a culture features the individual actor or the collective socialgroup, the second, whether communication is explicit and direct – low context – orwhether 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, individualisticcultures tend towards low-context communication, collectivistic cultures, towardshigh-context communication.

Okabe (1983: 38–39) also explains that:

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

However, Holtgraves and Yang (1992: 253) have suggested that it maynot be accurate to characterise people in collectivist cultures as being moreindirect than those in individualist cultures, and they warn that we maynot be able to generalise in such a clear-cut way.

Concerning the point that people in collectivist cultures infer morethan people in individualist cultures, inference is common and is highlyvalued in a collectivist culture, as implied by Hall’s (1976: 113) explana-tion:

When talking about something that they have on their minds, a high-contextindividual will expect his interlocutor to know what’s bothering him…

As an example of a collectivist culture, in Japanese, people infer the others’feelings (ishindenshin, lit. immediate communication from one mind toanother) and they unconsciously expect reciprocal human relationships(Minami, 1994: 244). Kitade (1993) characterises Japanese communicationas one of enryo (reservation) and sasshi (inference). Because in a collectivistculture, inference is highly valued,

… giving options may not be preferred and may be seen as a bother, requiringdecision-making on the part of the addressee. In Japan, it is a mark of proper behaviorfor a hostess to anticipate what her guests would like as a refreshment, not botheringthem with choices. (LoCastro, 1990: 255)

121

Clancy (1986: 217) notes that:

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

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

4.3.4. A Brief Summary of Collectivist Culturesand Individualist Cultures

It is difficult to make a clear distinction between the features of collectivistcultures and individualist cultures, because some elements may be sharedby both, as Schwartz (1990) suggests, because individualist and collectivisttendencies coexist (Triandis, 1994b), and also because “all countries arelikely to include sub-cultural groups that deviate markedly from the generalorientation, at least in some activities” (White, 1994: 60). Also “therewill always be people whose behavior varies from the generalizations,” asBrislin (1994: 78) points out. While keeping these reservations in mind, Iwill attempt to summarise the salient features of collectivist cultures andindividualist cultures which are relevant to this study (See Table 6).

In collectivist cultures, people care for the group and at the same timethey are cared for by the group members. This can be described asinterdependence. The distinction between in- and out-group is more clearcut in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures. Thus, good relation-ships are important, and interpersonal reality is valued. People pay attentionto the context. This may be because people try to maintain good inter-personal reality, by paying attention to such contextual factors as, status,age, etc., and try to act accordingly. As they have more shared knowledgethan those in individualist cultures, meaning can be communicated im-plicitly. Subtlety is valued and much meaning is conveyed by inference.

122

In individualist cultures, the interests of individuals are important.People are expected to take care of themselves. Independence and privacyare valued. People do not have as much shared knowledge as people incollectivist cultures do; therefore, explicit communication is necessary.

Cultural Context Commu- Orienta- Reality In-groupDimension Dependence nication tion Out-group

Style Distinctionindividualist low direct independ- external low

encecollectivist high indirect/ use inter- interpersonal high

of inference dependence

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

4.3.5. Japanese Culture and British Culture: Collectivistor Individualist?

It has been claimed that Japanese culture is collectivist and British cultureis individualist. To what extent does Japanese culture have features ofcollectivism and to what extent does British culture have features of indi-vidualism? In order to answer these questions, reference is made to Hof-stede’s (1991: 53) list of individualism index values (IDV) for fifty countriesand three regions. According to Hofstede’s list, Britain is the third in therank with an IDV score of 89; while Japan is the 22/23 with an IDV scoreof 46. It seems clear, then, that Britain can be classified as an individualistsociety. Japan, by contrast, has been considered to be a collectivist society,but Japan is not an extreme case, according to the individualism indexvalues. Even so, as Brislin (1994: 78) points out, “Although not amongthe most collective countries, Japan is far more collective than the UnitedStates.” And Britain, it might be added.

Hofstede (1991: 77) points out that there is a strong relationship be-tween national wealth and individualism, and cites Japan as an exampleof a collectivist country which has achieved fast economic development.He points out that:

Countries having achieved fast economic development have experienced a shifttowards individualism. Japan is an example: the Japanese press regularly publishesstories of breaches of traditional family solidarity. Care for the aged in the past

123

was considered a task for the Japanese family, but provisions by the state havebecome 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 Westerncountries, Japanese society will very likely conserve distinctive collectivist elementsin its family-, school-, and workspheres.

Japanese culture has acquired some features of individualist cultures, al-though the classification of Japan, is, in any case, highly variable, as Putnis(1993: 42–43) points out, noting that Japan was described both as “collec-tivistic” and “moderately individualistic” in different descriptions of thesame 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 andsynchronization) in their ingroup relationships than do members of individualisticcultures (United States). (Ting-Toomey, 1989: 353)

Gudykunst, Yoon, and Nishida (1987) examined perceptions of communication withstrangers (an outgroup) and classmates (an ingroup) among students in a highlyindividualistic 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 Japanas a moderately individualistic culture, while they (Ibid.: 297) considerJapan as moderately collectivistic. Putnis (1993: 42–43) seems to regardthe inconsistency of labeling Japanese culture by Gudykunst et al. asproblematic, but I think the reference made by Gudykunst et al. to Japaneseculture indicates that Japan is not very collectivist, having acquired somefeatures of individualist cultures, although it is not as individualist as theU.S. According to Gudykunst et al., Japan is situated somewhere in-betweenthe U.S. and Korea.

No culture is static, and Japanese culture is no exception. It is certainthat Japanese cultural values and behaviours are changing. Therefore, it issometimes dangerous to accept as credible some of the features of Japaneseculture depicted as in the kind of cliché‚ found in Nihonjinron (lit. the dis-cussion of the Japanese), which emphasises the uniqueness of the Japanese.

Central to Nihonjinron has been the ideology of uniqueness designed to reinforceuseful notions of particularity and specialness of a group of people exemplified inTsunoda’s (1985) description of the peculiar qualities of ‘the Japanese brain’, TakeoDoi’s amae (the Japanese are uniquely disposed to interpersonal dependency), ChieNakane’s rigid categorisation of social relations in terms of hierarchical structureall contributed to point out uniqueness. (Maher and Yashiro, 1995: 9–10)

124

As Miyoshi (1991: 67), in Maher and Yashiro (1995: 11), writes, manycultural commentators on Japan tend to see Japan still in the terms thathave been in stable use since around 1950: as an exemplar of modernisationtheory in the context of the Cold War, a country that has pulled itself outof its premodern stage of development through learning from the West.Japan has experienced a rapid change in values and attitudes especiallyafter World War II.

Iwao (1990) depicts the change in the norms and attitudes that shapeJapanese life-styles and Japanese society, listing the following factorsunderlying the value changes: (1) the speed of Japan’s economic develop-ment; (2) the accompanying level of affluence for relatively large segmentsof the general public; and (3) the rapid shift to an aging society. Indeed, anumber of tendencies once cited as distinguishing characteristics of theJapanese people actually appear to have reversed themselves (Ibid.: 41).

There are some further studies which show the changes in Japanesetraditional attitudes. Yamazaki (1997a) reports that one of the Japanesestereotypes, i.e., that the Japanese apologise very often, was not supportedby her Japanese senior high school students.3

Smith (1996: 98) cites Yang (1988), who also notes a change of Japanesestudents:

Yang (1988) has provided a wealth of evidence that modernization leads to increasingindividualism, in a wide variety of nations. More recently there has been widespreadconcern, for instance in Japan, that the younger generation no longer feel bound bytraditional values. Some studies have found Japanese students to endorse values justas individualistic as those espoused by American students.

Yamaguchi (1994: 184) also notes a change in the attitude of the Japanesepeople. He cites Triandis (1989) who:

… suggests that people become more individualistic in affluent societies. He reasonsthat in a complex and affluent society people attain financial independence, whichin turn leads them to be socially and emotionally independent. He suggests that

3 Only 27% of her Japanese subjects apologised to the teacher whereas 96 % of herAmerican counterparts apologised to the teacher in the following situation: You hadan interview at 2:30 with your home room teacher. You went at 2:30 sharp, but yourteacher 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 subjectsdid not apologise to her/him.

125

people in affluent societies tend to give priority to personal goals over in-groupgoals. 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 resourceswith others. In such economic situations, people can hardly be independent of others.

Yamaguchi (Ibid.) explains that after experiencing poverty after WorldWar II, Japan has recently achieved substantial economic success, thus,Japanese can now afford to be more individualistic than before. He founda positive correlation between age and collectivism, i.e., older Japaneseare more collectivist than younger Japanese.

Such changes in the characteristics of Japanese culture, as depicted byYamazaki (1997a), Yang (1988) and Yamaguchi (1994), cannot be denied.As Hofstede (1991: 77) points out, Japan has experienced a shift towardsindividualism because of economic development, but still has collectivistelements. According to Smith (1996: 98), Japan, which belongs in Asia,may still have collectivist elements compared to Western European andAnglo countries:

Nonetheless, if we examine the multi-nation studies outlined above, we find thatthey all still agree with Hofstede’s finding that Western European and Anglo countriesare more individualistic than those in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

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

4.4. Conclusion

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

126

dichotomy of individualism-collectivism, I have come to a conclusion thatI can use the dimension of individualism-collectivism as a major frameworkof this study, after taking those criticisms into account. I have also reviewedsome features of individualist and collectivist cultures and consideredwhether British and Japanese cultures were individualist or collectivist.

It is difficult to generalise about one culture since it consists of manysub-groups. People form sub-groups according to many factors, such asage, sex, occupation, level of education, wealth, regions of their living,ethnic identity, interests, beliefs, etc. Features of each sub-group may bediverse and some of the features may deviate from the general features ofthe 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 acultural group in cross-cultural pragmatics. If we take all those aspectswhich may influence a culture, it is probably impossible to generaliseabout one culture in a strict sense. However, there are certain aspectswhich may be common in one culture. In this chapter, I have come to aconclusion that British culture is predominantly individualist and Japaneseculture is predominantly collectivist, although the latter has some individ-ualist elements because of economic development. I will take these pointsinto account when I formulate hypotheses on the requesting strategies andresponding 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 thecultural dimensions of this study. It is not the final goal to label Japaneseculture as collectivist and British culture as individualist. In this sense, Iagree 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 differentcultures are required … in order to enable researchers to use the terms in moredifferentiated and hence meaningful manner.

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

127

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. and5.3., I will state research questions, and hypotheses respectively, based onthe review of literature in chapters 2, 3 and 4. In 5.4., I will evaluate themethods conventionally used to elicit pragmatic data before describingand justifying the methods and procedures used in the present study. In5.5., I will report the development of data gathering instruments and theprocedures employed. In 5.6., I will provide an explanation of the analyticalprocedures 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 complexparameters; such factors are certainly culture-specific.

This means that the components of each variable such as power differenceand social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of therequested act are culture-specific. Therefore, British subjects and Japanesesubjects may have different components of each variable in mind. Thismay result in British and Japanese subjects perceiving each situation dif-ferently, as Blum-Kulka and House (1989: 137) note:

… members of different cultures might differ in their perceptions of social situationsas well as in the relative importance attributed to any of the social parametersmentioned.

128

British and Japanese subjects may have different values assigned to powerdifference and social distance between S and H, and the degree of impositionof the requested act.

From the above, the first research question arises.

1. Do British subjects and Japanese subjects perceive comparable situationsdifferently in terms of the three variables, i.e., power difference andsocial distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of therequested act?

As noted in chapter 2 (2.3.3.3.), Brown and Levinson (1987: 250–251)have categorised British and Japanese cultures as negative politeness cul-tures whose politeness strategies are distributed in Dyad II. That is, negativepoliteness and off-record strategies are used in the cultures classified asDyad II. Following Brown and Levinson’s classification, it can be hypoth-esised that there will be no significant differences between the choices ofrequesting strategies by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects.Both British subjects and Japanese subjects will employ negative politenessand off-record strategies. However, Brown and Levinson have noted thatthere is a difference in the degree to what extent Japan and Britain belongto 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 col-lectivist culture, although it has acquired individualist elements becauseof the rapid economic growth. British culture is considered to be an indi-vidualist culture. I consider that the difference in the degree between Britishand 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 cul-tures 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 incollectivist cultures are more sensitive to the context than those in individ-ualist cultures, and people in collectivist cultures make stronger distinc-tions between in-groups and out-groups than those in individualist cultures.Inference plays a greater part in a collectivist culture than in an individualistculture, and by making inferences people interpret off-record requests.Therefore, more off-record requests will be interpreted as requests in Japa-nese culture than in British culture.

129

As noted in chapter 3 (3.8.3.), solicitousness is realised when theperformer of solicitousness interprets the desires of the S of off-recordrequests, by paying attention to context or circumstance or by makinginferences, and the performer of solicitousness wants to do something forthe beneficiary. In this sense, interpersonal reality, such as kikubari, is animportant element in solicitousness. Since the performer does (offers)something by demonstrating solicitousness, solicitousness may reduce thechoices of the S of off-record requests. As noted in chapter 4, interpersonalreality, such as kikubari is highly valued in a collectivist culture, whereasgiving a person choices is valued in an individualist one. Consequently,solicitousness may be more appreciated and practiced in a collectivistculture than in an individualist one.

From the above, the following research questions arise.

2. Do the requesting strategies by British subjects and those by Japanesesubjects differ?

3. Do the responding strategies to off-record requests by British subjectsand those by Japanese subjects differ?

The requesting strategies and the responding strategies to off-record requestsemployed by British and Japanese subjects may differ if the assessment ofthe three variables differs between British and Japanese subjects. This isbecause there may be a positive correlation between the situational assess-ment of the three variables and the politeness strategies, as suggested byBrown and Levinson.

As noted in chapter 3 (3.7.1.), Brown and Levinson (1987: 76) arguethat 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, otherthings being equal, an FTA will be communicated. This means that theweight of the three variables would determine the politeness strategy. Thatis, for instance, when the degree of the imposition of the requested act ishigh, 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 therequesting strategies?

5. Does the situational assessment of the three variables influence the re-sponding strategies to off-record requests?

130

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 inthe assessment of power difference between S and H.

Ho2: There are no differences between British and Japanese subjects inthe assessment of social distance between S and H.

Ho3: There are no differences between British and Japanese subjects inthe 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 sub-jects in the assessment of power difference between S and H.

H2: There are significant differences between British and Japanese sub-jects in the assessment of social distance between S and H.

H3: There are significant differences between British and Japanese sub-jects 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 Britishand Japanese Subjects

The null hypothesis concerning the choices of requesting strategies byBritish subjects and those by Japanese subjects is as follows.

Ho4: There are no differences between the choices of requesting strategiesby British subjects and those by Japanese subjects.

131

The alternative hypothesis concerning the choices of requesting strategiesby British subjects and those by Japanese subjects is as follows.

H4: There are significant differences between the choices of requestingstrategies by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects.

5.3.2.2. Hypotheses concerning the Correlation between theSituational Assessment and the Choice of Requesting Strategies

The null hypotheses concerning the correlation between the choices of re-questing strategies and the situational assessment are as follows.

Ho5: There are no correlations between the assessment of power differencebetween S and H and the choices of requesting strategies.

Ho6: There are no correlations between the assessment of social distancebetween S and H and the choices of requesting strategies.

Ho7: There are no correlations between the assessment of the degree ofimposition of the requested act and the choices of requesting strategies.

The alternative hypotheses concerning the correlation between the choicesof requesting strategies and the situational assessment are as follows.

H5: There are some correlations between the assessment of power differ-ence between S and H and the choices of requesting strategies.

H6: There are some correlations between the assessment of social dis-tance between S and H and the choices of requesting strategies.

H7: There are some correlations between the assessment of the degree ofimposition of the requested act and the choices of requesting strategies.

132

5.3.3. Hypotheses of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

5.3.3.1. Hypotheses of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requestsby British and Japanese Subjects

The null hypothesis concerning the responding strategies to off-recordrequests by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects is as follows.

Ho8: There are no differences between the choices of responding strategiesto off-record requests by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects.

The alternative hypothesis concerning the choices of responding strategiesto off-record requests by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects isas follows.

H8: There are significant differences between the choices of respondingstrategies to off-record requests by British subjects and those by Japanesesubjects.

5.3.3.2. Hypotheses concerning the Correlation between theSituational Assessment and the Choice of Responding Strategiesto Off-record Requests

The null hypotheses concerning the correlation between the choices ofrequesting strategies and the situational assessment are as follows.

Ho9: There are no correlations between the assessment of power differ-ence between S and H and the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests.

Ho10: There are no correlations between the assessment of social distancebetween S and H and the choices of responding strategies to off-recordrequests.

Ho11: There are no correlations between the assessment of the degree ofimposition of the requested act and the choices of responding strategies tooff-record requests.

133

The alternative hypotheses concerning the correlation between the choicesof responding strategies to off-record requests and the situational assessmentare as follows.

H9: There are some correlations between the assessment of power differ-ence between S and H and the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests.

H10: There are some correlations between the assessment of social dis-tance between S and H and the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests.

H11: There are some correlations between the assessment of the degreeof imposition of the requested act and the choices of responding strategiesto off-record requests.

To test the above hypotheses, I need to have an appropriate method. Inorder to establish an appropriate method for data collection, I will reviewthe 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 asignificant contribution to politeness theory, they have not provided anequally sound methodology, whereas the Cross-Cultural Speech ActRealization Project (CCSARP) (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984: Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper, 1989) is “to date the largest research project tosystematically inquire into the cultural specificity of speech act behavior”(Hinnenkamp, 1995: 10) lacks a sound theoretical basis. Indeed, it seemsthat while there is little in the way of developed method in Brown andLevinson’s work, there is little in the way of sensible theory in the CCSARPwork. Therefore, drawing on both schools of thought should contributeto 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, BritishEnglish, Canadian French, Danish, German, Hebrew and Russian) (Blum-

134

Kulka & Olshtain, 1984: 197). Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984: 198)state that “In order to ensure cross-cultural comparability, it was decidedto obtain the data by the use of a controlled elicitation procedure” and themethod used for data collection was the discourse-completion test (DCT),because they wanted to obtain a large quantity of data from a wide rangeof countries, something which it would have been virtually impossible todo under field conditions (See Blum-Kulka et al, 1989: 13).

Citing Hill et al. (1986: 353), Blum-Kulka et al. (1989: 13) claim thatthe use of written elicited data has an advantage:

The virtue of authenticity in naturally-occurring speech must be weighed against itsreflection of speakers’ sociolinguistic adaptations to very specific situations.

And Blum-Kulka et al. (1989: 13) note that “Using written elicitationtechniques enables us to obtain more stereotyped responses.”

Examples of the CCSARP DCT procedure are as follows (Blum-Kulkaet al., 1989: 14):

(a) At the UniversityAnn missed a lecture yesterday and would like to borrow Judith’s notes.Ann: _________________________________________________Judith: Sure, but let me have them back before the lecture next week.

(b) At the College teacherís officeA 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, whichWeizman (1989: 82), who collected the Canadian French data in theCCSARP, admits, pointing out that:

It should, however, be borne in mind that, due to the nature of the discourse-completion task used to elicit responses, the CCSARP data do not provide a fullyauthentic picture of what the informants have actually uttered in real-life situations,but rather provide us with evidence of what the informants believe people wouldtypically utter in a given situation.

Eliciting “spoken” data by the use of a written elicitation technique seemsto me to be a major limitation of the CCSARP methodology.

135

In addition, I believe that there are problems with some of the situationsused in the CCSARP. Blum-Kulka et al. (1989: 14) note that “the situationsdepicted by the dialogues reflect every day occurrences of the type expectedto be familiar to speakers across Western cultures, specifically to the studentpopulation tested.” Yet a doubt remains over whether all the cultures theyinvestigated were “Western” and whether the situations can be found inevery culture concerned. Some situations lacked naturalness, because thesubjects had to play the role of “a policeman” or “a university professor,”which is a problem also noted by Bonikowska (1988: 170). Another prob-lem concerns the comparability of the situations across the cultures in-volved, because the researchers have not demonstrated that the situationsused can occur in the cultures covered in their project and they have notexplained why and how they could ensure cross-cultural comparability bythe use of a DCT.

In the CCSARP, a response to the (missing) request or apology wasgiven, i. e., complying with the request and accepting the apology. AsJohnston et al. (1998) found, strategy choice is differentially affected byrejoinder 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 isgoing to respond to our requests or apologies. Consequently, providingresponses to the missing turn lacks naturalness and strongly pre-determinesthe response strategy for the missing item, thus influencing the data ob-tained.

As I noted earlier, the CCSARP was the biggest project in this field andit has developed a methodology for collecting data, which Brown andLevinson did not offer. However, because of the limitations in the CCSARPmethodology, I am not going to use their procedures, but instead I preferto develop an appropriate methodology of my own, beginning with areview of a number of other methodologies which have been employed.

In the study of pragmatics and interlanguage pragmatics, a number ofresearch methods and instruments have been employed, including observa-tion of naturally occurring data, role plays and written questionnaires,the last in the form of discourse completion tests (DCTs) and multiplechoice questionnaires (MCQs), as summarised in figure 17.

136

Naturally occurring

DataRole 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 figure17, the data becomes more artificial or less naturalistic. One thing to notehere is that there may be some kind of belief that “authentic” data is validand “artificial” data is not. However, naturally occurring data are not al-ways valid, as one person may happen to use a certain expression in a par-ticular occasion from which it is difficult to generalise. Another thing tonote is that if spoken data are elicited, the data may become more “arti-ficial” or “less-naturalistic” as one descends the diagram in figure 17. Ifnon-spoken data are elicited, this constraint will not apply. Whatever themethodology 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 compromisebetween what is valid and reliable on the one hand and practical on theother. Balancing between validity and feasibility is a factor applicable toall research. After reviewing the pros and cons of each method in figure17, I will try to find an appropriate method for the present study whichwill overcome the methodological limitations of the CCSARP, consideringthe validity as well as the feasibility in 5.5.

5.4.1. Naturally Occurring Data

Cohen (1996: 391) reviews the advantages of using naturally occurringdata:

… a broader range of respondents can be studied than is usually the case withstudies using predetermined respondents. Furthermore, in principle, one can obtaina sense of the frequency with which particular types of speech acts occur.

137

Cohen (Ibid.: 391–392) further notes the advantages of naturally occurringdata, 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. The speech act being studied may not occur naturally very often.2. Proficiency and gender may be difficult to control.3. Collecting and analyzing the data are time-consuming.4. The data may not yield enough or any examples of target items.5. The use of recording equipment may be intrusive.6. 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 usingnaturally occurring data. They found that the naturally occurring notebookdata were biased toward the linguistic preferences of friends, relatives, andassociates – since these were the people with whom they tended to interactand observe. They also found a bias in favor of short exchanges because theinvestigators were not able to record long exchanges in their notebook.Finally, the researchers tended to record utterances with atypical or nonna-tive-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. Inquestionnaires, 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 theexperimenter(s), who then ask the subject to say what the person they arerole playing would say in the situation. Optimally, the subject is asked to

138

role play himself or herself under circumstances described in the experi-ment” (Rintell and Mitchell, 1989: 250). Some researchers have pointedout the advantages and the disadvantages of this method.

The advantages of this method are that the subjects have the opportunity to saywhat and as much as they would like to say, and their spoken language is thoughtto be a good indication of their “natural” way of speaking. A possible disadvantageis that since the subjects are role playing and not naturalistically engaged in theinteraction under investigation, we do not know to what extent the subjects’responses are representative of what the subjects would say if he or she encounteredthe situation in real life. Another is that the subject might … feel as if he or shewere 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 actbehavior in its full discourse context. … A disadvantage that open role plays sharewith authentic conversation data is that they need transcribing. (Kasper & Dahl,1991: 228–229)

Sasaki (1998), having compared role plays with production questionnaires,which have been traditionally called “discourse completion tests,” foundthat:

The role play responses tended to be longer, and they contained more and a greatervariety of strategies although the types of central speech act expressions (e.g., theHead Acts and supportive moves for request) used in the responses were similaracross the two methods. (Ibid.: 479)

She (Ibid.) further states which methodology is more appropriate for certainoccasions.

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 surveyof the types of main speech acts strategies used. In contrast, role plays are moreappropriate for investigating the sequences involved in more comprehensive speechact 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,

139

Takahashi & Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Bergman and Kasper, 1993; Blum-Kulka,1982; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986; Faerch & Kasper, 1989;Olshtain & Weinbach, 1987; Takahashi & Beebe, 1987) have used thistechnique, which also has both advantages and disadvantages.

I think the biggest advantage of this method is that it is possible tocollect large amounts of data, by administering questionnaires to a largenumber of subjects. This advantage has been pointed out by many re-searchers (e.g., Beebe & Cummings, 1996; Johnston et al., 1998: 157;Rintell & Mitchell, 1989: 250; Rose, 1992: 51–52; Sasaki, 1998: 458;Wolfson et al., 1989: 183). Another advantage is that this method seemsto effectively control the contextual variables important to the study, aspointed out by Rintell and Mitchell (1989: 250). Sasaki (1998: 458) madethe point that:

Because the researcher can control variables related to a given context (e.g., therelative status and closeness of the respondent and the interlocutor) in productionquestionnaires, it is possible to investigate the effect of such variables.

With this method, it is also fairly easy to compare the data obtained indifferent cultures, because the situations can be controlled (Blum-Kulkaet al., 1989), and because of the controlled situations, DCTs allow thetesting of hypotheses derived from naturally occurring instances whichprovided insufficient data (Cohen, 1996: 393). It is also possible to collectcomparable data from members of different speech communities (Johnstonet al., 1998: 157). As Johnston et al. (1998: 157) note, there is no need totranscribe the data. In addition to the above advantages, I think that uni-formity of description is ensured when using written prompts, whereasthe use of visual material is open to misinterpretation because of culturaldifferences in the meanings of nonverbal cues, as can occur with videotapedmaterial.

There are, however, disadvantages in using DCTs. I think the biggestdisadvantage of DCTs is that while tokens of spoken responses are beingelicited, the actual medium being used is written, as Hinkel (1997) andSasaki (1998) also pointed out:

… it may be that DCTs have their own shortcomings because they require subjectsto produce written responses in lieu of speech acts. (Hinkel, 1997: 20)

… the respondent’s spoken performance is intended to be elicited indirectly throughthe written mode. (Sasaki, 1998: 458)

140

This disadvantage can lead to further disadvantages:

… the discourse completion task did not elicit natural speech with respect to actualwording, range of formulas and strategies, length of responses, or number ofconversational turns necessary to fulfill a function. (Cohen, 1996: 394)

… it is hard to tell how representative what subjects write on such a discoursecompletion test is of what they actually say in spontaneous conversation. Otherpotential problems are that the length of response is constrained by the space thesubjects have in which to write, and even that respondents may choose specificlinguistic 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, andthus 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 spokenone? … can we hope that short, decontextualized written segments are comparableto 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 notbe an adequate instrument for collecting data on hearer-based languages1, such asJapanese.

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 thesubject. MCQs have been used in perception tests (e.g. Olshtain and Blum-Kulka, 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 elicitproduction 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 subjectsused more hints than Americans; on the contrary, the Japanese were moredirect. However, with a MCQ which included hinting and opting out aspossible responses, the subjects shifted towards both opting out and hinting.In a later study, Rose and Ono (1995) replicated and confirmed Rose’s

1 Rose cites Lebra (1976) to explain “hearer-based languages.”In conversation the speaker does not complete a sentence but leaves it open-ended in such a way that the listener will take it over before the former clearlyexpresses his will or opinion. (Lebra, 1976: 38)

141

earlier findings (op. cit.). The results of the above studies show that MCQscan widen the selection of the subjects’ answers, providing choices whichthey may not have thought of, but they would feel the most appropriate.With the offered choices, MCQs can also control the data more thanDCTs, because the data are confined to the offered choices. These are theadvantages of MCQs. In addition, MCQs share some of the advantages ofDCTs, such as the uniformity of description which is ensured by usingwritten prompts, so that it is possible to gather large amounts of datacross-culturally and it is fairly easy to compare the data obtained in differentcultures, because the situations can be controlled. However, if spokendata are elicited, MCQs also share the disadvantage of DCTs, in using thewritten 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 andsolicitousness by two means: (1) setting a tape-recorder in a shared kitchenin students’ hall in England where I lived; and (2) taking field notes. Someof the request situations which were collected through this project wereuseful in Project 93, the pilot study and SA 96, which I will describe later.However, by trying to obtain naturally occurring data, I encountered somedifficulties, some of them being similar to those reviewed in 5.4.1. One ofthem 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 wholeexchange, because I was not carrying a tape-recorder all the time andwhen I realised some one had uttered something I wanted to collect, Icould not recall every single word. As a result, the data I obtained werenot sufficient for analysis.

142

Through this project, I have also come to a doubt whether productionby one individual can be generalised as one widely used in the cultureconcerned, or whether the utterance is idiosyncratic, one person havinghappened to use certain expressions, whereas other people would expressthemselves differently. In other words, it is sometimes difficult to judgewhether 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), “Ifthe respondent is given an opportunity to interact freely with the inter-locutor, the task is called open role play. If the respondent is given veryfew or no opportunities to interact with the interlocutor, the task is calledclosed role play.” I adopted a closed role play in Project 93.

In 1993, I asked twenty British undergraduates living in Reading, Berk-shire, to record what they would say under fifteen request situations, whichwere collected through Project 92. Each situation was described in a writtenform, and the subjects were shown the written prompt one by one andwere asked to record what they would say.

With this method of eliciting data, I encountered the difficulty of ob-taining subjects. I visited some students’ halls and asked some undergrad-uates if they could cooperate with my research. It was time-consuming todo so, and not all the people I asked complied with my request, and thusit was difficult to obtain a large number of subjects. Another difficulty Ihad was the transcription of the data. It was time-consuming and some-times 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 inProject 92 and role plays in Project 93, I opted for written questionnaires.Since I was well aware of the limitations of written questionnaires, I hadto consider how I could overcome them. Using written situations, such asletters or e-mails, with the written medium was a possible means toovercome the mismatch of the spoken data and written medium. However,the situations I obtained were based on Project 92, which were spokensituations, 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

143

written mode for the elicitation of spoken data, I decided not to elicitspoken data, i.e., linguistic exponents. Instead, I decided to elicit strategydata, which operate at a deeper level than linguistic exponents. This isbecause 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 linguisticexponents (See 5.5.1.2.).

After having decided to elicit strategy data, I had to consider how Icould do this. Many lay people may not be familiar with the word“strategy.” The subjects might be puzzled if they were asked to writerequesting strategies in certain situations. So, in the pilot study, a writtenquestionnaire with the choices of strategies was given to the subjects, i.e.,MCQs with strategy choices. In the pilot study, each strategy wasexemplified 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 amountsof data cross-culturally and it is fairly easy to compare the data obtainedin different cultures, because the situations can be controlled. Since I wasattempting to conduct a cross-cultural study, trying to gather fairly largeamount of data so that it is possible to arrive at some generalisations,MCQs suited my purpose. The constraint of MCQs, i.e., using the writtenmode to elicit spoken data, does not apply here, because the spoken dataare not elicited.

Since I intended to use a questionnaire as a research instrument in thisstudy, it was necessary to check the efficacy of the research instrumentand of the procedures. Therefore, I conducted a pilot study in 1995 at theUniversity of Reading, England with nineteen British subjects, and at TsuruUniversity, Yamanashi, Japan with twenty-one Japanese subjects. Ninerequest situations based on my field notes were used (See Appendix 2.1.).The instruments were in the mother tongue of the subjects, i.e., Englishfor British subjects, and Japanese for Japanese subjects, and they consistedof three parts, i.e., Part A, Part B and Part C.

First, the subjects were asked to assess the following on a five-pointscale (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 amongthe five choices provided. Choices (1) to (4) represented Brown and

144

Levinson’s 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 (Don’t 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 tooff-record requests among the following five choices:

(1) Preempting S’s 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 identifiedin the research instruments.

1. Choices given as expressions

Since the choices in the questionnaire were given in linguistic form, quitea number of the subjects seemed to focus their attention on the form andnot on the strategies, although I wanted the subjects to choose the strategy.This was revealed by the tendency of many subjects to rephrase theexpressions given in the questionnaire, having selected choice (5), althoughthe strategies they used were actually provided in the questionnaire. Forinstance, one of the subjects selected choice (5) and wrote:

I’ve run out of bread and milk. If it is not too much trouble, could you get me somenext time you go out? I’m afraid I don’t feel well enough to go out.

145

This is a conventionally indirect request, even though it is more elaboratethan the one given as choice (2) in situation 5 (I have run out of my breadand milk. I’m not still feeling well. Could you get me some bread andmilk?) in the questionnaire. Giving the choices as actual exponents provedto be distracting, because there was a confusion when analysing responsesstatistically.

2. Intention of S

In the descriptions of the situations in the questionnaire, it was not statedthat the person in the situation would like to make a request. If the intentionof the person in the situation was not clear, it might be difficult for thesubjects to make an assessment, especially on the degree of imposition inPart A.

Off-record requests leave options for interpretation, i.e., they can beinterpreted as requests or statements. Part C is confined to investigatinghow H responds to off-record requests when s/he knows that they arerequests, not just statements. Therefore, it is better to indicate that S’sintention 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, inPart C belong to the same category, refusing off-record requests. It is lessconfusing to have one choice for each category, especially when conductinga statistical analysis.

4. Another possible choice in Part C

Another choice, making a suggestion or giving advice, is a possibleresponding strategy to off-record requests. By making this choice, H doesnot do anything special her/himself, but at least s/he is more kind byshowing some willingness to be of help to S rather than just refusing off-record requests. This option was not included in the choices in thequestionnaire 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 thepilot study.

146

1. The choices in Part B and Part C were provided as strategies, andexpressions were given only as examples. As was noted in the previoussection, what most of the subjects in the pilot study did was paraphrasingthe wording of the listed realisation. In other words, they concentratedon form, rather than strategies, so, there was a need to make the subjectsconcentrate on the strategy. Therefore, the choices of strategies weregiven and example sentences were provided for each choice so that thesubjects 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 thesituations used in the study are comparable (Fukushima, 1994). Whilemany cross-cultural studies have been carried out (e.g. CCSARP), thecomparability of situations has not been considered, yet, without usingcomparable situations, it is difficult to compare responses by subjects fromdifferent cultures. In other words, the responses cannot be judged to besame or different between subjects from different cultures, unless thesituations are comparable between the cultures concerned. If the situationsare 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 thosesituations, or they may feel that those situations are not likely to occur intheir own culture. In such a case, the situations are not really comparableeven if the subjects in different cultures perceive such variables as powerdifference, social distance, and the degree of imposition of the requestedact similarly. The situations have to be natural in the cultures used in thestudy. Since I believe that comparability of situations in such studies is offundamental importance, I conducted a situational assessment (SA 96) inorder to identify situations which would be comparable in both Britishand Japanese settings (See Appendix 2.2.).

147

In SA 96, eighteen request situations were used. Nine situations werebased on my field notes in England (Project 92); and the other nine werebased on my field notes in Japan, as well as from a preliminary ques-tionnaire on requests in which Japanese university students wrote downthe requests they had recently made or received. Therefore, eighteen requestsituations used in SA 96 actually occurred in Britain and Japan, and thesesituations reflect student life. This is important, because all the subjects ofthis study are students. While they may not have exactly the same expe-riences as depicted in the situations, they do not have to put themselves ina totally different world. Bonikowska (1988: 170) points out the problemof requiring the respondent to adopt various roles, for example, of a fatheror principal, which are clearly distant from the subjects’ experience. Theuse 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 culturesin terms of naturalness/authenticity of request situations; and

2. to identify the situations which have variations in power differenceand social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition ofthe requested act.

In SA 96, nine British informants and twenty-eight Japanese informantswere asked to assess the naturalness/authenticity of a situation in the sub-jects’ culture on a five-point scale. T-tests were then conducted to identifythose situations in which there were differences in ratings between thetwo sets of subjects. The results of the t-tests showed that six situations(Situations 2, 3, 10, 13, 16, 17) had significant differences. These situationswere then rejected, leaving twelve judged to be comparable in terms ofnaturalness or authenticity between British and Japanese cultures.

From those twelve situations, eight were selected. In SA 96, the infor-mants were also asked to assess status difference, age difference, closenessbetween S and H, and the degree of imposition of the requested act. Themean scores of those four variables were calculated. It was intended tohave balanced situations in terms of status difference, age difference, close-ness 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/lowdegree of imposition. Based on the mean scores, twelve situations weredivided into two categories in each variable: big/small status difference,

148

big/small age difference, not close/close, and high/low degree of imposition.The classification of twelve situations which were assessed as natural byboth British and Japanese informants is presented in table 7.

Status Age Closeness Degree ofdifference difference Imposition

Big 11, 9, 8, 1, 1, 9, 11, 7,7, 18 8, 12

Not Close 9, 8, 11, 12,18, 14, 7

High 7, 1, 14, 18,11, 9, 4

Small 12, 5, 14, 6, 18, 14, 15, 5,15, 4 6, 4

Close 5, 15, 1, 6, 4

Low 5, 8, 15, 12, 6

Numbers indicate the situations.

Table 7. Classification of Twelve Situations in SA 96

From the above results, I categorised the situations, combining the fourvariables (status, age, distance and imposition), as shown in table 8.

Category Status Age Distance Imp. Situation

1 H–>L + + H 7, (9), (18)

2 H–>L + + L 8

3 Equals - + H 14

4 Equals - - H 4

5 Equals - - L (15), (5), 6

6 L–>H + + H 11

7 L–>H + - H 1

8 L–>H + + L 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

149

Several situations were assigned to category 1 and category 5. In category1, in which the degree of imposition was high, situation 7 was chosen,because its mean score of the degree of imposition was the highest amongthe three situations. In category 5, in which the degree of imposition waslow, situation 6 was chosen, because its mean score of the degree of imposi-tion was the lowest among the three situations. With the exception ofthose in parentheses, the situations shown in table 8 were used in thisstudy (See Appendix 2.3.), while their order was randomised, as shown intable 9.

Situations in SA 96 Situations in this study

1 7

4 8

6 5

7 1

8 4

11 3

12 6

14 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 Aim

1 (See 5.5.1.1.1.) Project 92 was conducted. To investigate the possibility ofthe use of naturally occurring data

2 (See 5.5.1.1.2.) Project 93 was conducted. To investigate the possibility ofthe use of role plays

3 (See 5.5.1.1.3. The pilot study was conducted. To check the efficacy of the& Appendix 2.1.) instruments and of the procedures

4 (See 5.5.1.1.4.) Some changes were made to To improve the questionnairethe questionnaires as the resultof the pilot study.

5 (See 5.5.1.1.5. Situational Assessment (SA 96) To identify comparable situations& Appendix 2.2.) was conducted. between British and Japanese

cultures

Table 10. A Summary of Previous Stages of This Study

150

As the results of the first and second stages, the use of naturally occurringdata and role plays was excluded, and a shift was made from elicitingspoken data to strategy data so as to overcome the limitations of thewritten questionnaires. This advanced the methodology, and eliciting strate-gy data by the use of MCQs was attempted in the pilot study, whosemajor achievement was to reveal the limitations of the questionnaire usingchoices with actual exponents representing the strategies. Because of this,in the main study I have decided to take a sociopragmatic approach, asnoted in 1.2. That is, the choices were given as strategies. Since the strategychoices may not be familiar to the subjects, examples were given for eachstrategy choice.

By making some other changes as a result of the pilot study, i.e., clarify-ing the intention of S and putting the choices in order, I was able to improvethe research instruments for use in the main study. In the fifth stage, as aresult of SA 96, I identified comparable situations between British andJapanese cultures, from which I selected the situations used in the mainstudy. I believe that ensuring comparability of situations is one of thestrengths 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 hasnot been made clear that people select a strategy and then they choose aform to realise that strategy, although people may do this unconsciously.Cohen and Olshtain (1994: 146) note that “The process of selecting thesocioculturally appropriate strategy and the appropriate sociolingusiticforms or that strategy is complex, …” but they have not investigated themethodology for strategy choices. The methods for data collection I havereviewed in 5.4. were concerned with linguistic realisations, taking apragmalinguistic approach. Since to my knowledge, there have not beenany studies which developed a valid methodology to collect the strategydata, I adopted a methodology for a pragmalinguistic approach, havingmodified it, in order to have an appropriate method to elicit strategy datain this study.

In taking a pragmalinguistic approach, it is difficult to compare linguisticrealisations across languages, especially when comparing English and Japa-nese, whose linguistic systems are totally different. Turner (1996: 9) alsopoints out the danger of comparing elicited syntactic data, stating that:

151

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

There is no guarantee that similar linguistic realisations in different lan-guages have the same pragmatic meaning. These limitations can be reducedby adopting a sociopragmatic approach.

5.5.2. Instruments

The instruments used in this study were written questionnaires, whichconsisted of three parts: (1) situational assessment, (2) requesting strategiesand (3) responding strategies to off-record requests. The questionnaires,including rubrics, were in the mother tongue of the subjects, i. e., Englishfor 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 andresponding strategies to off-record requests, MCQs with strategy choiceswere used (See Part B and Part C in Appendix 2.3.).

Bayraktaroglu (1991) notes that politeness has generally been ap-proached as if it were something static, capturable in the grammaticalcharacteristics of a single utterance and that this approach is inadequateto account for politeness operating over sequences in conversation, claimingthe need to analyse politeness in stretches of talk. Since written question-naires were used in this study and linguistic realisations were not inves-tigated as noted in 5.5.1.2., it was impossible to investigate sequences inconversation, although Bayraktaroglu’s point has important implicationsfor future politeness research.

5.5.2.1. Names used in the Instruments

Hinkel (1997: 10) points out the importance of avoiding personal namesand other gender markers. Sbisà (1992: 272) criticises the gender problem

2 The questionnaires in Japanese were prepared, as was noted in 5.5.6., and distributedto Japanese subjects. However, only the questionnaires in English are listed in Appen-dix 2.

152

of Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989) whose questionnaire was notdesigned to investigate the gender variable, so the sex of speakers andhearers was randomly varied across situations. Wolfson et al. (1989: 193)note that there is a gender bias in the roles of the participants in thesituations used to elicit apologies in the CCSARP. Throughout the ques-tionnaire in the present study, the letters, such as X, Y, Z, were used toname the people in the situations, in order to avoid the influence ofgender.

The use of alphabetical letters was not only to avoid the influence ofgender, but in order to avoid the influence which personal names, such asJane or John in English, and Keiko or Taro in Japanese, may have onsocial distance or power difference. I think that specific names alreadygive the subjects some clues or impressions concerning the interactants’social distance or power difference. There are also some cross-culturaldifferences in the use of names. For instance, in Japanese culture, the useof first or given names indicates that the interactants are close, and usuallyequals, or else they are not equals because a higher status person may usea lower status person’s first name, but not vice versa. In British culture, itseems that first names are used more frequently and widely than in Japaneseculture. First names are used even among non-intimates, and status-unequalpeople in British culture. Although using alphabetical letters to name peoplein each situation may lack naturalness, I think it can help avoid the kindsof problems noted above.

5.5.2.2. Request Situations

Eight request situations, which were identified as comparable betweenBritish 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 assess-ment item: power difference between S and H; social distance between Sand H; and the degree of imposition of the requested act (See Part A inAppendix 2.3.).

People’s evaluation of power difference, social distance between S and

153

H and the degree of imposition might vary spontaneously, and Brown andLevinson (1987: 231–232) point out that:

… a shift from one strategy to another may reflect the speaker’s momentary ‘mood’,not only as a function of the interaction and therefore as a part of the interactionalbalance, but completely extrinsically to the interaction as well. … Such mood changesreflect a changed evaluation of D, P, and R, and in order for interactants to interpretutterances correctly they must have some assessment of each other’s current mood.

Subjects in this study may also evaluate such variables as P, D and Rspontaneously, being given a five-point scale. However, this may not be aproblem, because also in every day interactions, we may assess P, D and Rdifferently according to such factors as “mood,” and as a consequence ofthe assessment of those variables, we may choose a certain politeness strate-gy, either consciously or unconsciously.

5.5.2.4. Requesting Strategies

Three choices of requesting strategies were provided for each situation, asfollows (See Part B in Appendix 2.3.).

• direct requests;• conventionally indirect requests; and• off-record requests.

These three strategies were based on Brown and Levinson’s (1978; 1987)model (See 2.3.3.1.), which lists five possible strategies for doing FTAs.

1. Do the act on-record baldly, without redress;2. Do the act on-record with positive politeness redress;3. Do the act on record with negative politeness redress;4. Do the act off-record; and5. Don’t 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 thequestionnaire corresponds to the first, choice (2) to the third, and choice(3) to the fourth of Brown and Levinson’s strategies. Their second strategy,positive politeness, was not included in the questionnaire, because thethree choices used in the questionnaire were on a direct-indirect scale,

154

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.Kasper’s (1994: 3208) following statement confirms the above three choices.

Late twentieth-century evidence suggests that the established speech act sets arecross-linguistically robust. Thus for requests, modificatory dimensions include threemajor levels of directness (direct, conventionally indirect, indirect), measured interms of distance between locution and illocution; internal modification of therequestive act, by mitigating or aggravating impositive force; and externalmodification, expressed by ‘adjuncts’ supporting the request proper.

Olshtain and Blum-Kulka (1985: 305) also note that the three choicesabove 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 alllanguages. The first category consists of the direct, linguistically marked ways formaking requests (such as imperatives and performatives). The second category, whichis the most difficult one to compare across languages, consists of those indirectstrategies 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 open-ended set of indirect hints, such as “It’s cold in here” used as a request to close thewindow.

Similarly, Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989: 18) also used three types:direct strategies, conventionally indirect strategies and nonconventionallyindirect strategies. Thus, it seemed appropriate to have three choices inthe questionnaire:

1. direct requests;2. conventionally indirect requests; and3. off-record requests.

There is a large number of possible combinations of requesting strategiesand supportive moves. Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989: 287–288)cite nine supportive moves, (1) to (6) being mitigating supportive moves,and (7) to (9) being aggravating supportive moves:

(1) Preparator (6) Imposition minimizer(2) Getting a precommitment (7) Insult(3) Grounder (8) Threat(4) Disarmer (9) Moralizing(5) Promise of reward

155

Many combinations of the above supportive moves and requesting strate-gies are possible. The positions of supportive moves (before or after therequest) will also increase the number of possible combinations. It is beyondthe scope of the present study to include all possible combinations in theresearch instrument. For this reason, a choice had to be made from therange of possibilities, and grounders, such as reasons, were chosen as a sup-portive move because earlier research (Fukushima, 1993a and b, 1994)revealed thatstatingareason wasthemost frequentlyused grounder byBrit-ish and Japanese subjects. Likewise, in her data, Kasper (1989: 52) foundthat “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 indirectrequests, the same supportive moves being used throughout so as to reducethe influence which these moves would have on the choice of requestingstrategies (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 S’s 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-recordrequests listed in 3.8.1. Example expressions were given for each strategy,which were based on the results of Fukushima (1997b), to increaseinstrument validity (See Part C in Appendix 2.3.).

5.5.3. Subjects

One hundred and twenty-one British and one hundred and thirty-threeJapanese undergraduates served as subjects, the former being recruitedfrom students at the University of Reading, England, the latter from studentsat Tsuru University, Yamanashi, Japan. As it was intended to have com-

156

parability between the subjects in British and Japanese cultures as muchas possible, the subjects were confined to undergraduates. They wereconsidered to be comparable in terms of level of education, occupationand age. The mean age of British subjects was 22.2 years and that ofJapanese subjects was 19.9 years.

Another factor taken into account when comparability of subjects wasconsidered was the subjects’ place of residence. The subjects representingeach 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, Japaneseliving abroad may have different attitudes towards linguistic choice fromthose living in Japan. Therefore, the subjects used in this study were chosenfrom those who lived in their own culture.

It was very difficult to obtain comparable subjects in British andJapanese cultures. In a strict sense, it may be impossible to obtain compa-rable subjects between different cultures. For instance, university studentsin one culture may have different social meanings or status from those inanother culture. In order to obtain comparable subjects, there are manyother factors to be considered such as the subjects’ family background(e.g., parents’ occupation, level of education, social class), the place oforigin, 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 theterm ‘cross-cultural’ does not necessarily mean native-non-native inter-actions, but any communication between two people who, in any particulardomain, do not share a common linguistic or cultural background. Thisview is in line with Tannen (1985: 203), who points out that:

… the notion of “cross-cultural” encompasses more than just speakers of differentlanguages or from different countries; it includes speakers from the same country ofdifferent class, region, age, and even gender.

This means that one Japanese subject does not necessarily share similarvalues, linguistic or cultural background with another Japanese subject,for instance. I am aware of the importance of these issues, but it wasbeyond the scope of this study to investigate all the details of each subjectin each culture.

Although there were so many factors I had to take into considerationin order to have the comparability in the subjects, I also had to consider

157

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

5.5.4. Procedures

5.5.4.1. Situational Assessment

The subjects were asked

1. to read the written situational descriptions; and2. 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 thatsome 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. Infact, Hatch and Lazaraton (1991: 57) note that most researchers prefer touse 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 becauseit provides more discriminations than a three-point scale, while avoidingthe confusion created by having too many.

In some studies (e.g. Blum-Kulka et al., 1985; Holmes, 1990; Tros-borg, 1987; and Wood and Kroger, 1991), the researchers simply usedtheir own assessment of variables. Questioning the validity of the findingsof such studies, Spencer-Oatey (1993: 31) points out the danger of relyingon researchers’ assessment, because assessment of variables by researchersand by subjects may differ. This may happen especially when the cultural

158

background of the researchers and that of subjects differ. Blum-Kulkaand House (1989: 137) also state that members of different cultures mightdiffer in their perceptions of social situations as well as in the relativeimportance attributed to any of the social parameters mentioned.Therefore, it is important to give subjects the opportunity to assessvariables, instead of using my own judgment on variables. It is alsoimportant to investigate whether British and Japanese subjects perceivethe three variables in the described situations in the questionnaire similarlyor differently. These are the reasons why situational assessment (Part Ain Appendix 2.3.) was carried out.

As I did not intend to investigate which components of each variablethe subjects had in mind when they assessed each variable in each situation,I dealt with only the results of their perception of these variables. Byobtaining more than one hundred subjects in each culture (British subjects:121; Japanese subjects: 133) and conducting statistical analyses, I shouldbe 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; and2. to choose one request strategy out of the following three request strate-

gies:

• 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; and3. to choose one responding strategy to the off-record requests out of the

following three responding strategies:

• preempting S’s request (demonstrating solicitousness);

159

• 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 datawere collected in Tsuru, Yamanashi, Japan.

5.5.6. Translation of the Instruments

Because subjects were to be given comparable questionnaires in their re-spective mother tongues, it was necessary to translate the research instru-ment. In translation theory, the notion of equivalence is crucial. Accordingto Ruuskanen (1996), the on-going debate on the definition of equivalencein translation studies has focused on the attempt to establish a semanticrelationship between languages that was as close to one-to-one as possiblefor each semantic unit, but the recent variable approach to translation hasadmitted the consideration of pragmatic factors into this debate. In trans-lating the questionnaire, equivalence of pragmatic factors was considered.Unfortunately, such translation proves not to be a simple procedure, forreasons which will be discussed below.

5.5.6.1. Translation Procedures

Translation of the English version of the questionnaire into its Japanesecounterpart involved the following stages.

1. The English version was translated into Japanese. When translatingthe questionnaire, I tried to avoid translating literally, keeping insteadthe function of the messages in view.

2. The translation was checked by Tsuru University students, includingone graduate. They have lived abroad, and their English proficiency

160

was quite high. (Their TOEFL mean score was around 570.) They arealso competent in Japanese. (There are returnees whose Japanese isnot very good.) First, they checked my translation at home, and thenwe had a discussion about student life at Tsuru University so as toensure that there was as close a match as possible between the situationsin the questionnaire and their way of life.

3. My translation was checked by two Japanese university lecturers, oneof whom has a Ph. D. in writing from an American university, theother of whom has a Ph. D. in pragmatics from a British university.They checked the lexical, semantic and pragmatic aspects of the trans-lation, and we identified a major problem concerning the equivalenceof levels of directness and indirectness in Japanese and English.

4. I revised my original translation, taking the comments made in thesecond and third stages into consideration. In revising my original trans-lation, 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 andsolutions for those problems were found.

1. Language choice in Japanese

Strictly speaking, there is no equivalent expression from Japanese to Englishor vice versa. In Japanese there are no neutral expressions, because asMatsumoto (1988: 418) argues, in Japanese, one is forced to makemorphological or lexical choices that depend on the interpersonal relation-ship between the conversational participants. For example, Matsumoto(1988: 416) states that in Japanese there are four ways of expressing “toeat” which are used depending on (1) who is the subject of the sentence, aprofessor, or the speaker him/herself; and (2) the way of speaking: refinedor not. Language choice in Japanese also depends on the gender of theaddresser.

In the questionnaire, alphabetical letters were substituted for people’snames so as to avoid specifying gender and influencing language choice inJapanese. When translating the English version of the questionnaire intoJapanese, neutral language, neither too masculine nor too feminine, wasused as much as possible.

161

2. Equivalence of the level of direct/indirectness between Englishand Japanese

A particularly tricky issue arises with regard to equivalence of expressionsand levels of direct/indirectness when translating between Japanese andEnglish, as revealed in a study by Takahashi (1987), who developed ataxonomy of thirteen ranks in levels of direct/indirectness, summarised intable 11, in which ranks 6–13 are omitted.

Rank Level English Japanese

1 0.0 Open the window. Mado o akenasai, akero,You will open the window. ake-te kudasai.

2 1.1 I want you to open the window. Mado o ake-te moraitai,ake-te itadaki tai.

3 1.2 You can open the window. (Anata nara) mado o ake-rare masu (yo).

4 1.3 Will/Won’t you open the Mado o ake-te kure masu ka.window? Mado o ake-te kudasai masu ka.

5 1.4 Could/Couldn’t you open Mado o ake-rare masu ka.the window?

Table 11. Taxonomy developed in Takahashi (1987)

The English example expressions used for direct requests in my ques-tionnaire take the form of “Please + an imperative form.” An imperativeform such as “Open the window” was classified into Rank 1 in Takahashi’staxonomy. The Japanese example expressions used for direct requests inmy questionnaire, “…te kudasai,” can be assigned to Rank 1 in Takahashi’staxonomy. Therefore, it can be considered that my Japanese exampleexpressions are equivalent to the English ones in terms of directness level.

The English example expressions used for conventionally indirect re-quests in my questionnaire take the form of “Could you…?” They arecategorised in Rank 5 in Takahashi’s taxonomy. The Japanese exampleexpressions used for conventionally indirect requests in my questionnairetake the form of “…te kudasai masu ka”, which is assigned to Rank 4 inTakahashi’s taxonomy.

Japanese Rank 5 in Takahashi’s taxonomy is “…rare masuka.” Taka-hashi states that Rank 5 are ‘Sentences asking H’s ability to do A.’ Sentences,such as “ Could you..?”, ask H’s ability in the first place, but they are usedas requests. Japanese, “…rare masuka” does not seem to be as convention-

162

alised as English, “Could you…?” That is, Japanese sentences using “…raremasuka” are used when asking H’s ability, rather than asking a request,whereas English sentences using “Could you …?” are used when asking arequest rather than asking H’s ability. Therefore, I do not agree withTakahashi’s Japanese forms in Rank 5. I consider Japanese expressions inRank 4 in Takahashi’s taxonomy, “…te kure masu ka” and “…te kudasaimasu ka” to be more equivalent to English expression in Rank 5, “Couldyou…?”, because “…te kure masu ka” and “ …te kudasai masu ka” areused when making requests.

Both “Mado o ake-te kure masu ka.” and “Mado o ake-te kudasaimasu ka.” are assigned to Rank 4 in Takahashi’s taxonomy. However, Ithink there is a difference in direct/indirectness level, “Mado o ake-tekudasai masu ka.” being more indirect than “Mado o ake-te kure masuka.” I decided to use the form “…te kudasai masu ka” in the exampleexpressions of Japanese indirect requests, since I used “Could you…?”rather than “Can you…?” in the example expressions of English indirectrequests.

3. A cultural adaptation/modification

Hervey and Higgins (1992: 28) argue that translating involves not justtwo languages, but a transfer from one culture to another and sometranslation techniques necessitated by the transfer from one cultural modeof expression to another involve compromise and compensation. Althoughthey will vary throughout Japan, the situations used in the Japanese ques-tionnaire were adapted to match the situation in Tsuru, Yamanashi, whereall 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 ownedflats with a shared kitchen where some students live in Tsuru, was used asa form of accommodation comparable with a self-catering hall of residencein Reading.

Another cultural adaptation/modification was made concerning theuse of cheques. In Japan, the use of cheques by students is rare, so creditcards were substituted for cheques, this being another example of culturaltransplantation (Hervey and Higgins, 1992: 29). A brief summary of theproblems and solutions concerning translation is presented in table 12.

163

Problems Solutions

1. Language choice in Japanese 1. Neutral language was used as muchas possible.

2. Equivalence of the level of direct/ 2. Takahashi’s (1987) taxonomy wasindirectness 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 ofpopular 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 whyparticular procedures were chosen will be discussed below. First, thestatistical analysis comparing British subjects’ assessment and Japanesesubjects’ assessment on the three variables will be reviewed, followed bya comparison between the requesting and responding choices made byBritish subjects and those by Japanese subjects. Next, the correlation be-tween situational assessment and the requesting strategies and the correla-tion between situational assessment and the responding strategies to off-record 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 intervalscale or ordinal scale. Strictly speaking, the interval between 1 and 2 onthe scale, for example, may not be exactly equal with the interval between2 and 3. Consequently, the data may not be interval scale data. However,in the previous studies (e.g. Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Blum-Kulka &

164

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 socialdistance, power, etc. on scales, and the mean scores of those factors werepresented. Means and standard deviations are used to describe the distribu-tion of interval data (Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991: 169). Therefore, it canbe said that in the above studies, the data were considered as intervaldata, since medians were used. In Blum-Kulka and House (1989), t-testswere used. It seems to be a common practice to regard such assessmentdata as interval scale data. Therefore, the assessments by British subjectsand those by Japanese subjects on power difference between S and H,social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of therequested act were analysed by conducting t-tests which compare twogroups for interval data.

5.6.2. Requesting Strategies and Responding Strategiesto 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 strate-gies to off-record requests, nonparametric methods had to be used, becausethe choices of requesting strategies and responding strategies to off-recordrequests are ordinal scale variables. Those data are not scores nor intervalscale data, which cannot therefore be analysed by t-tests (See Hatch andLazaraton, 1991: 547). Therefore, Mann-Whitney U tests, which arenonparametric tests, being suitable for ordinal scale data and comparingtwo groups, were used.

5.6.3. Correlation between Situational Assessment and RequestingStrategies and Correlation between Situational Assessmentand 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 whetherthere are correlations between situational assessment on the three variables

165

and the choice of requesting strategies, and correlations between situationalassessment on the three variables and the choice of responding strategiesto off-record strategies will be discussed.

While the Pearson correlation is the most common correlation in appliedlinguistic research, there are occasions when the Pearson formula cannotbe used to measure the strength of the relationship between two variables(Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991: 448). Since the Pearson correlation is usedonly with interval scale data, it is not appropriate to use it in this study,because the choices of requesting strategies and those of responding strate-gies are ordinal scale variables, while the three variables in situationalassessment (Part A in Appendix 2.3.) can be considered as interval scalevariables. The Spearman correlation is appropriate for both rank-orderdata and interval data with the strength of ranks (Hatch and Lazaraton,1991: 451). Consequently, Spearman’s Rank-order was used in order toinvestigate whether there were correlations between the results of situa-tional assessment of the three variables and the choices of requestingstrategies, and whether there were correlations between the results ofsituational assessment of the three variables and the choices of respondingstrategies 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 inchapters 2, 3 and 4 and the present study, and to found a basis for thepresent research. I have tried to clarify the problems to be investigated inthis study and postulated hypotheses. I have reviewed the methods fordata collection and decided to use MCQs with the choices of strategies,taking a sociopragmatic approach, because it best suits the purpose of thisstudy and solves some problems arising from the translation from Englishinto 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 presentedin the next chapter.

166

Table 13. A Summary of Data Analyses

Reasons forusing thesestatisticalmethodsTo test thedifferencebetween twogroups forinterval data:British andJapanesesituationalassessment

To comparetwo groupsfor ordinalscale data:British andJapaneserequestingchoices &respondingchoices tooff-recordrequests

To investigatewhether thereare correla-tions between(1) assess-ment of thethreevariables andthe request-ing strategies;and (2) theassessment ofthe threevariables andthe respond-ing strategies

Dataobtained

Assessmentof powerdifference;socialdistance &degree ofimposition byBritish andJapanesesubjects

Requestingchoices &Respondingchoices tooff-recordrequests byBritish andJapanesesubjects

Assessmentof powerdifference;socialdistance &degree ofimposition byBritish andJapanesesubjectsRequestingchoices &respondingchoices byBritish andJapanesesubjects

Type of data

Considered tobe intervalscale data

Ordinal scaledata

Interval scaledata &Ordinal scaledata

What I wantto find out

Whetherthere are anydifferencesbetween theassessment byBritish andJapanesesubjects

Whetherthere are anydifferences inthe choice ofrequestingand respond-ing strategiesto off-recordrequests byBritish andJapanesesubjects

Whetherthere arecorrelationsbetween theassessment ofpower differ-ence; socialdistance& degree ofimposition,and thechoices ofrequestingstrategies andrespondingstrategies

Statisticalmethods

T-tests

T-tests are aprocedure totest thedifferencebetween twogroups forinterval data.(Hatch &Lazaraton,1991: 249)Mann-Whitney Utests

Mann-Whitney Utest comparestwo groupsfor ordinalscale data.(Hatch &Lazaraton,1991: 274)Spearman’sRank-Order

The Spear-man correla-tion isappropriatefor bothrank-orderdata andinterval datawith thestrength ofranks. (Hatch& Lazaraton,1991: 451)

Source ofdata

Part A inAppendix2.3.

Part B & PartC inAppendix2.3.

Part A, Part B& Part C inAppendix2.3.

167

CHAPTER 6

Results

6.1. Introduction

In this chapter, I will present the results of the statistical analyses of thedata in the following order:

1. the results of situational assessment of the three variables, i.e., powerdifference between S and H, social distance between S and H, and thedegree of imposition of the requested act by British subjects and thoseby Japanese subjects;

2. the results of requesting strategies by British subjects and those byJapanese subjects;

3. the results of the correlation between situational assessment of thethree variables and the choices of the requesting strategies;

4. the results of responding strategies to off-record requests by Britishsubjects and those by Japanese subjects; and

5. the results of the correlation between situational assessment of thethree variables and the choices of the responding strategies to off-recordrequests.

6.2. Results of Situational Assessment

In order to test out the hypotheses of situational assessment in 5.3.1., Ihave calculated the mean scores of the situational assessment of the threevariables by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects, and conductedt-tests. The results are presented in table 14.

168

Power Difference Social Distance Imposition

Sit. 1 B:3.355 (.912) B:2.967 (1.016) B:3.694 (1.048)J:3.759 (.947)** J:3.444 (1.018)** J:3.842 (.991)

Sit. 2 B:1.405 (.748) B:1.636 (.856) B:2.116 (1.058)J:1.549 (.783) J:1.797 (.952) J:2.699 (.977)***

Sit. 3 B:3.669 (.870) B:3.223 (1.053) B:1.719 (.868)J:4.308 (.761)*** J:3.947 (.890)*** J:2.624 (.950)***

Sit. 4 B:3.545 (1.025) B:3.397 (1.091) B:2.165 (1.067)J:3.752 (.980) J:3.632 (.917) J:1.789 (.897)**

Sit. 5 B:1.322 (.686) B:1.223 (.555) B:1.215 (.580)J:1.308 (.618) J:1.617 (.832)*** J:1.150 (.452)

Sit. 6 B:2.554 (1.147) B:2.446 (1.154) B:1.512 (.776)J:2.865 (.868)* J:2.301 (.961) J:1.256 (.532)**

Sit. 7 B:3.107 (.982) B:3.157 (.992) B:3.926 (1.026)J:3.917 (.779)** J:3.579 (.931)** J:3.895 (.837)

Sit. 8 B:1.545 (.894) B:1.347 (.727) B:2.471 (1.170)J:1.429 (.800) J:1.361 (.772) J:2.383 (.943)

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

The numbers outside the parentheses indicate the mean scores; and the numbers in theparentheses 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 powerdifference 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, powerdifferences were assessed as bigger by Japanese subjects than by Britishsubjects. The null hypothesis (Ho1) was rejected and the alternative hypo-thesis (H1: There are significant differences between British and Japanesesubjects in the assessment of power difference between S and H.) wassupported in situations 1, 3, 6 and 7.

Secondly, there were significant differences in the assessment of socialdistance 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 assessedsocial distance as bigger than British subjects in those situations. The null

169

hypothesis (Ho2) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H2: Thereare significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in theassessment of social distance between S and H.) was supported in situations1, 3, 5 and 7.

Thirdly, there were significant differences in the assessment of the degreeof imposition of the requested act between British and Japanese subjects insituations 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). Japanesesubjects have assessed the degree of imposition of the requested act asbigger than British subjects in situations 2 and 3; while British subjects haveassessed it as bigger than Japanese subjects in situations 4 and 6. The nullhypothesis (Ho3) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H3: Thereare significant differences between British and Japanese subjects in theassessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act.) was supportedin situations 2, 3, 4 and 6.

6.3. Results of Requesting Strategies

In order to test out the hypotheses of requesting strategies by British andJapanese subjects in 5.3.2.1., I conducted Mann-Whitney U tests. Thenumbers of the subjects who selected each choice of requesting strate-gies and the results of Mann-Whitney U tests are presented in table 15.

From the results shown in table 15, the following conclusions can bedrawn. Firstly, there were significant differences in the choices of requestingstrategies 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 hypo-thesis (H4: There are significant differences between the choices of request-ing strategies by British subjects and those by Japanese subjects) wassupported in situations 4, 5, 6 and 8.

170

Choice 1 Choice 2 Choice 3 z value

Sit. 1 B: 14 B: 98 B: 9 nsJ: 15 J: 115 J: 3

Sit. 2 B: 12 B: 108 B: 1 nsJ: 25 J: 103 J: 5

Sit. 3 B: 26 B: 92 B: 3 nsJ: 39 J: 89 J: 5

Sit. 4 B: 5 B: 87 B: 29 2.108*J: 14 J: 97 J: 22

Sit. 5 B: 15 B: 103 B: 3 7.367***J: 82 J: 45 J: 6

Sit. 6 B: 17 B: 90 B: 14 5.903***J: 63 J: 66 J: 4

Sit. 7 B: 7 B: 83 B: 31 nsJ: 3 J: 101 J: 29

Sit. 8 B: 11 B: 90 B: 20 5.168**J: 61 J: 54 J: 18

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 15. The Number of the Subjects who Selected Each Choice of RequestingStrategies and the Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests

Secondly, in all those situations, British subjects selected higher-numberedchoices. Since the choices of requesting strategies were arranged from(1) direct requests; (2) conventionally indirect requests and to (3) off-record requests, the above results indicate that British subjects chose moreindirect requests than Japanese subjects in situations 4, 5, 6 and 8 (Seegraphs 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 makegreater distinctions between in-groups and out-groups than people inindividualist cultures (e.g. Holtgraves and Yang, 1992). In order toinvestigate whether there were any differences between British and Japanesesubjects in the choices of requesting strategies according to the groupdistinctions, I conducted Mann-Whitney U tests. I categorised situations2, 5, and 8 as in-group situations, and situations 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 as out-group situations. This is because I defined in-group members as thosewith equal status. Status was included in the variable of power (See3.7.3.1.), and both British and Japanese subjects assessed power differencebetween 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

171

Japanese subjects in the assessment of power difference in those situations.The following are the results of Mann-Whitney U tests.

Group Choice 1 Choice 2 Choice 3 z value

In-group B: 38 B: 301 B: 24 8.305***J: 168 J: 202 J: 29

Out-group B: 69 B: 361 B: 175 3.023**J: 134 J: 468 J: 63

**p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 16. The Number of the Subjects (In-group and Out-group) who Selected EachChoice of Requesting Strategies and the Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests

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

6.4. Results of Correlation between Situational Assessmentand Requesting Strategies

In order to test out the hypotheses of the correlation between the situationalassessment and the choice of requesting strategies in 5.3.2.2., I conductedSpearman’s rank-order correlations. Table 17 indicates Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficients between (i) the assessment of power differencebetween S and H and the choice of requesting strategies; (ii) the assessmentof social distance between S and H and the choice of requesting strategies;and (iii) the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested actand 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 powerdifference and the choice of requesting strategies in situation 6 (ñs = .125,p<.05) and situation 7 (ñs = .187, p<.01). The choices of requestingstrategies were arranged from (1) direct requests; (2) conventionally indirect

172

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 resultsindicate that the bigger the power difference between S and H, when Hhas “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 somecorrelations between the assessment of power difference between S andH and the choices of requesting strategies) was supported in situations 6and 7.

Secondly, there was a negative correlation between the assessment ofsocial distance between S and H and the choice of requesting strategies insituation 1 (ñs = –.233, p<.001). The null hypothesis (Ho6) was rejectedand the alternative hypothesis (H6: There are some correlations betweenthe assessment of social distance and the choices of requesting strategies)was supported in situation 1. This result indicates that the bigger the socialdistance between S and H becomes, the more direct the requesting strategiesbecome.

Thirdly, there were positive correlations between the assessment of thedegree of imposition of the requested act and the choice of requestingstrategies in situations 5 (ñs = .192, p<.01), 6 (ñs = .236, p<.001), 7 (ñs =.231, p<.001) and 8 (ñs = .183, p<.01). The null hypothesis (Ho7) wasrejected and the alternative hypothesis (H7: There are some correlationsbetween the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested actand the choices of requesting strategies.) was supported in situations 5, 6,


Sit. 1 -.017 -.233*** .008

Sit. 2 -.062 -.055 -.023

Sit. 3 .008 -.010 .089

Sit. 4 .037 .006 .040

Sit. 5 -.004 -.061 .192**

Sit. 6 .125* .099 .236***

Sit. 7 .187** .055 .231***

Sit. 8 -.024 .007 .183**

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 17. Spearmanís rank-order Correlation Coefficients between the Choiceof Requesting Strategies and the Three Variables

173

7 and 8. These results indicate that the higher the degree of imposition ofthe 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 incollectivist cultures pay more attention to status differences. In order toinvestigate whether there was any difference between British and Japanesesubjects concerning the correlation between power difference (Status wasincluded in the variable of power in this study) and requesting strategies,I conducted Spearman’s rank-order correlations between power differenceand the choices of requesting strategies by British and those by Japanesesubjects. The following are the results.

Power Difference

The Choice of Requesting Strategies by British Subjects .107***

The Choice of Requesting Strategies by Japanese Subjects .239***

***p<.001

Table 18. Spearmanís rank-order Correlation Coefficients between the Choice ofRequesting Strategies by British and Japanese Subjects and Power Difference

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

6.5. Results of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

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

174

Choice 1 Choice 2 Choice 3 z value

Sit. 1 B: 20 B: 33 B: 68 6.238***J: 73 J: 26 J: 34

Sit. 2 B: 69 B: 41 B: 11 nsJ: 76 J: 48 J: 9

Sit. 3 B: 104 B: 13 B: 4 2.233*J: 99 J: 28 J: 6

Sit. 4 B: 93 B: 10 B: 18 4.735***J: 125 J: 3 J: 5

Sit. 5 B: 119 B: 2 B: 0 nsJ: 131 J: 1 J: 1

Sit. 6 B: 86 B: 27 B: 8 2.774**J: 114 J: 17 J: 2

Sit. 7 B: 35 B: 43 B: 43 2.424*J: 48 J: 60 J: 25

Sit. 8 B: 81 B: 23 B: 17 2.142*J: 105 J: 13 J: 15

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 19. The Number of the Subjects who Selected Each Choice ofResponding Strategies and the Results of Mann-Whitney U Tests

From the results in table 19, it can be seen that there were significantdifferences in the choice of responding strategies to off-record requestsbetween 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) wasrejected and the alternative hypothesis (H8: There are significant differencesbetween the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests by Britishsubjects and those by Japanese subjects.) was supported in situations 1, 3,4, 6, 7 and 8.

British subjects selected higher-numbered choices than Japanese subjectsin situations 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8; while Japanese subjects selected higher-numbered choices than British subjects in situation 3. The choices ofresponding strategies to off-record requests were arranged from (1)demonstrating solicitousness; (2) taking alternative means other than doingsomething him/herself for S; to (3) refusing a request. Therefore, the aboveresults indicate that Japanese subjects selected more choices of solicitousnessthan British subjects in situations 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8; and British subjects

175

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 Assessmentand Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

In order to test out the hypotheses of the correlation between the situationalassessment and the choice of responding strategies in 5.3.3.2., I conductedSpearman’s rank-order correlations. Table 20 indicates Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficients between (i) the choice of responding strategiesand the assessment of power difference between S and H; (ii) the choice ofresponding strategies and the assessment of social distance between S andH; and (iii) the choice of responding strategies and the assessment of thedegree of imposition of the requested act.


Sit. 1 -.116 -.167** .228***

Sit. 2 .195** .116 .310***

Sit. 3 .041 .047 .151*

Sit. 4 .073 .023 .326***

Sit. 5 .001 .185** .324***

Sit. 6 .198** .191** .335***

Sit. 7 .138* .084 .280***

Sit. 8 .236* .199** .323***

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 20. Spearmanís rank-order Correlation Coefficients between the Choice ofResponding 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 differenceand the choice of responding strategies in situations 2 (ñs = .195, p<.01),6 (ñs = .198, p<.01), 7 (ñs = .138, p<.05) and 8 (ñs = .236, p<.05). The nullhypothesis (Ho9) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H9: Thereare some correlations between the assessment of power difference between

176

S and H and the choices of responding strategies to off-record requests)was supported in those situations. Among those situations, in situations 6and 7, H, the potential performer of solicitousness, has bigger power thanS, the potential beneficiary of solicitousness. Therefore, the above resultsindicate 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 ofsocial distance and the choice of responding strategies in situations 5 (ñs =.185, p<.01), 6 (ñs = .191, p<.01), and 8 (ñs = .199, p<.01), and there wasa negative correlation between the assessment of social distance and thechoice of responding strategies in situation 1 (ñs = –.167, p<.01). The nullhypothesis (Ho10) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H10: Thereare some correlations between the assessment of social distance between Sand 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, themore refusal is demonstrated, in other words, the smaller the social distancebetween S and H, the more solicitousness is displayed; and the result insituation 1 indicates that the bigger the social distance becomes, the moresolicitousness is demonstrated.

Thirdly, there were positive correlations between the assessment ofimposition and the choice of responding strategies in all the situations(Situation 1: ñs = .228, p<.001; Situation 2: ñs = .310, p<.001; Situation 3:ñs = .151, p<.05; Situation 4: ñs = .326, p<.001; Situation 5: ñs = .324,p<.001; Situation 6: ñs = .335, p<.001; Situation 7: ñs = .280, p<.001;Situation 8: ñs = .323, p<.001). The null hypothesis (Ho11) was rejectedand the alternative hypothesis (H11: There are some correlations betweenthe assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act and thechoices of responding strategies to off-record requests) was supported inall the situations. The above results indicate that the higher the degree ofimposition becomes, the more refusal is demonstrated, in other words,the lower the degree of imposition becomes, the more solicitousness isdisplayed.

177

6.7. Conclusion

In this chapter, I have presented the results of the statistical analyses of thedata obtained. Table 21 summarises the results.

Situation(Participants)

1. (Tutorasking student)

2. (Studentaskingcolleague)3. (Studentasking tutor)

4. (Tutorasking student)

5. (Studentasking student)


7. (Studentasking tutor)


Prospected Act

Delivering gifts

Exchangingwork shifts

Writing a letterof recommen-dationProviding a lifthome

Lending somesalt

Providinginformation

Giving a lift toairport

Lending lunchmoney

SituationalAssessment

J assessed P &SD as biggerthan B.

J assessed I asbigger than B.

J assessed P,SD, I as biggerthan B.B assessed I asbigger than J.

J assessed SDas bigger thanB.

J assessed P asbigger than B.

B assessed I asbigger than J.J assessed P &SD biggerthan B.

Requests

(SD)

B chose moreindirect re-quests than J.B chose moreindirect re-quests than J.(I)B chose moreindirect re-quests than J.(P)(I)(P)(I)

B chose moreindirect re-quests than J.(I)

Responses toOff-recordRequestsJ demonstratedmore sol. than B.(SD)(I)(P)(I)

B demonstratedmore sol. than J.(I)J demonstratedmore sol. than B.(I)(SD)(I)

J demonstratedmore sol. than B.(P)(SD)(I)J demonstratedmore sol. than B.(P)(I)J demonstratedmore sol. than B.(P)(SD)(I)

J = Japanese subjects; B = British subjects; P = Power Difference; SD = Social Distance;I = Imposition; Sol. = SolicitousnessThe variables in the parentheses are the ones which had correlations with the choice ofrequesting strategies, or the choice of responding strategies.

Table 21. A Summary of the Results of Situational Assessment, Requesting Strategiesand Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

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

178


179

CHAPTER 7

Discussion

7.1. Introduction

I have attempted to examine aspects of Brown and Levinson’s theory byconducting empirical research to establish

• whether there were cross-cultural variations in the assessment of thethree variables suggested by Brown and Levinson, i.e., power differencebetween S and H, the social distance between S and H, and the degreeof imposition of the requested act between British and Japanese subjects;

• whether the above three variables were influential in deciding choiceof requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests;

• whether there were any differences between British and Japanesesubjects in the choice of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests; and

• the validity of Brown and Levinson’s categorisation of British andJapanese cultures as negative politeness cultures whose politenessstrategies are distributed in Dyad II.

As noted in chapter 6, there were some significant differences betweenBritish and Japanese subjects in the assessment of the three variables (Seetable 14). These results indicate that there were some cross-cultural varia-tions in situational assessment between British and Japanese subjects, whichBrown and Levinson accommodate within their theory, as noted in chapter2 (2.3.3.3.). These differences in situational assessment influenced someof the choices in requesting and responding strategies to off-record requestsbetween British and Japanese subjects (See tables 17, 20 and 21). Theseresults support Brown and Levinson’s claim that their three variables arecrucial in determining the choice of politeness strategies. However, therewere situations in which there were significant differences in the choice ofrequesting and responding strategies to off-record requests between Britishand Japanese subjects, although there were no significant differences inthe assessment of the three variables in those situations. This may indicatethat there were some factors other than Brown and Levinson’s three

180

variables which influenced the choice of politeness strategies in this study,confirming Turner’s (1996: 5) suggestion, that Brown and Levinson’s threevariables are not sufficient.

While a consideration of what these other variables might be is notwithin the scope of the present study, it could be conjectured that suchvariables as the different value of money in British and Japanese cultures,or economic differences of British and Japanese university students, mayhave influenced some of the choices of requesting and responding strategiesto off-record requests. For example, in situation 8 (A university studentwants to borrow lunch money from his/her classmate), there was a signi-ficant difference in the choice of requesting strategies and that of respondingstrategies to off-record requests between British and Japanese subjects,but there were no significant differences in the situational assessment be-tween British and Japanese subjects (See table 21).

I have attempted to examine whether there were any differences inthe choice of requesting strategies between British and Japanese subjects,and the validity of Brown and Levinson’s categorisation of British andJapanese cultures as negative politeness cultures, whose politeness strate-gies are distributed in Dyad II. The results of requesting strategies overallconfirmed Brown and Levinson’s categorisation of British and Japanesecultures, although I suggest some modifications to Brown and Levinson’scategorisation, based on the significant differences between British andJapanese subjects in the choice of requesting strategies, Japanese subjectshaving chosen more direct requesting strategies in four out of eight situa-tions.

I have attempted to extend Brown and Levinson’s theory in the area ofresponses to off-record requests, and the results of responding strategiesto off-record requests have revealed some differences in the choices ofresponding strategies between British and Japanese subjects, which cannotbe sufficiently explained from Brown and Levinson’s classification of Britishand Japanese cultures. On the basis of this, I suggest that other culturaldimensions, such as individualism/collectivism, as noted in chapter 4, areneeded 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 per-spective of requesting strategies in 7.3.1.;

181

• the relationship between the assessment of the three variables and thechoice of requesting strategies in 7.3.2.;

• the responding strategies to off-record requests employed by Britishand Japanese subjects, and the categorisation of British and Japanesecultures from the perspective of responding strategies to off-recordrequests in 7.4.1.; and

• the relationship between the assessment of the three variables and thechoice 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 choicesof requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests are influencedby it. I will discuss how the assessment of the three variables influencedthe choices of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requestsfurther in 7.3.2. and 7.4.2. respectively. In this section, I will confine myselfto discussing differences in the assessment of Brown and Levinson’s threevariables between British and Japanese subjects.

The results in 6.2. (See table 14) show that there were some significantdifferences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of thethree variables, which suggests that there were some cross-cultural varia-tions, which is in line with Brown and Levinson’s view that “… the actualfactors that go into assessing the size of these social variables are of courseculturally specific…” (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 248) (See 2.3.3.3.).

I will now review the results in which there were significant differencesbetween British and Japanese cultures and consider why there were somecross-cultural differences in the assessment of Brown and Levinson’s threevariables, i.e., power difference between S and H, social distance betweenS 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 actualfactors” influenced different assessments of the three variables by Britishand Japanese subjects.

182

7.2.1. Power Difference

The results in 6.2. (See table 14) show that there were significant differencesin the assessment of power difference by British and Japanese subjects inthe 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 Britishsubjects 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 socialstatus (e.g. Barnlund and Yoshioka, 1990; Beebe and Takahashi, 1989a;Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz, 1990) and status is considered to beimportant in collectivist cultures, as noted in chapter 4. This kind of social/cultural background may have influenced the assessment of power dif-ference by Japanese subjects in a relationship in which there were statusdifferences between the two interactants.

In situation 6, the interactants were a junior and a senior member ofthe same university club. The age difference between them is not consider-able, the only difference being the year of their enrollment. As Sakamotoand Naotsuka (1982) have pointed out, even a one year difference countsas significant in Japanese society. With this in mind, it is likely that theJapanese subjects may have regarded a junior member and a senior memberof the same club to be hierarchically different, and so they assessed thepower 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 differencesin the assessment of social distance between British and Japanese subjectsin the following situations:

• Situation 1 (Asking a student to deliver some gifts),• Situation 3 (Asking a tutor to write a letter of recommendation),

183

• Situation 5 (Asking a next door neighbour in a students’ hall for somesalt) and

• Situation 7 (Asking a tutor for a lift to an airport).

The social distance was assessed to be bigger by Japanese than by Britishsubjects in all these situations.

In situations 1, 3 and 7, the interactants are tutors and students andthere were significant differences in the assessment of power difference.While it is not invariably so, it is often the case that where there is apower difference between people, they may not feel close to each other, inother words, there will be some social distance between them. The resultsindicate that in situations 1, 3 and 7, the Japanese subjects who assessedthe power difference as bigger than did the British subjects also assessedsocial distance as bigger than did their British counterparts. This suggeststhat it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between power difference andsocial distance, as Thomas (1995: 129) notes. This may also be related tothe 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 differencesin the assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act betweenBritish and Japanese subjects in the following situations:

• Situation 2 (Asking a colleague at part-time work to exchange workshifts),

• 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 wasassessed as higher by Japanese than British subjects, while the degree ofimposition of the requested act in situations 4 and 6 was assessed as higherby British than Japanese subjects.

As noted in chapter 3 (3.7.3.3.), the degree of imposition of the requestedact is related to the requester’s right to make a certain request. How thatright is perceived is culturally influenced. In situation 3, for example,

184

Japanese subjects assessed the degree of imposition of the requested act ofwriting a letter of recommendation as higher than did the British subjects.This may be accounted for by different perceptions of the rights of therequester. While university lecturers in the U.K. may regard writing lettersof recommendation as part of their routine responsibilities, those in Japanmay consider it to be extra work. Therefore, British subjects may have feltthat the requester had the right to make such a request, whereas Japanesesubjects may not have perceived the requester’s right in such a light. Thisdifference may have resulted in a different assessment of the degree ofimposition, Japanese subjects having assessed it as higher than their Britishcounterparts.

The assessment of the degree of imposition of the requested act insituation 4 may also be related to the right of the requester. British subjectsassessed the degree of imposition in situation 4 as higher than did theJapanese, possibly because the British subjects did not feel that the requestedact in situation 4 was within the legitimate rights of the requester, whereasthe Japanese subjects may not have considered whether the requested actwas within the requester’s legitimate right or not. This may be becauseuniversity lecturers in Japan seem to expect their students to perform certaintasks for them, even though these tasks may sometimes be unrelated tothe students’ work. Leech (1983: 126) offers the following explanation ofthe British perception of lecturer’s rights:

A lecturer might feel it reasonable to say to a student Get that essay to me by nextweek, but not Make me a cup of coffee. In the former case he would be exercisinghis legitimate authority over the student’s academic behaviour; but in the lattercase, he would be stepping outside that recognized role.

The British subjects may have felt that the tutor in situation 4 makes arequest which is outside the “recognized role” in Leech’s terms. On theother hand, there are some Japanese lecturers who make a request whichis 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 differ-ences between British and Japanese perception of rights may have influencedthe significantly different assessment by the British and Japanese subjectsin situation 4.

185

7.3. Requesting Strategies

7.3.1. The Choice of Requesting Strategies

In this section, I would like to analyse the requesting strategies employedby British and Japanese subjects and, in the light of this analysis, to considerthe validity of Brown and Levinson’s grouping British and Japanese culturestogether as negative politeness cultures, whose politeness strategies aredistributed into Dyad II, i.e., negative politeness and off-record strategiesare used, as noted in chapter 2 (2.3.3.3.; See table 1). I would like to lookat the choice of requesting strategies employed by British and Japanesesubjects in 7.3.1.1., and discuss the validity of Brown and Levinson’scategorisation in 7.3.1.2. from the perspective of requesting strategies. Iwill discuss the relationship between the choice of requesting strategiesand 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 differencesin the choice of requesting strategies by British and Japanese subjects infour 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

captain’s phone number) and• Situation 8 (Asking a classmate for lunch money).

In all of these situations, Japanese subjects chose more direct requestingstrategies than the British (See graphs 1.1.4.; 1.1.5.; 1.1.6.; and 1.1.8. inAppendix 1.1.). As noted in chapter 4, in the literature, it has been claimedthat an implicit way of communication is valued in a collectivist culture.However, in the above situations, Japanese subjects did not employ animplicit way of requesting, as compared with British subjects. I will considerin what kind of situations Japanese subjects did not employ an implicit wayof requesting; in other words, I will consider those situations in which Japa-nese subjects chose more direct requesting strategies than the British subjects.

186

In situation 4 (Asking a student for a lift home in the rain), there wasa significant difference in the assessment of the degree of imposition be-tween British and Japanese subjects (See table 14), but there was no cor-relation between the situational assessment of the three variables and thechoice of requesting strategies (See tables 17 and 21). Consequently, basedonly from the results of the present study, it is difficult to identify anysingle factor which influenced the different choice of requesting strategiesbetween British and Japanese subjects, but it is conjectured that statusdifference was the factor which led to the significant difference in thechoice of requesting strategies between the two groups of subjects. In thissituation, a request was made from a higher status person to a lowerstatus person. LoCastro (1990: 269) notes the use of direct forms by higherstatus to a lower status persons in Japanese, although the speech act of herexample is not requesting but disagreement:

… for Japanese, in a situation of disagreement, with a higher status person speakingto a lower status person, the language used by the higher status person is moredirect than in other situations with few markers of mitigation, one of the politenessstrategies cited by Brown and Levinson (1987).

In situation 6 (Asking a senior member of the club to provide the clubcaptain’s phone number), there were significant differences between Britishand Japanese subjects in the assessment of power difference, and in theassessment of the degree of imposition (See table 14). There were alsocorrelations between the choice of requesting strategies and the assessmentof power difference, and between the choice of requesting strategies andthe assessment of the degree of imposition (See table 17). Japanese subjectsassessed power difference as bigger than British subjects, while Britishsubjects assessed the degree of imposition as higher than Japanese subjects(See table 14). These results suggest that the different choice of requestingstrategies by British and Japanese subjects was influenced by differencesin the assessment of power difference and the degree of imposition (Seetable 21). Although both power difference and the degree of impositionwere the factors which influenced the different choice of requesting strate-gies by British and Japanese subjects, since Spearman’s rank-order correla-tion coefficients of imposition (.236) were bigger than those of powerdifference (.125) (See table 17), it appears that the assessment of the degreeof imposition, British subjects having assessed it as higher than Japanesesubjects, influenced the choice of requesting strategies more than the

187

assessment of power difference. In other words, lower assessment of thedegree of imposition by Japanese than British subjects resulted in theirchoice of more direct requesting strategies. This is in line with Brown andLevinson’s politeness strategies, as noted in chapter 2 (2.3.3.1.), i.e., therequest 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 forsome salt) and 8 (Asking a classmate for lunch money), there were positivecorrelations between the assessment of the degree of imposition and thechoice of requesting strategies (See table 17), but there were no significantdifferences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of thedegree of imposition in either situations (See table 14). It would seem thatthe assessment of the degree of imposition was not a factor which differ-entiated the choice of requesting strategies by British and Japanese subjects,so there must be some other factors which influenced strategy choice. Inthese situations, the power difference was small (British mean score insituation 5: 1.322; Japanese mean score in situation 5: 1.308; British meanscore 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 suchsituations, the strategy most frequently chosen by Japanese subjects was adirect requesting one, whereas that most frequently chosen by Britishsubjects 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 equalin status can be considered as in-group situations, it can be assumed thatthe Japanese subjects chose more direct requesting strategies in in-groupsituations than did the British subjects.

The results of Mann-Whitney U tests of in-group and out-groupsituations (table 16) show that British subjects chose more indirect request-ing strategies than Japanese subjects in both in-group and out-groupsituations. Although statistically there were no significant differencesbetween the choice of requesting strategies in in-group situations and thosein out-group situations, in graphs 1.1.9. and 1.1.10. some differences canbe seen in the choice of requesting strategies in in- and out-group situations.These graphs show that Japanese subjects tended to choose more directrequesting strategies in in-group than in out-group situations. While Britishsubjects selected conventionally indirect requesting strategies in most situa-tions, Japanese subjects selected direct requesting strategies and conven-tionally indirect requesting strategies, depending on whether the situationwas in-group or out-group. This may indicate that Japanese subjects make

188

greater distinctions than British subjects between in- and out-groupmembership, which confirms the results of the previous studies in whichit has been concluded that collectivists make greater group membershipdistinctions than do individualists, as noted in chapter 4. Making greaterdistinctions in the choice of requesting strategies can also be described asshowing more variability. Differentiating the choice of requesting strategiesaccording to in- and out-group situations by Japanese subjects may beexplained as showing more variability in the choice of politeness strategiesby people in collectivist cultures than people in individualist cultures.

The phenomenon that people in collectivist cultures show more varia-bility in the choice of politeness strategies than those in individualist culturescan also be explained from Scollon and Scollon’s (1995: 134) observationon 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 samedegree of permanence as they do in a collectivist culture, so that the waysof speaking to others are much more similar from situation to situation,whereas in a collectivist culture, many relationships are established morepermanently than in an individualist culture. Consequently, forms ofdiscourse used to those who are inside the groups and forms of discourseused to those who are not members of the group differ. According to theresults of this study, conventionally indirect requests were chosen most inall the situations by British subjects, which were “much more similar fromsituation to situation” in Scollon and Scollon’s terms, and different formsof discourse chosen to those who are inside and outside groups were directrequests and conventionally indirect requests respectively by Japanesesubjects.

Whereas Japanese subjects differentiated their requesting strategies ac-cording to the situation, British subjects did so less, the most frequentlychosen strategy by British subjects in all the situations being a conven-tionally indirect request. The reason why many British subjects choseconventionally indirect requesting strategies may also be due to the factthat in English, conventionally indirect request strategies are “conven-tionalised,” because, as Brown and Levinson explain,

… in a given society particular techniques of face redress may become highly favouredas strategies, and therefore conventionalized. In English, for example,conventionalized indirect requests are so common that it is rare to hear a completelydirect request even between equals (and in the middle classes, it is even surprisinglyrare from mother to child, unless she is angry). (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 248)

189

The results here may coincide with the study by Holtgraves and Yang(1992), as noted in chapter 4, in which Koreans, who were collectivistsaccording to Holtgraves and Yang, showed more variability in the choiceof requesting strategies and were more responsive to interpersonal featuresof situations than Americans, who were individualists. The Japanesesubjects in this study showed more variability in the choice of requestingstrategies than the British counterparts, and the Japanese were moreresponsive to interpersonal features of situations, such as power differenceand social distance, consequently having made group distinctions. TheJapanese subjects in this study manifested similar features to Koreansubjects in Holtgraves and Yang (Ibid.), which suggests that the Japanesesubjects possess collectivist features.

Next, from the results of this study, I would like to consider therelationship between directness/indirectness and politeness, since this hasbeen an issue in the literature.

Brown and Levinson (1987: 17–21) propose a hierarchy of politeness.

… positive politeness precedes (is less face-redressive than) negative, and negativeprecedes off record, because of an assessment of the risks involved in choosing eachof these super-strategies. (Ibid.: 17)

Brown and Levinson’s hierarchy assumes that the more indirect an utter-ance, the more polite it becomes. In Sifianou’s (1997: 69) words, “… theirpoliteness superstrategies are intrinsically ranked, with off-record strategiesbeing more polite than negative politeness strategies, which in turn precedepositive politeness ones.” This assumption has been challenged by Blum-Kulka (1987), who found that the most indirect request strategies were notjudged as the most polite by her subjects. In other words, the strategieswhich 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 certaininteractional balance between pragmatic clarity and non-coerciveness isrequired. This balance is achieved with negative politeness strategies, butit is destroyed with off-record utterances since they place high inferentialdemands 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 perceivedas 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

190

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

The first and the third situations in the above can be considered to be thesame as “bald-on-record strategies are used when the overall ‘weightiness’of FTA is very small; and when the power differential is great,” as notedin chapter 2 (2.3.3.1.).

The second situation noted above by Lee-Wong can be considered asin-group situations as discussed in this study. Eslamirasekh (1993) notesthat in Persian, direct speech acts emphasise in-group membership andsolidarity and stem from the value of group orientation in Iranian culture.

Hinkel (1997: 8) notes that “directness and indirectness in speech actsmay have different ranks of imposition in different socio-cultural andpragmatic systems,” and cites Fraser (1990), who

… indicates that the socio-cultural views of politeness and directness in pragmaticsresearch generally reflect those accepted in English-speaking societies, where greaterformality is associated with greater politeness. On the other hand, in non-English-speaking communities indirectness may not be seen as a requisite in polite speechacts, and the degree of directness expected in appropriate speech acts may varyaccording to the social norms of each community.

This point is confirmed by the frequent choice of direct requesting strategiesby Japanese subjects in this study, the preference for directness by Israeliinformants in Blum-Kulka’s (1987) study, the preference for bald-on-recordstrategies by Chinese respondents in Lee-Wong (1994), and the functionof direct speech acts in Iranian culture in Eslamirasekh’s (1993) study. Itappears that there may be cultural variation in preferences shown forchoices along the continuum of direct and indirect (Blum-Kulka (1992:263)). In fact, Blum-Kulka (Ibid.) points out that indirectness is notconsidered to be inherently “polite,” since “You can say something directlyand impolitely or indirectly and impolitely” (Ibid.: 264).

From the above, we can conclude that politeness does not necessarilyinvolve being indirect, while the linguistic form itself, whether direct orindirect, does not automatically render the speech act polite or impolite,as Thomas (1995: 155–157) and Sifianou (1992: 113) note. Thomas (Ibid.:157) contends that:

… we cannot assess politeness reliably out of context; it is not the linguistic formalone which renders the speech act polite or impolite, but the linguistic form + thecontext of utterance + the relationship between the speaker and the hearer.

191

Taking Thomas’ formula into account, the choice of direct requestingstrategies by Japanese subjects in situations 4, 5, 6 and 8 does not indicateimpoliteness, but, considering the situation, the relationship between Sand H and the degree of imposition of the requested act, direct requestingstrategies are appropriate in the Japanese language in those situations,whereas the choice of conventionally indirect requesting strategies by Britishsubjects are appropriate in English. Consequently, it can be concludedthat we cannot determine politeness by indirectness, but by appropriateness.In this respect, I believe that Meier’s (1997) view of politeness as appro-priateness is relevant. Appropriateness is determined by the norms of thesociety, the addressee’s expectations, and some other social factors presentin the situation. As noted in chapter 2 (2.2.), what is considered to beappropriate varies from situation to situation and culture to culture.Thomas (1995: 176) points out that:

Brown and Levinson’s model appears to predict that the greater the degree of face-threat, the greater will be the degree of indirectness. But many counter-examplesare readily available. … we find very different norms of directness in operation withlong-term relationships and within different sub-groups.

Following Thomas’s argument, I would like to suggest that Brown andLevinson’s prediction, “the greater the degree of face-threat, the greaterwill be the degree of indirectness,” needs to be modified. How face-threatis perceived and redressed and how much indirectness is needed may dependon such factors as cultural-norms and the relationship between S and H.In the present study, the fact that Japanese subjects chose more directrequesting strategies than did the British subjects in four situations out ofeight, illustrates different norms of directness in different cultures.

Next, I would like to consider the requesting strategies which had nosignificant differences between British and Japanese subjects. The resultsin 6.3. (See table 15) show that there were no statistically significantdifferences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requestingstrategies 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.,

192

1.1.3. and 1.1.7. in Appendix 1.1.). These results indicate that negativepoliteness strategies were chosen almost equally by both British andJapanese subjects. This is partly in line with the use of negative politenessstrategies in Brown and Levinson’s Dyad II.

7.3.1.2. Categorisation of British and Japanese Culturesfrom the Perspective of Requesting Strategies

As noted in 7.3.1.1., there were some common features between Britishand Japanese subjects in the choice of requesting strategies. That is, bothBritish and Japanese subjects chose conventionally indirect requests, whichare negative politeness strategies (situations 1, 2, 3, and 7). This trend isin conformity with Brown and Levinson’s categorisation of British andJapanese cultures as negative politeness cultures, their politeness strategiesbeing distributed in Dyad II.

The difference between British and Japanese cultures in terms of thechoice of requesting strategies appears not to be as great as the differencein strategy choice between Japanese and Americans, as revealed in previousstudies (e.g. Beebe et al., 1990), in which Americans most frequently usedpositive politeness strategies while the Japanese subjects most frequentlyemployed negative politeness strategies. Brown and Levinson have con-sidered that politeness strategies in the U.S.A. are located in Dyad III, inwhich “symmetrical use of bald on record and positive politeness wouldbe expected” (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 251) (See 2.3.3.3.). Comparedto the strategy choices by American and Japanese subjects, the differencebetween British and Japanese subjects in this study does not appear to beas big, so that it may be valid to categorise British and Japanese culturesas negative politeness cultures, their politeness strategies being distributedin the same dyad.

However, I think that Brown and Levinson’s categorisation of Britishand Japanese cultures as negative politeness cultures, whose politenessstrategies are distributed in Dyad II, needs some modifications, becausethere were also some important differences between British and Japanesesubjects in the choice of requesting strategies, as noted in 7.3.1.1. Themain reason for the need to modify Brown and Levinson’s categorisationis that the Japanese subjects differentiated the choice of requesting strategiesdepending on the situations more than did the British subjects, i.e., insome situations Japanese subjects chose bald-on-record strategies (direct

193

requests) most, and in other situations they chose negative politeness strate-gies (conventionally indirect requests) most.

While Brown and Levinson have admitted that there are differences indegree between British and Japanese cultures in the same dyad, they havenot 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 inthe choice of requesting strategies than did the British subjects. Such varia-bility in strategy choice is an indication/manifestation of the difference indegree between British and Japanese cultures.

In chapter 4, I considered that the difference between British and Japa-nese cultures derived from the features between collectivist and individualistcultures. The results of the choice of requesting strategies have confirmedthis, because the use of both bald-on-record and negative politeness strate-gies by Japanese subjects, depending on the situation, can be consideredas 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 thechoice of requesting strategies by British and Japanese subjects, makingsome modifications to Brown and Levinson’s Dyad II by specifying thedifferences between British and Japanese cultures, and considering thepayoffs explained by Brown and Levinson (1987: 71–73), as noted inchapter 3 (3.5.). I have made the following modifications to Brown andLevinson’s categorisation.1. I have divided Japanese culture into two categories, in one of which

negative politeness strategies are frequently used, and in the other, bald-on-record strategies are employed, the Japanese subjects in this studychoosing both conventionally indirect requests and direct requests,depending on the situations. In the first category, the use of politenessstrategies follows the same pattern as that of the British subjects, butin the second category, bald-on-record strategies are used, reflectingsignificant differences between British and Japanese subjects in thechoice 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 wasnot as many as the Japanese counterparts (See table 15 & graphs 1.1.1.–1.1.8.). Insituations 4, 5, 6 and 8, in which there were significant differences in the choice ofrequesting strategies between British and Japanese subjects, many more Japanesesubjects chose direct requests than did the British. Therefore, the second categorywas added only to Japanese culture.

194

2. Another modification I have made is the addition of P in the first cate-gory of Japanese culture. In Brown and Levinson’s 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 choiceof requesting strategies in this study revealed that there was a tendencyfor Japanese subjects to be more influenced by power differences thanBritish subjects. This is why I have added P to the features of the firstcategory of Japanese culture.

3. I have also added “to show/strengthen solidarity” into the payoff inthe second category of Japanese culture. In chapter 3 (3.5.), I reviewedthe payoffs of different types of requests as proposed by Brown andLevinson. According to them (Ibid.: 72), the payoff of going on recordis efficiency (S can claim that other things are more important thanface, or that the act is not an FTA at all). Brown and Levinson havealso proposed that bald-on-record strategies are used when the overallweightiness of the FTA is very small (See 2.3.3.1.). In situations 5 and8, bald-on-record strategies were chosen most by Japanese subjects. Insituation 5 (S asks a hall mate for some salt), the degree of impositionof 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-recordstrategies 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 degreeof imposition of the requested act was not assessed as being low as insituation 5 (Japanese mean score: 2.383). So, I do not think the use ofbald-on-record strategies in situation 8 can be explained on the basisthat the act is not an FTA at all. I would suggest that bald-on-recordstrategies were chosen most by Japanese subjects in situation 8, becauseboth power difference (Japanese mean score: 1.429) and social distancewere assessed as being small (Japanese mean score: 1.361), it can beassumed that S and H are equal in status and they are close, in otherwords, S regards H as an in-group member, and the choice of bald-on-record strategies is a way of demonstrating this. I would thereforedefine this use of bald-on-record strategies as showing/strengtheningsolidarity.

These modifications are summarised in table 22.

195

Culture Features Requesting Strategies Payoffs

British High D relations Negative politeness To pay respect to Hdominate in public strategies, i.e., con- in return for the FTA,encounters ventionally indirect leaving H unimpeded

requests;Off-record strategies,i.e., off-record requests

Japanese (1) High D, P relations Negative politeness To pay respect to Hdominate in public strategies, i.e., con- in return for the FTA,encounters ventionally indirect leaving H unimpeded

requests;Off-record strategies,i.e., off-record requests

Japanese (2) Low P relations Bald-on-record To claim that the actprevail in close strategies, i.e., direct is not an FTA;relationship requests to show/strengthen

solidarity

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

Sifianou (1992: 96), contrasting England and Greece, argues that in Englandsocial distance is highly valued, and consequently negative politeness andoff-record strategies will prevail, whereas in Greece intimacy and solidarityare valued, so that positive and bald-on-record politeness strategies willpredominate in daily encounters. The comparison of British and Greekcultures is that of negative and positive politeness cultures. However, inthe present case, the comparison of British and Japanese cultures is betweentwo negative politeness cultures. I think it is worth noting that even in anegative politeness culture such as Japanese, in which social distance ishighly valued and negative politeness strategies are often employed, thereis also a “sub-segment” in which solidarity is valued and bald-on-recordpoliteness strategies are preferred (the second category of Japanese culturein table 22). The existence of the second category in Japanese culture canbe also explained from subcultural differences noted by Brown andLevinson (1987: 245) in 2.3.3.3. I would argue that it is too simplistic tocharacterise the Japanese way of communication as being indirect, asdepicted in many stereotypes. I think it is important to note the existenceof the second category in table 22.

196

7.3.2. The Relationship between the Choice of Requesting Strategiesand the Three Variables

As noted in chapter 3 (3.7.1.), Brown and Levinson (1987) claim thatthere is a relationship between the choice of politeness strategies and thethree variables they have suggested, i.e., power difference between S andH, social distance between S and H, and the degree of imposition of therequested act. More specifically, their claim is that the bigger the facethreat as computed by the three variables, the higher the number of thestrategy which is employed. While some previous studies have not con-firmed 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 relation-ship between the choices of requesting strategies and the three variables,as Brown and Levinson have argued. Next, I would like to show this indetail, also providing a summary of the results of the three variables andthe choice of requesting strategies (See table 21).

Among the three variables, the degree of imposition of the requestedact correlated with the choice of the requesting strategies most (See table17). Although Baxter (1984) did not find imposition to be a very influentialvariable, as noted in chapter 3 (3.7.1.), from the results of this study, Iwould argue that imposition is very influential in the choice of requestingstrategies. There were positive correlations between the choice of requestingstrategies and the variable of the degree of imposition of the requested actin four situations out of eight (situations 5, 6, 7, and 8). Positive correlationsbetween choice of requesting strategies and the degree of imposition ofthe requested act indicate that the higher the degree of imposition of therequested act, the more indirect the requesting strategies become. Thisconfirms Brown and Levinson’s claim that the bigger the face threatcomputed by the three variables, the higher the number of strategy whichis employed.

As noted in chapter 3 (3.7.1.), McLaughlin, Cody and O’Hair (1983)did not find the power variable to be predictive of politeness level inoffender accounts, but the results of this study showed that there werepositive correlations between the variable of power difference and thechoice of requesting strategies in situation 6 (Asking a senior member ofthe club to provide the club captain’s phone number) and situation 7 (Askinga tutor for a lift to an airport). In both situations 6 and 7, requests weremade from a lower status to a higher status person. In this study, therewere three situations (situations 3, 6, and 7) in which a lower status person

197

makes such a request. In two situations out of three in which requestswere made from a lower to a higher status person, there were positivecorrelations between the power difference and the choice of the requestingstrategies. Positive correlations between the power difference and the choiceof the requesting strategies indicate that the bigger the power differencebetween S and H, when H has bigger power than S, the more indirect therequesting strategies become. This confirms Brown and Levinson’sprediction 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 socialdistance was the one for which previous studies were most out of linewith Brown and Levinson’s prediction, and there was a disagreementamong researchers whether affect should be included in that of socialdistance or not. The results in 6.4. (See table 17) show that there was arelationship between the assessment of social distance and the choice ofrequesting strategies in situation 1 (Asking a student to deliver some gifts),but the correlation was negative. This means that the bigger the socialdistance between S and H, the more direct the requesting strategiesbecome. This partly confirms Brown and Levinson’s claim in the sensethat the variable of social distance has some relation to the choice ofrequesting strategies, but it does not support their claim that the biggerthe face threat computed by the three variables, the higher the numberof 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 Sand H, it may also be influenced by the power difference. If this is takeninto consideration in situation 1, it can be said that S, being higher instatus, chose direct strategies with H, being lower in status, the socialdistance being assessed as rather big (British mean score: 2.967; Japanesemean score: 3.444). One possible reason for this result may lie in the dif-ficulty of judging the relationship between people, as noted in chapter 3(3.7.2.). It may be more difficult to judge social distance than powerdifference and the degree of imposition of the requested act. Another pos-sible reason for this result may be that it is sometimes difficult to distin-guish between power difference and social distance (Thomas (1995: 129)).It is not surprising that power difference and social distance sometimesoverlap, because some of the components of power difference and socialdistance, such as age, social status, or social class (See 3.7.2. and 3.7.3.)are similar.

198

So far, I have discussed the relationship between the choice of requestingstrategies and the three variables. Here, I would like to consider furtherthe influence of power difference on the choice of requesting strategies byBritish and Japanese subjects, in other words, whether there were anydifferences between British and Japanese subjects in the correlation betweenthe choice of requesting strategies and the variable of power difference.According to the results shown in table 18, the choice of requesting strate-gies by British and Japanese subjects was influenced by power difference.However, Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficients of Japanesesubjects (.239) were bigger than those of British subjects (.107) (See table18). These results indicate that although both British and Japanese subjectswere influenced by power difference when they chose requesting strategies,the Japanese subjects were more influenced by power difference than theBritish. Since the components of the variable of power difference includesocial 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, weremore responsive to status and position than Americans and native speakersof 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 responseto an off-record request (See 3.8.2.), they have not fully discussed it. Ihave attempted to contribute to the development of their theory withregard to responses to off-record requests, by incorporating responses tooff-record requests within their framework, and also by clarifying possibleresponses to off-record requests, defining one of them as solicitousness. Ihave also attempted to investigate whether there were any differencesbetween British and Japanese subjects in the choice of responding strategiesto off-record requests. Based on the results in chapter 6 (6.5. and 6.6.), Iwould like to discuss the choice of responding strategies to off-recordrequests employed by British and Japanese subjects in 7.4.1.1., and considerthe validity of Brown and Levinson’s categorisation of British and Japanese

199

cultures as negative politeness cultures, whose politeness strategies aredistributed in the same dyad from the perspective of responding strategiesto off-record requests in 7.4.1.2. I will discuss the relationship betweenthe choice of responding strategies to off-record requests and the assessmentof the three variables in 7.4.2.

7.4.1.1. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests employedby British and Japanese Subjects

The results in 6.5. (See table 19) show that there were significant differencesbetween British and Japanese subjects in the choice of responding strategiesto 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 recom-

mendation),• 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 captain’s 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 subjectsselected more choices of solicitousness than the British, and in one situation(situation 3), British subjects selected more choices of solicitousness thanthe Japanese (See graphs 1.2.1.; 1.2.3.; 1.2.4.; 1.2.6.; 1.2.7. and 1.2.8. inAppendix 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), theresponding strategies to off-record requests showed a distinctive differencebetween British and Japanese subjects, in that although the most frequentlychosen strategy by Japanese subjects was choice (1), demonstrating solici-tousness, the most frequently chosen strategy by British subjects was choice(3), refusing a request (See graph 1.2.1.). In this situation, there were alsosignificant differences in the assessment of power difference and socialdistance between British and Japanese subjects, the latter having assessedboth of them as bigger than the British subjects (See table 14). There wasa correlation between the choice of responding strategies and the assessment

200

of social distance (See table 20). This means that the significant differencebetween British and Japanese subjects in the assessment of social distancewas influential in their choice of the responding strategies to off-recordrequests (See table 21). The correlation between the assessment of socialdistance and the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests wasnegative, which means that the bigger the social distance, the moresolicitousness is demonstrated. On many occasions, people maydemonstrate solicitousness when they feel close to the beneficiary, becausethey want to be of some help to him or her. However, there may be casesin which people would demonstrate solicitousness even when they do notfeel close to the beneficiary, as was the case with Japanese subjects insituation 1. As noted in chapter 3 (3.8.2.), by demonstrating solicitousness,the performer can gain credit if the beneficiary takes solicitousnesspositively. There appear to be two reasons why the performer demonstratessolicitousness. The first is that the performer wishes to demonstrate theirconcern for the well-being of S; and the second is that s/he just wants togain credit. Some people might demonstrate solicitousness out of the secondmotive, especially if they would not feel close to the beneficiary.

As noted in 7.3.2., it is sometimes difficult to distinguish powerdifference from social distance. In situation 1, H, the potential performerof solicitousness, is a student who is lower in status than S, the tutor, whois the potential beneficiary. In such a situation, Japanese subjects may findit 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 wantsthan do British subjects. In other words, Japanese subjects may have feltthat they were obliged to demonstrate solicitousness because the potentialbeneficiary is a tutor (sensei). This may have to do with the right to makea request, as noted in 7.2.3. It is often the case that Japanese sensei expectshis/her students to perform certain tasks even though those tasks are outsidethe student’s legitimate ones. And Japanese students are expected (ortrained) to fulfill sensei’s desires. So, even if Japanese subjects felt sociallydistant from the tutor, more of them may have opted for solicitousnessthan British subjects, whereas British subjects could refuse such an off-record request, because they may have thought that that request was notwithin the tutor’s “legitimate” right.

2 giri: “social obligations” (Lebra, 1976: 46)3 on: “a relational concept combining a benefit or benevolence given with a debt or

obligation thus incurred” (Lebra, 1976: 91)

201

In situation 4 (A lecturer wants his/her student to give a lift home inthe rain), there was a significant difference in the assessment of the degreeof imposition between British and Japanese subjects, British subjects havingassessed it as higher (See table 14), and there was a positive correlationbetween the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests and theassessment of the degree of imposition (See table 20). It appears that thedifferent assessment of degree of imposition between British and Japanesesubjects led to different choices of responding strategies between Britishand Japanese subjects. Japanese subjects, who assessed the degree of imposi-tion as lower than British subjects, selected more choices of solicitousnessthan British subjects.

In situation 6 (A junior member of a university club wants a seniormember to provide the club captain’s phone number), there were significantdifferences between British and Japanese subjects in the assessment ofpower difference and the assessment of the degree of imposition (See table14). And there were positive correlations in the choice of respondingstrategies to off-record requests and the assessment of all the three variables(See table 20). Consequently, it was the power difference between S and Hand the degree of imposition of the requested act which were the variablesinfluencing the significant difference in the choice of responding strategiesbetween British and Japanese subjects. Although both power differenceand the degree of imposition influenced the choice of responding strategiesto off-record requests, considering the fact that the coefficients of Spear-man’s rank-order correlation coefficients of imposition (.335) were biggerthan those of power difference (.198) (See table 20), it can be said that theinfluence of the degree of imposition was stronger than that of powerdifference. Japanese subjects, who assessed the degree of imposition aslower than British subjects, selected more choices of solicitousness thanBritish 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 inthe assessment of power difference and the assessment of social distance,Japanese subjects having assessed both of them as bigger than Britishsubjects (See table 14). There were positive correlations between the choiceof responding strategies and the assessment of power difference and thechoice of responding strategies and the assessment of the degree of imposi-tion (See table 20). From these results, it can be concluded that the assess-ment of power difference was the variable which influenced the significantlydifferent choice of responding strategies between British and Japanese

202

subjects. In this situation, a tutor, a person with a higher status, preemptedthe desire of a student, a person of a lower status. Although Japanesesubjects assessed power difference as bigger than British subjects, theyselected more choices of solicitousness than their British counterparts.This may indicate that people in general would demonstrate solicitousnesswhen they feel sorry for someone who needs help. All subjects may haveconsidered that the tutor would have felt sorry for the student, consideringthe difficulties he or she faced. This is in line with the underlying concernin solicitousness for someone’s well-being or consideration for others, asnoted in chapter 3 (3.8.2. and 3.8.3.).

Although statistically Japanese subjects selected more choices of solici-tousness than British subjects in situation 7, it is worth noting that themost frequently chosen strategy by Japanese subjects was (2), taking alter-native means other than doing something him/herself, and that bothJapanese and British subjects selected all three choices. British subjectsselected an equal number of choice (2), taking alternative means otherthan doing something him/herself, and choice (3), refusing an off-recordrequest (See graph 1.2.7.). More choices of refusal by British subjects thanJapanese subjects may have led to the statistically significant differencebetween 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 strategiesto off-record requests and the assessment of all the three variables (Seetable 20). However, there was no significant difference between Britishand Japanese subjects in the situational assessment of any variable (Seetable 14). This means that from the results of the present study, it is difficultclearly to identify the factors which led to the difference in responsesbetween British and Japanese subjects, Japanese subjects having mademore choices of solicitousness than British subjects. However, it can beconjectured that economic differences between Japanese and Britishstudents could be the factor which differentiated the choice of respondingstrategies to off-record requests between British and Japanese subjects. Ihave observed that university students in Japan are on the average moreaffluent than those in Britain, and this may be why more solicitousnesswas displayed by Japanese than British subjects, although the most frequentchoice by British subjects was also demonstrating solicitousness (See graph1.2.8.).

Only in situation 3 (A student wants his/her tutor to write a letter ofrecommendation), was more solicitousness chosen by British than Japanese

203

subjects. There were significant differences between British and Japanesesubjects in the assessment of all the three variables (See table 14). Andthere was a positive correlation between the choice of responding strategiesand the assessment of the degree of imposition (See table 20). These resultsindicate that the variable of imposition influenced the different choice ofresponding strategies to off-record requests between British and Japanesesubjects. British subjects assessed the degree of imposition as lower thandid the Japanese subjects, thus choosing more solicitousness than theJapanese.

Next, I would like to look at the responding strategies to off-recordstrategies which did not show any significant differences between Britishand Japanese subjects. The results in 6.5. (See table 19) show that therewere no statistically significant differences between British and Japanesesubjects in the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests in thefollowing 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 byboth British and Japanese subjects was similar. In situation 2, all threechoices were made by both British and Japanese subjects without muchdifference in each choice (See graph 1.2.2.), whereas in situation 5, choice(1), demonstrating solicitousness, was chosen most by both British andJapanese subjects (See graph 1.2.5.). In situation 5, the degree of impositionwas assessed as low by both British and Japanese subjects, there being nosignificant difference between British and Japanese subjects (See table 14).There was a positive correlation between the choice of responding strategiesto off-record requests and the variable of imposition in situation 5 (Seetable 20). The low degree of imposition has led to the choice ofdemonstrating solicitousness. Offering salt is considered to be an act witha low degree of imposition of the requested act in both British and Japanesecultures, because salt is not very expensive and it is likely that most peoplehave salt in the kitchen. Therefore, most of the subjects, both British andJapanese, have selected choice (1), demonstrating solicitousness.

204

7.4.1.2. Categorisation of British and Japanese Cultures from thePerspective of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

It seems to me that Brown and Levinson did not consider respondingstrategies to off-record requests when they categorised British and Japanesecultures as negative politeness cultures, whose politeness strategies aredistributed in Dyad II, because although they (1987: 71) have brieflymentioned responses to off-record request, they have not considered re-sponding strategies to off-record requests. So, while it may not be fair tojudge their categorisation from the perspectives of responding strategiesto off-record requests, the results of the choice of responding strategies tooff-record requests in 6.5. indicate that Brown and Levinson’s categorisationof politeness strategies in British and Japanese cultures into the same dyadwas simplistic, because in six situations out of eight, there were significantdifferences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of respond-ing strategies to off-record requests, Japanese subjects having chosen moresolicitousness than British subjects in five situations among them. It maybe that the different responding strategies to off-record requests by Britishand Japanese subjects can be explained better from the viewpoint of individ-ualist and collectivist cultures, because demonstrating solicitousness, whichis connected to interpersonal reality, is more valued in collectivist culturesthan in individualist cultures, as noted in chapter 4.

Brown and Levinson may not have considered the influence of thefeatures of collectivist and individualist cultures when they categorisedBritish and Japanese cultures in the same dyad, but there appears to besome influence by the different features between collectivist andindividualist cultures, as de Kadt (1998) argues.

Although Brown and Levinson do assume considerable ‘cultural elaboration’ of theirbasic model in terms of “what kinds of acts threaten face, what sorts of personshave special rights to face-protection, and what kinds of personal style … areespecially appreciated” (1987: 13), these possibilities do not explain the overallpolarisation of request strategies in Zulu into direct strategies and hints. Ratherthere appears to be a different logic involved. Underlying this logic must be thestrongly collectivist thrust of Zulu society, … (de Kadt, 1998: 175)

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

205

7.4.2. The Relationship between the Choice of RespondingStrategies to Off-record Requests and the Three Variables

The results in 6.6. (See table 20) show that the assessment of the degree ofimposition was the one which had the most correlations with the choiceof responding strategies to off-record requests among the three variableswhich were investigated in this study. In fact, in all the situations, therewere positive correlations between the choice of responding strategies tooff-record requests and the degree of imposition. This means that the higherthe degree of imposition, the more refusal is chosen; in other words, thelower the degree of imposition, the more solicitousness is displayed. Itmay be natural for people in general to demonstrate solicitousness whenthe degree of imposition is low, because the cost to the performer ofsolicitousness is not so great.

The results in 6.6. also show that there were positive correlationsbetween the variable of power difference and the choice of respondingstrategies 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 performerof solicitousness is higher in status. Therefore, the results here indicatethat when the power difference between S and H is big, and when H, thepotential performer of solicitousness, has bigger power than S (e.g. H ishigher in status, or older than S.), the more likely it is for refusal to bechosen. This suggests that the person who has bigger power may alsohave power to refuse an off-record request.

The results in 6.6. also indicate that there were relationships betweenthe variable of social distance and the choice of responding strategies tooff-record requests (See table 20). In three situations (situations 5, 6, and8), there were positive correlations between the variable of social distanceand the choice of responding strategies to off-record requests, and therewas a negative correlation between them in one situation (situation 1).The results having positive correlations indicate that the bigger the socialdistance between S and H, the more refusal is chosen, in other words, thesmaller the distance between S and H, the more solicitousness is displayed.The result having a negative correlation indicates that the bigger the socialdistance becomes, the more solicitousness is demonstrated (See also thediscussion of situation 1 in 7.4.1.1.).

Brown and Levinson have not provided concrete strategies of responsesto off-record requests. I have tried to fill this gap, attempting to developtheir theory in the area of responses to off-record requests, and, based on

206

the results of Fukushima (1997b), I have suggested three choices of re-sponses to off-record requests: demonstrating solicitousness, taking analternative means other than doing something him/herself, and refusing arequest. These responding strategies to off-record requests have not beenformulated based on Brown and Levinson’s scale of strategies, such asbald-on-record, positive and negative politeness, off-record strategies, anddon’t do FTAs. Consequently, from the results of the responding strategiesto off-record requests, it is difficult either to support or deny Brown andLevinson’s claim that the bigger the face threat computed by the threevariables, the higher the number of the strategy to be employed. However,the results here certainly show that the three variables influence the choiceof responding strategies to off-record requests.

7.5. Conclusion

Some significant differences have been revealed between British and Japa-nese subjects in the assessment of the three variables, power differencebetween S and H, social distance between S and H, and the degree ofimposition of the requested act. Some of the cross-cultural differences insituational assessment led to different choices of requesting and respondingstrategies to off-record requests by British and Japanese subjects, becausethere were correlations between the assessment of those variables and therequesting and responding strategies to off-record requests. In other words,the three variables were influential in deciding politeness strategies. Amongthe three variables, that of the degree of imposition was the most influential.There were positive correlations between the variable of the degree ofimposition and the choice of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requests. These results support Brown and Levinson’s claim thattheir three variables are influential in determining choice of politenessstrategies.

Japanese subjects chose more direct requesting strategies than Britishsubjects in four situations out of eight, in which (1) S has more powerthan H; (2) the degree of imposition is low, or (3) S and H are equal instatus. The choice of direct requesting strategies by Japanese subjects inthose situations was considered to be appropriate in the Japanese language.

207

Whereas Japanese subjects chose direct requesting strategies and conven-tionally indirect requesting strategies, depending on the situation, Britishsubjects chose conventionally indirect requests most frequently in all thesituations. This may indicate that Japanese subjects are influenced by somefeatures of a collectivist culture, showing more variability in the choice ofpoliteness strategies.

The results of the choice of requesting strategies partly confirmed Brownand Levinson’s categorisation of British and Japanese cultures as negativepoliteness cultures, whose politeness strategies are distributed in Dyad II,in the sense that negative politeness strategies (conventionally indirect re-quests) were chosen by both British and Japanese subjects. The resultshere also clarified the differences between British and Japanese cultures,which Brown and Levinson have not elaborated. That is, Japanese subjectsdifferentiated requesting strategies more than did British subjects, havingchosen bald-on-record as well as negative politeness strategies, dependingon the situations, as noted above. I have suggested some modifications toBrown and Levinson’s categorisation of British and Japanese cultures byelaborating some of the differences between British and Japanese cultures,which Brown and Levinson, while noting, have not specified. Althoughthere were some differences in the choice of requesting strategies betweenBritish and Japanese subjects, I would not go so far as Matsumoto (1988)to refute Brown and Levinson’s cataegorisation, but I would suggest thatBrown and Levinson’s categorisation is valid with the modifications I havemade in 7.3.1.2.

The results of the responding strategies to off-record requests showedthat Japanese subjects selected more solicitousness than did British subjectsin five situations out of eight. As noted in chapter 3 (3.8.2.), the potentialperformer of solicitousness demonstrates solicitousness when s/he showsconsideration for the potential beneficiary, i. e., when s/he wants to dosomething for the potential beneficiary, out of interpersonal reality suchas kikubari. As noted in chapter 4, interpersonal reality is highly valued incollectivist cultures. Therefore, the results of this study indicate that Japa-nese subjects still behave according to some features of a collectivist culture,despite some changes in values (having developed more individualistfeatures with the rapid growth of economy) especially after World War II.

This study has provided some empirical data on British and Japanesecultures in the aspect of requesting and responding strategies to off-recordrequests. To sum up, this study has confirmed Brown and Levinson’s theoryin the following points.

208

• There were cross-cultural variations between British and Japanesecultures in the assessment of the three variables suggested by Brownand Levinson;

• These three variables were influential in deciding politeness strategies,although there were some differences in the degree to which they wereinfluential;

• There were some differences between British and Japanese subjects inthe choice of requesting strategies; and

• Their categorisation of British and Japanese cultures as negativepoliteness cultures, whose politeness strategies are distributed in thesame dyad, was valid with some modifications.

I have also developed Brown and Levinson’s theory in the area of responsesto off-record requests. I have suggested that there are three concreteresponding strategies to off-record requests, i.e., demonstratingsolicitousness, taking an alternative means other than doing somethinghim/herself, and refusing a request, while the results of this study haveshown that Japanese subjects would demonstrate solicitousness more oftenthan British subjects, this difference being attributable to collectivism. Ihave suggested that the features of collectivist/individualist cultures wouldbe helpful in explaining some of the differences between British andJapanese subjects in the choice of politeness strategies, being in line withde Kadt (1998).

209

CHAPTER 8

Conclusion

8.1. Introduction

In this study I have attempted to apply and extend Brown and Levinson’s(1978; 1987) politeness theory to the analysis of requests and responses tooff-record requests in two different cultural contexts, British and Japanese.Although Brown and Levinson have established a system of politenessstrategies, there are gaps in their theory, one of which concerns assigningBritish and Japanese societies to Dyad II. Brown and Levinson appear tobelieve that they can categorise cultures according to two polar dimensions,P and D, as employed in four dyads (op. cit., 250–251). As a result, theyclassify Japanese and English cultures together in the same dyad. Giventhe observed differences between British and Japanese cultures, I believethat it is necessary to specify the features of this categorisation in moredetail, drawing on cross-cultural comparisons, for which their theoryprovides a satisfactory basis. Another concerns responses to off-recordrequests. These gaps have provided an opportunity to test their model inthis study, which makes a contribution to an under-researched aspect oftheir theory.

As noted in chapter 2, Brown and Levinson’s framework is sufficientlyrobust enough to be used for cross-cultural comparison and empiricalresearch. This empirical study, which is based on Brown and Levinson’sframework, focuses on requesting and responding strategies to off-recordrequests by comparable British and Japanese subjects, using comparablesituations. By attending to issues of comparability of subjects and situations,I have attempted to avoid the limitations of previous research in whichselection and comparability were inadequately controlled. I have alsoadopted an elicitation procedure which gives priority to choice of strategy,thus avoiding the problems which arise, particularly in a cross-culturalcontext, when the focus is on exponents.

The research results partly confirm Brown and Levinson’s categorisationof politeness strategies of British and Japanese cultures into Dyad II, because

210

both groups of subjects opt for negative politeness strategies as predictedby their model. In addition, the results of this study reveal that there weresome significant differences between the choice of requesting and respond-ing strategies to off-record requests by British and Japanese subjects. Forexample, the Japanese subjects opted for more direct requests and solicitous-ness than did the British in some situations. On the basis of the differencesin the choice of requesting strategies between British and Japanese subjects,I have suggested a refinement to Brown and Levinson’s Dyad II categorisa-tion (See Table 22, 7.3.1.2.) by introducing a combination of +D and +P,and adding one subcategory to Japanese culture. Although Brown andLevinson have included Japanese culture in Dyad II, they have not collecteddata from Japan. Their data consist of first-hand tape-recorded usage forEnglish, Tzeltal and South Indian Tamil and only occasional examples aredrawn from secondary sources for Malagasy, Japanese, and other languages(op. cit.: 59). By collecting data from Japanese subjects, I have extendedBrown and Levinson’s theory to a culture not represented in their work.

Some differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choiceof responding strategies to off-record requests could not be sufficientlyaccounted for by Brown and Levinson’s classification. So, I tried to findsome other way of accounting for these results, and the cultural dimensionof individualism/collectivism seemed to provide a solution. By showingthat cross-cultural comparisons need to be multidimensional instead ofrelying on a single dimension, I believe that this study makes a usefulcontribution to cross-cultural pragmatics.

In this final chapter, I will summarise my findings in 8.2., relatingthem to the objectives as outlined in chapters 1 and 5, evaluate this studyin 8.3., consider its implications in 8.4., and suggest further issues whichcould 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 Iwill review the answers revealed by the data obtained in this study.

211

8.2.1. Situational Assessment

Firstly, I asked whether British subjects and Japanese subjects perceivecomparable situations differently in terms of the three variables: powerdifference and social distance between S and H, and the degree of impositionof the requested act. To answer this question, I established a set of situationswhich were comparable in the cultural settings concerned, and thencompared the ways in which the two sets of subjects assessed the situationsin terms of Brown and Levinson’s three variables.

The results indicate that there were some significant differences betweenBritish and Japanese subjects in the assessment of these three variables(See table 14). This was in line with Brown and Levinson (1987), asparaphrased by Holtgraves and Yang (1992: 247) that “… there may becultural 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 dimensionsP, D, and R contribute to the seriousness of an FTA, and thus to a deter-mination of the level of politeness with which, other things being equal,an FTA will be communicated.” This means that the perception of thethree variables influences the choice of politeness strategies. Since therewere some significant differences between British and Japanese subjectsin the assessment of the three variables, it was considered that there wouldbe some differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice ofrequesting and responding strategies to off-record requests, and indeed,some significant differences between British and Japanese subjects wererevealed, as summarised in 8.2.2. and 8.2.3. Thus, research questions fourand five (See 5. 2.) were answered: the situational assessment of the threevariables did influence the choice of requesting strategies, as well as thechoice of responding strategies to off-record requests.

8.2.2. Requesting Strategies

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

212

more than the British subjects. In the situations in which there were nosignificant differences between British and Japanese subjects, conventionallyindirect requesting strategies were chosen by both British and Japanesesubjects.

Brown and Levinson’s categorisation of British and Japanese culturesin 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 conventionallyindirect requesting strategies. However, from the point of revealing somesignificant differences between British and Japanese subjects in the choiceof requesting strategies, Brown and Levinson’s categorisation of Britishand Japanese cultures in the same dyad needs more detailed specification,focusing on the difference between these two cultures. According to myresults, the most evident difference between the choice of requestingstrategies by British and Japanese subjects is that while the Japanese subjectschose both bald-on-record and negative politeness strategies, i.e., directrequests and conventionally indirect requests, depending on the situation,the most frequent choice in all situations by British subjects was negativepoliteness strategies, i.e., conventionally indirect requests. The Japanesesubjects showed greater variability in the choice of requesting strategiesthan did the British subjects, a difference which can be accounted for bythe differences between British and Japanese cultures in terms of indi-vidualist 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. Thisdifference tends to be confirmed in my data, from which I would suggestthat it is not appropriate to describe Japanese people as being “indirect”or Japanese communication as “implicit,” as commonly characterised inthe literature. Instead, it would be more appropriate to characterise Japa-nese subjects in this study as being more responsive to the context thantheir British counterparts, in other words, they appear to pay more attentionto 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 thethree variables and the choice of requesting strategies showed that thechoice of requesting strategies was influenced by the assessment of thethree variables (See table 17). Of the three variables, the degree of imposi-tion of the requested act was the most influential in the choice of requesting

213

strategies. In four situations out of eight, there were positive correlationsbetween the degree of imposition and the choice of requesting strategies.That is, the higher the degree of imposition, the more indirect requestingstrategies were chosen, which confirmed Brown and Levinson’s prediction.

8.2.3. Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

Thirdly, there was the question of whether there was a difference in theresponding strategies to off-record requests by British subjects and thoseby Japanese subjects. The results show that there were significant differencesbetween the British and Japanese subjects in the choice of respondingstrategies (See table 19), Japanese subjects demonstrating more solicitous-ness than British subjects in five situations out of eight. Such concern withsolicitousness shows some collectivist features, because interpersonal reality,such as kikubari, is a feature of collectivist cultures like Japan rather thanindividualist cultures like Britain, as noted in chapter 4. It would appear,therefore, that the difference in responding strategy choice by British andJapanese subjects is accounted for by differences between British andJapanese cultures in terms of individualism and collectivism.

The results of the correlation between situational assessment of thethree variables and the choice of responding strategies to off-record requestsshowed that while the three variables influenced the choice of respondingstrategies to off-record requests (See table 20), the degree of impositionwas the most influential in the choice of responding strategies. There werepositive correlations between the degree of imposition and the choice ofresponding strategies to off-record requests in all situations, which meansthat the lower the degree of imposition, the more solicitousness was chosen.This demonstrated that solicitousness was displayed more frequently whenthe cost to the performer was low.

8.3. Evaluating This Study

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

214

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 nega-tive politeness cultures, whose politeness strategies are distributed in DyadII (See 2.3.3.3.). So far, there have been many studies comparing politenessstrategies in cultures which are classified as negative politeness culturesand 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 myknowledge, there have been no studies comparing politeness strategies intwo negative politeness cultures. Thus, the present study, using subjectsfrom 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 thesituations used in such studies were not comparable between the culturescompared, the reliability of the data would be impaired. In this study, Ihave taken some pains to avoid such limitations, beginning with carefullyidentifying comparable situations.

As noted in chapter 5 (5.5.1.1.5.), it is important to ensure the com-parability of the situations used in cross-cultural studies. As a step towardsachieving this, I conducted SA 96 in which I rejected situations whichwere judged not to be comparable by British and Japanese subjects in thatphase of my study.

Since the subjects were all university students, the situations used inthis study, based on my field notes or a preliminary questionnaire onrequests (See 5.5.1.1.5.), were selected so as to reflect students’ life inJapan and the U.K. This means that the subjects did not have to put them-selves in a totally different world. In other words, they could easily imaginethe 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 bothgroups of subjects.

215

3. Controlling the choice of subjects

The subjects used in this study were all undergraduates in both British andJapanese settings. I tried to limit the choice of subjects in terms of occupa-tion, level of education and age, so as to ensure that as far as possible,differences in choices of politeness strategies were not the outcome ofdifferences attributable to personal characteristics. As noted in chapter 5(5.5.3.), I also restricted the subjects’ place of residence, because this couldalso influence the choice of politeness strategies.

In some previous studies (e.g. Hashimoto et al., 1992), the backgroundand characteristics of subjects were not fully specified, so that it was notclear whether they were Americans, or British, or some other nationalities.As there are some differences between the politeness strategies used byAmericans and those by British, I think it is necessary to limit and beexplicit about the nationality of the subjects, and for that reason, in thisstudy, 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 respondingstrategies to off-record requests assessed the three variables, i.e., powerdifference between S and H, social distance between S and H, and thedegree of imposition of the requested act. In some previous studies (e.g.Blum-Kulka et al., 1985; Holmes, 1990; Trosborg, 1987; and Wood andKroger, 1991), the researchers’ own assessment was used and the subjectswere not given an opportunity to assess the variables concerned. However,researchers’ and subjects’ assessment may be different, so it is importantto give the subjects themselves an opportunity to assess the variables,otherwise, we cannot tell how the variables influence their choices ofpoliteness strategies.

216

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 andJapanese cultures is one of the strengths of this study, the subjects concernedrepresent only one section of diverse societies, and if the data were takenfrom people of different sections, such as a different age group, occupation,level of education, or social class, the results might differ. Consequently, itshould be noted that the results of this study only indicate the strategychoices of British and Japanese undergraduates and although I have used“British” and “Japanese” as labels, the data do not represent the whole ofthe 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 thecountry. Data collection of this study does not cover the whole area ofJapan nor that of Britain, being confined to the place of the subjects’present residence, Tsuru, Yamanashi in Japan and Reading, Berkshire inthe 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 alower status person, in three situations a request was made from a lowerstatus person to a higher status person, and in other three situations amongequals. While it would have been better to have had more situations ineach category, I also had to consider feasibility. If the subjects had beengiven too many situations, they would not have filled in the questionnaire,or they would have been bored and made any choice without thinkingseriously. Consequently, I felt that it was wise to limit the number of situa-tions, although it must be admitted that eight situations may also restrictthe range of generalisations which can be made.

217

3. Standard/non-standard situations

Although the situations were carefully examined in terms of comparabilitybetween the cultures compared, they were not consistent from the viewpointof standard/non-standard situations (cf. Hoppe-Graff et al., 1985). Thatis, some situations were standard situations which may occur frequently,and other situations were non-standard situations which may not occurfrequently.

4. Number of variables

In this study, I have considered the three variables, power difference, socialdistance between S and H and the degree of imposition of the requestedact, suggested by Brown and Levinson, as those which determine choiceof politeness strategies. However, there were some situations in which,although there were significant differences between British and Japanesesubjects in the choice of politeness strategies, it was not the three variableswhich differentiated the choices (Examples of this are the requestingstrategies in situations 4, 5 and 8; and the responding strategies to off-record requests in situation 8.). In other words, there are factors otherthan the three variables investigated in this study which have influencedthe different choices of politeness strategies between British and Japanesesubjects. Although those factors were not identified in this study, it wasconjectured that such factors as economic differences between British andJapanese students, and in- and out-group distinction may have influencedsome strategy choices.

5. Strategy choices

The subjects were asked to choose a strategy in the questionnaire, andexample sentences were given for each strategy so that they couldunderstand the meaning of the terminology. Such example sentences mayhave influenced the subjects’ strategy choices, so it is difficult to tell whethertheir choices were influenced by the strategy or the example sentences.

218

8.4. Implications of This Study

1. Cultural differences

There were some significant differences between British and Japanesesubjects in the assessment of the three variables. There were correlationsbetween the assessment of the three variables and the choice of requestingand responding strategies to off-record requests, and there were significantdifferences between British and Japanese subjects in the choice of requestingand responding strategies to off-record requests. These results imply thatunderlying cultural differences play an important role in explainingpoliteness strategies, as shown in previous studies (e.g. Blum-Kulka andHouse, 1989; Eisenstein and Bodman, 1993; Meier, 1996).

2. Cultural generalisations

There are some stereotypes about different cultures, and the Japanese peopleare sometimes characterised as “indirect,” which is sometimes usedsynonymously with “polite.” However, as the results of the choice ofrequesting strategies show, the stereotype of the Japanese people as beingindirect does not always hold true. This demonstrates the danger of culturalgeneralisations, as noted by LoCastro (1990: 250) who points out that:

There is a danger in interacting with others on the basis of stereotypes; behaviormust 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 thatJapanese subjects chose more direct requesting strategies than British sub-jects in four out of eight situations. This result has an important implication.A problem arises when Japanese people making requests in English are in-fluenced by the way of making requests in Japanese. In other words, thereis cross-language pragmatic transfer or interference. Since direct requestsare appropriate in the Japanese language in some situations (e.g. whenmaking requests among equals), requests in English by Japanese peoplesometimes sound too direct and rude (See Fukushima, 1990). It may beassumed that as the intention of the Japanese speakers is not to make re-

219

quests which can be interpreted as rude by their English-speaking inter-locutors, some misunderstandings are possible in cross-cultural commu-nication because of this mismatch of intention and uptake. Teachers ofEFL/ESL should be aware of such problems and take pragmatic aspects intoaccount.

8.5. Suggestions for Further Research

1. Components of each variable

As Brown and Levinson claim, the factors used to estimate the threevariables are culture-specific. However, I did not investigate what thesubjects considered to be the components of each variable. I have reviewedthe components of variables in 3.7.2., and I have explained what I thinkthe 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 whichthe 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 indetail what I considered to be the components of each variable, I made abrief explanation of the components of each variable in the rubrics of thequestionnaire as follows (See Appendix 2.3.):

• The power difference may be related to the relative status, role or ageof the parties.

• Social distance is related to the degree of closeness or familiarity betweenthe parties.

• The imposition may be high if the requested act requires a lot of timeor effort on the part of the requestee or will be a psychological orfinancial burden; or if the requester does not have a right to ask the re-questee to perform the requested act; or if the requestee does not havean obligation to carry out the requested act.

However, it was up to the subjects themselves to decide what they con-sidered to be the components of each variable. I did not ask the subjects toclarify what they considered to be the components. It is also possible thatthe subjects did not think so consciously about what the components of

220

each variable were. In other words, they intuitively assessed each variableon the scale. In future studies, it would be interesting to investigate whatthe subjects consider to be the components of each variable, whether thereare any cross-cultural differences concerning the components of eachvariable and whether the relative importance in the components of eachvariable varies according to cultures or situations.

As noted in chapter 7, it may have been difficult to judge social distancecompared with the other two variables. It is sometimes more difficult tojudge the relationship between people in terms of familiarity and closenessthan 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 dynamicand open to negotiation. Furthermore, because of the variations in familypatterns, social organisations and values, the relationship among peoplecannot be judged by traditional assumptions, such as that of the parent-child 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 asage, social status, or social class, are similar, and it may be difficult todistinguish between power difference and social distance. It would beinteresting to consider the components of social distance further, in par-ticular 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 haveinfluenced the significant differences between British and Japanese subjectsin the choice of requesting and responding strategies to off-record requestsin some situations. However, these factors were not identified in this study.In order to identify the factors which influenced the choice of politenessstrategies other than the three variables studied here, it will be necessary toinvestigate many more variables which may influence this choice. Forinstance, gender difference can be another variable, as revealed in someprevious studies (e.g., Tannen, 1981; Holtgraves, 1991). Further investigationon 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 alreadyprovided for the subjects to select in the questionnaire. The choices were

221

those in which H understood that S has made a request, because S’s intentionin making the off-record requests was specified in the descriptions of thesituations in the questionnaire. This meant that the potential performer ofsolicitousness did not have to infer the desires of the potential beneficiary.In everyday life, however, it is necessary for the performer of solicitousnessto infer both that a request has in fact been made and what S’s desires are,as noted in chapter 3 (3.8.3.). There are some occasions in which S intendedto make requests by the use of off-record requests, but H could not interpretthese as requests. As noted in chapter 4, inference (sasshi), which is oftennecessary to interpret the intention of the speaker of off-record requests,is more practiced and valued in collectivist cultures than in individualistcultures, so that there may be some cross-cultural differences in the inter-pretation of off-record requests. It will be interesting to research in furtherdetail whether there are any differences in the interpretation of off-recordrequests among people from different cultural backgrounds. Differentcultural backgrounds do not necessarily mean different nationalities, butalso can be different generations, as noted by Kitade (1993: 45), whoregrets that Japanese young people these days are lacking the communi-cation of enryo and sasshi.

4. Uptake of solicitousness

Even when people demonstrate solicitousness for the benefit of thebeneficiary, the latter does not always appreciate the offer of solicitousness(See 3.8.5.). Whether solicitousness is taken positively or negatively maydepend on various factors, such as situations, cultural background andindividual tastes, etc. How solicitousness is interpreted is another interestingarea for further study, investigating whether there are any cultural differ-ences, and the relationship between features of situations and the interpreta-tion of solicitousness.

5. Investigating the strategy choice

As noted in 8.3.2., it is possible that some subjects could have made theirchoices under the influence of the example sentences. In order to investigatestrategy choice in further detail, it would be possible to conduct a two-stage study: by (1) giving the subjects the questionnaire with the strategychoices only while ensuring that the subjects understood the meaning of

222

strategy choices and (2) giving the subjects the questionnaire with boththe strategy choices and the example sentences. If there were no significantdifferences between the results of the first and the second studies, it couldbe 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 analysepoliteness in stretches of talk. Since written questionnaires were used inthis study and linguistic realisations were not investigated as noted in5.5.1.2., it was impossible to investigate sequences in conversation. Infuture studies, it is hoped that some kind of methodology, which caninvestigate politeness in sequences, will be developed.

Kasper (1994: 3210) notes some limitations of the research of politenessand suggests the direction for future research:

The complex research program to be addressed by future politeness studies is notonly to specify and examine the relationship between contextual variables anddiscourse domains. Such research will also have to uncover how the ongoing discourseitself constitutes, maintains, and alters participants’ rights and obligations, increasesand reduces distance, fosters liking and disliking, and so forth. Politeness will thereforehave to be studied not only as a dependent variable but as a major force in shapinghuman relationships.

In order to study some features which could not be investigated in thisstudy such as sequences in conversation and the relationship between theongoing discourse and the variables such as rights and obligations of Sand H, distance between S and H, and also to increase the validity of themethodology, some methods other than the written questionnaires or acombination of different methods, i. e., a multimethod approach, couldbe employed. Wolfson et al. (1989: 194) note that:

Research into human behavior is notoriously “squishy” and requires multipleapproaches in order to reach a level of validity which will give our analyses bothpredictive power and generalizability. … our own intuitions cannot provide us witha complete picture of the social circumstances that result in a given speech act. It isonly through an iterative process which makes use both of systematic observationand increasingly sensitive elicitation procedures and analyses that we can begin tocapture the social knowledge that is the unconscious possession of every member ofa speech community.

223

The use of a combination of different approaches is also supported byCohen and Olshtain (1994: 147) who point out that no single method willthoroughly assess the behavior in question.

With regard to using multiple approaches, it is also necessary to noteBrown and Levinson’s (1987: 22) remarks on methodology:

… quantitative evaluation of politeness redress in natural language data must alwaysbe 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 Levinson’s fifth strategy

In 2.3.3.1., I reviewed Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies, andhave used them in this study. However, neither Brown and Levinson nor Ihave discussed Brown and Levinson’s fifth strategy, i. e., remaining silentsufficiently. Sifianou (1995b; 1997) casts doubts on the claimed hierarchyof the strategies, noting that:

Brown and Levinson (1987 [1978]) regard silence as the ultimate expression ofpoliteness, although they offer no discussion of it. (Sifianou, 1997: 79)

As Sifianou rightly points out, Brown and Levinson (1987: 72) excludethe fifth strategy from their discussion, saying that:

… the payoff for the fifth strategic choice, ‘Don’t do the FTA’, is simply that Savoids offending H at all with this particular FTA. Of course S also fails to achievehis desired communication, and as there are naturally no interesting linguistic reflexesof this last-ditch strategy, we will ignore it in our discussion henceforth.

And according to Brown and Levinson’s politeness scale, “the higher thenumber, the greater the risk of loss of face presented by the situation, andthus the more polite the strategy,” (Sifianou, 1997: 67) which means thatthe fifth strategy is the most polite one among the five strategies. However,as Sifianou (Ibid.: 69) notes, no discussion concerning this ranking ofpoliteness strategies has considered the fifth superstrategy.

Sifianou (Ibid.) further argues that:

Brown and Levinson’s superstrategy “Don’t do the FTA” is inadequate to accountfor the multifaceted functions of silence, since this strategy relates to a very restricted

224

number of instances. I have suggested that instead of treating silence as a separatesuperstrategy, the theory could be enriched by subsuming facts of silence under theother superstrategies, since it appears capable of realising positive, negative andoff-record politeness. Given a particular context, silence … can realise the desire toavoid imposition or can indicate shared common ground.

I think Sifianou makes an important point, and that there is more room toconsider the fifth strategy, although it was beyond the scope of this study.In future research, Brown and Levinson’s fifth strategy can be investigatedwith regard to such aspects as meaning and interpretation of silence, cross-cultural perspectives (in some cultures silence is something to be avoided,whereas in some other cultures it is rather desirable), the relationshipbetween social variables and the meaning of silence (e.g., the superior’ssilence may indicate domination, whereas the inferior’s silence may indicatesubordination or defiance against the superior’s authority), where it occurs,whether being silent is polite or not, and whether S keeps silent with orwithout having an intention to make H do something.

8.6. Final Remarks

I took an interest in researching requesting strategies from observing theways of making requests in English by Japanese speakers. I myself am aJapanese who was educated in Japan, learning English as a foreign languageat 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 thatwithout 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 BritishEnglish and Japanese, because there seem to be some stereotypes of theJapanese people in the literature, who are often described as being “in-direct,” but from my personal experiences living in English-speakingcountries, and from the data I obtained (e.g. Fukushima, 1993a & b;Fukushima, 1996b), the Japanese are not always “indirect” in makingrequests. This was confirmed by the data in this study, because the Japanesesubjects made more direct requests than did the British in some situations.When a Japanese makes direct requests in English, being influenced by

225

the way of making requests in Japanese, which would not be appropriatein English, a native English H may stigmatise the Japanese as rude. Throughthis study, I have drawn attention to the fact that there are different waysof making requests in different languages. I hope this study will help peopleto understand different ways of making requests from their own and preventsome possible misunderstandings between people from different culturalbackgrounds.

I particularly wanted to research responding strategies to off-recordrequests, because they were not sufficiently discussed in Brown and Levin-son and there have been no previous studies on responses to off-recordrequests, although this is an important research area as noted in 3.8. Therewas also my personal experience. I have experienced being hurt, when Ihave demonstrated solicitousness, wishing for the well-being of the bene-ficiary, only to find that the beneficiary, who was from a different culturalbackground, interpreted my solicitousness as officiousness. By contrast,when I demonstrated such solicitousness to Japanese people, they appre-ciated it. Then, I realised that there were some cultural differences in theuptake 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 ofBritish and Japanese cultures in aspect of responding strategies to off-record requests, and that this study will be of some help in reducingmisunderstandings between people from different cultural backgrounds,assumptions, and ways of communication. As noted in this study, I haveattempted to develop Brown and Levinson’s theory in the area of responsesto 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 theoryand research in politeness and cross-cultural pragmatics.

226


227

Bibliography

Adegbija, E. (1989). A comparative study of politeness phenomena in Nigerian English.Multilingua, 8 (1), 57–80.

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), 221–237.

Arndt, H. & Janney, R. W. (1985). Politeness revisited: cross-modal supportive strategies.IRAL, 23 (4), 281–300.

Aronsson, K. & Sätterlund-Larsson, U. (1987). Politeness strategies and doctor-patientcommunication: On the social choreography of collaborative thinking. Journal ofLanguage and Social Psychology, 6, 1–27.

Asante, M. K. & Gudykunst, W. B. (1989). Handbook of international and interculturalcommunication. 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. 1–23).Bologna: Cooperative Libraria Universitaria Editrice.

Aston, G. (1995). Say ‘Thank you’: Some Pragmatic Constraints in ConversationalClosing. Applied Linguistics, 16 (1), 57–86.

Attardo, S. (1998). Are socio-pragmatics and (Neo)-Gricean pragmatics incompatible?Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 627–636.

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, 313–347.Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Natural conversations, institutional talk,

and interlanguage pragmatics. Unpublished manuscript. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity, Program in Applied Linguistics.

Bargiela-Chiappini, F. & Harris, S. J. (1996). Requests and status in business cor-respondence. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 635–662.

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 andRealities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Barnlund, D. C. & Araki, S. (1985). Intercultural encounters: The management ofcompliments by Japanese and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16,9–26.

Barnlund, D. C. & Yoshioka, M. (1990). Apologies: Japanese and American styles.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 193–206.

Barnouw, V. (1982). An Introduction to Anthropology (Vol. II: Ethnology). Homewood,Illinois: Dorsey Press.

228

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. HumanCommunication Research, 10 (3), 427–456.

Bayraktaroglu, A. (1991). Politeness and interactional imbalance. International Journalof the Sociology of Language, 92, 5–34.

Becker, J. A., Kimmel, H. D. & Bevill, M. J. (1989). The Interactive Effects of RequestForm and Speaker Status on Judgments of Requests. Journal of PsycholinguisticResearch, 18 (5), 521–531.

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 theInternational TESOL Convention, New York.

Beebe, L. M. & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data vs written questionnairedata: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In Neu, J.& Gass, S. M. (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 65–86). Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.

Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. (1989a). “Do you have a bag?”: Social Status & PatternedVariation in Second Language Acquisition. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D. &Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Discourse andPragmatics (pp. 103–125). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. (1989b). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threateningspeech acts. In Eisenstein, M. (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage (pp. 199–218). NewYork: 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 CommunicativeCompetence in a Second Language (pp. 55–73). 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. 63–91). London: Sage.

Bilbow, G. (1995). Requesting Strategies in the Cross-Cultural Business Meeting.Pragmatics, 5 (1), 45–55.

Biletzki, A. (1996). Is there a history of pragmatics? Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 455–470.

Blaker, M. (1977). Japanese international negotiation style. New York: ColumbiaUniversity.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language.Applied Linguistics, 3, 29–59.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different? Journalof Pragmatics, 11 (2), 131–146.

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: Requestsand Apologies (pp. 37–70). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

229

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, Theoryand Practice (pp. 255–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Discourse Pragmatics. In van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.), Discourse asSocial Interaction: Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction Volume 2(pp. 38–63). London: Sage Publications.

Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B. & Gherson, R. (1985). The language of requesting in Israelisociety. In Forgas, J. (Ed.), Language and Social Situation (pp. 113–141). New York/Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural studyof speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5 (3), 196–213.

Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance andpragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 165–180.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requestsand Apologies. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Blum-Kulka, S. & House, J. (1989). Cross-Cultural & Situational Variation in RequestingBehavior. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-CulturalPragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 123–154). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex PublishingCorporation.

Bond, M. H., Wan, K., Leung, K. & Giacalone, R. A. (1985). How are Responses toVerbal Insult Related to Cultural Collectivism and Power Distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16 (1), 111–127.

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, 103–125.

Brislin, R. W. (1994). Individualism and Collectivism as the Source of Many SpecificCultural Differences. In Brislin, R. W. & Yoshida, T. (Eds.), Improving InterculturalInteractions: Modules for Cross-Cultural Training Programs (pp. 71–88). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Brøgger, F. C. (1992). Culture, Language, Text: Culture Studies within the Study ofEnglish 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. 33–62). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). Pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A.(Ed.), Style in Language (pp. 253–276). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1972). Pronouns of power and solidarity. In Gigliogli, P. (Ed.),Language and social context (pp. 252–282). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies.Language in Society, 18, 159–212.

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.56–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

230

Cansler, D. C. & Stiles, B. S. (1981). Relative status and interpersonal presumptuousness.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 459–471.

Chang, H. & Holt, G. R. (1994). A Chinese Perspective on Face as Inter-RelationalConcern. In Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.), The Challenge of Facework (pp. 95–132). 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. 213–250).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 Competencein a Second Language (pp. 27–40). New York: Newbury House.

Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to Indirect Speech Acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11,430–477. Reprinted in Davis, S. (Ed.), (1991), Pragmatics: A Reader (pp. 199–229).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clark, H. H. & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding What Is Meant from What Is Said: AStudy in Conversationally Conveyed Requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and VerbalBehavior, 14, 56–72.

Clark, H. H. & Schunk, D. H. (1980). Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition, 8,111–143.

Clark, H. H. & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Politeness in requests: A rejoinder to Kemper andThissen. Cognition, 9, 311–315.

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, 91–106.

Cohen, A. & Olshtain, E. (1994). Researching the Production of Second-Language SpeechActs. In Tarone, E., Gass, S. L. & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Research Methodology in Second-Language Acquisition (pp. 143–156). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.

Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech Acts. In McKay, S. & Hornberger, N. (Eds.), Sociolinguisticsand Language Teaching (pp. 383–420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, R. (1987). Problems of Intercultural Communication in Egyptian-AmericanDiplomatic Relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 29–47.

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, 399–419.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. 143–185). New York: AcademicPress.

de Kadt, E. (1998). The concept of face and its applicability to the Zulu language.Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 173–191.

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.

231

Du Bois, J. W. (1994). Pragmatic universals. In Asher, R. E. & Simpson, J. M. Y. (Eds.),The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 3257–3260). Oxford: PergamonPress.

DuFon, M. A., Kasper, G., Takahashi, S. and Yoshinaga, N. (1994). Bibliography onlinguistic politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 527–578.

Eades, D. (1982). You gotta know how to talk…: Information seeking in South-EastQueensland Aboriginal society. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 2, 61–82.

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 Gratitudeby Native and Non-native Speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7 (2),167–185.

Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J. W. (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. InKasper, G. and Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 64–81). Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Eslamirasekh, Z. (1993). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Requestive Speech ActRealization Patterns in Persian and American English. Pragmatics and LanguageLearning, 4, 85–103.

Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal & external modification in interlanguage requestrealization. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-CulturalPragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 221–247). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex PublishingCorporation.

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), 75–88.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. 75–91). Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.

Fraser, B. & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form.International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93–109.

French, J. R. P. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.),Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Fukushima, S. (1990). Offers and requests: Performance by Japanese learners of English.World Englishes, 9 (3), 317–325.

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, 57–66.Fukushima, S. (1995a). Solicitousness: what it is and how it works. Tsuru Studies in

English Linguistics and Literature, 23, 39–50.

232

Fukushima, S. (1995b). Request Strategies in British English and Japanese. Paper presentedat First International Conference in Contrastive Semantics and Pragmatics at theUniversity of Brighton, 9 April, 1995.

Fukushima, S. (1996a). Solicitousness: Is it preferred? Tsuru Studies in English Linguisticsand Literature, 24, 53–62.

Fukushima, S. (1996b). Request Strategies in British English and Japanese. LanguageSciences, 18, (3–4), 671–688.

Fukushima, S. (1996c). Request Strategies in British English and Japanese. In Jaszczolt,K. & Turner, K. (Eds.), Contrastive Semantics and Pragmatics Volume II: DiscourseStrategies (pp. 671–688). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Fukushima, S. (1996d). Situational Assessment on Request Situations and RequestingStrategies. Poster presentation at Sociolinguistics Symposium 11, at the Universityof Wales, Cardiff, 5 September, 1996.

Fukushima, S. (1996e). How do the British and the Japanese respond to off-recordrequests? Paper presented at 29th Annual Meeting, British Association for AppliedLinguistics (BAAL), at the University of Wales, Swansea, 9 September, 1996.

Fukushima, S. (1997a). Which requesting strategies are preferred in British English andJapanese? The Tsuru University Review, 46, 75–96.

Fukushima, S. (1997b). Responses to Off-record Requests. Tsuru Studies in EnglishLinguistics and Literature, 25, 83–102.

Fukushima, S. (1999). A Comparative Study of Pragmatic Strategies: Requests andResponses to Off-record Requests in British English and Japanese. UnpublishedPh. D. Thesis, University of Reading.

Fukushima, S. & Zimmermann, H. (1993). Politeness in Japanese, British English andSwiss German: A Cross-cultural Study. Paper presented at Fourth InternationalPragmatics Conference (IPrA) at Shoin Women’s University in Kobe, 30 July, 1993.

Gallois, C. (1994). Group membership, social rules, and power: A social-psychologicalperspective on emotional communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 301–324.

García, C. (1993). Making a request and responding to it: A case study of PeruvianSpanish speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 127–152.

Gibbs, R. W. (1979). Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests. DiscourseProcesses, 2, 1–10.

Giles, H. & Franklyn-Stokes, A. (1989). Communication Characteristics. In Asante, M.K. & Gudykunst, W. B. (Eds.), Handbook of International and InterculturalCommunication (pp. 117–144). 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 IntroductionVolume 2 (pp. 231–257). 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. 83–106). 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. 107–141). New York: Academic Press.

233

Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and Conversation. Unpublished MS, from the Williams JamesLectures 1967.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntaxand Semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

Grice, H. P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Syntaxand Semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp.113–127). New York: Academic Press.

Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress.

Grimshaw, A. D. (1980a). Mishearings, misunderstandings, and other non-successes intalk: a plea for redress of speaker-oriented bias. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 31–74.

Grimshaw, A. D. (1980b). Selection and labelling of instrumentalities of verbalmanipulation. Discourse Processes, 3, 203–229.

Grimshaw, A. D. (1980c). Social interactional and sociolinguistic rules. Social Forces,58 (3), 789–810.

Grimshaw, A. D. (1983). ‘Comment’ on L. B. Breitborde, Levels of analysis in socio-linguistic 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,

237–257.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. HumanCommunication Research, 13, 147–166.

Gudykunst, W. B., Yoon, Y. & Nishida, T. (1987). The influence of individualism-collectivism on perceptions of communication in ingroup and outgroup relationships.Communication Monographs, 54, 295–306.

Haberland, H. & Mey, J. L. (1977). Editorial: Linguistics and pragmatics. Journal ofPragmatics, 1, 1–12.

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 CommunicationStrategy: Cross-cultural Studies on Indirect Speech Acts] Tokyo University ShakaiJouhou Kenkyujo Chousa Kenkyu Kiyou, 1, 107–159.

Hatch, E. & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The Research Manual: Design and Statistics forApplied 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, 59–71.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.

234

Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A. & Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of linguisticpoliteness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal ofPragmatics, 10, 347–371.

Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of Advice: DCT and Multiple Choice Data. AppliedLinguistics, 18 (1), 1–26.

Hinnenkamp, V. (1995). Intercultural communication. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J. &Blommaert, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics Supplement (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

Ho, D. Y. E. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81 (4), 867–884.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultureís consequences: International differences in work-relatedvalues. 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),155–199.

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 directand indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 51, 305–313.

Holtgraves, T., Srull, T. K. & Socall, D. (1989). Conversation memory: The effects ofspeaker status on memory for the assertiveness of conversation remarks. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 56 (2), 149–160.

Holtgraves, T. & Yang, J. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions ofrequest strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 59 (4), 719–729.

Holtgraves, T. (1991). Interpreting questions and replies: Effects of face-threat, questionform and gender. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 15–24.

Holtgraves, T. & Yang, J. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies:General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 62, 246–256.

Hoppe-Graff, S., Herrmann, T., Winterhoff-Spurk, P. & Mangold, R. (1985). Speech andsituation: A general model for the process of speech production. In Forgas, J. P. (Ed.),Language and social situation (pp. 81–95). 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. 260–266). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

House, J. (1988). “Oh excuse me please…”: Apologizing in a foreign language. InKettemann, B., Bierbaumer, P., Fill, A. & Karpf, A. (Eds.), Englisch als Zweitsprache(pp. 303–327). Tübingen: Narr.

House, J. (1989). Politeness in English and German: The Functions of Please andBitte. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:

235

Requests and Apologies (pp. 96–119). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corpora-tion.

House, J. & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness Markers in English and German. In Coul-mas, F. (Ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communica-tion Situations and Prepatterned Speech (pp. 157–185). The Hague: Mouton Publish-ers.

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 theSociology of Language, 57, 49–89.

Ide, S. (1982). Japanese Sociolinguistics Politeness and Women’s Language. Lingua, 57,357–385.

Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals oflinguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8 (2/3), 223–248.

Ide, S., Hill, B., Carnes, Y. M., Ogino, T. & Kawasaki, A. (1992). The concept ofpoliteness: 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 andpractice (pp. 281–297). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ikuta, S. (1997). Politeness no Ronri. [A theory of politeness] Gengo, 26 (6), 66–71.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 ñSocieties in transition(pp. 41–66). 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, theoryand practice (pp. 21–41). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Janney, R. W. & Arndt, H. (1993). Universality and relativity in cross-cultural politenessresearch: A historical perspective. Multilingua, 12 (1), 13–50.

Jary, M. (1998). Relevance theory and the communication of politeness. Journal ofPragmatics, 30, 1–19.

Johnston, B., Kasper, G. & Ross, S. (1998). Effect of Rejoinders in ProductionQuestionnaires. Applied Linguistics, 19 (2), 157–182.

Kasher, A. (1976). Conversational Maxims and Rationality. In Kasher, A. (Ed.), Languagein Focus: Foundations, Methods and Systems (pp. 197–216). Dordrecht: ReidelPublishing 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 30thOctober 1986 (pp. 103–114). 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. 37–58). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic Politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics,14, 193–218.

Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991). Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition, 13 (2), 215–247.

236

Kasper, G. (1994). Politeness. In Asher, R. E. & Simpson, J. M. Y. (Eds.), The Encyclopediaof Language and Linguistics (pp. 3206–3211). 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. 234–247). Washington, D. C.:Georgetown University Press.

Keenan, E. (1976). The universality of conversational postulates. Language in Society,5, 67–80.

Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitçibasi, Ç., Choi, S. & Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994a).Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications. Thousand Oaks:Sage.

Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitçibasi, Ç., Choi, S. & Yoon, G. (1994b). Introduction. InKim, U. et al. (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, andApplications (pp. 1–11). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kingwell, M. (1993). Is it Rational to be Polite? Journal of Philosophy, 90 (8), 387–404.Kitade, R. (1993). Nihonjin no Taijin Kankei to Communication. [Interpersonal Relations

of the Japanese and Communication] In Hashimoto, M. and Ishii, S. (Eds.), Nihonjinno communication (pp. 23–54). Tokyo: Kirihara Shoten.

Kitao, K. and Kitao, S. K. (1988). Politeness–Ningen Kankei o Ijisuru CommunicationShudan. [Politeness–Means of Communication to Maintain Human Relationship]Nihongogaku, 7 (3), 52–63.

Kluckhohn, F. R. & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in Value Orientations. NewYork: Peterson.

Kochman, T. (1984). The politics of politeness: Social warrants in mainstream Americanpublic etiquette. In Schiffrin, D. (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table onLanguage and Linguistics 1984 (pp. 200–209). Washington, D. C.: GeorgetownUniversity Press.

Koike, D. A. (1994). Negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests: Mitigatingeffects? Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 513–526.

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: Comparisonof Chinese, Korean, Greek and German usage. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,23, 148–162.

Kumar, I. & Sah, P. (1994). Why are we polite? International Journal of DravidianLinguistics, 23, 121–129.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s & q’s. In The ninth

regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292–305). Chicago: ChicagoLinguistic Society.

Lakoff, R. (1974). What you can do with words: politeness, pragmatics, and performa-tives. Berkeley studies in syntax and semantics, 1(XVI), 1–55.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and womanís 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,

237

Presupposition and Implicatures (pp. 79–106). Washington D. C.: Center for AppliedLinguistics.

Lakoff, R. (1984). The pragmatics of subordination. Proceedings of the Tenth AnnualMeeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 481–492.

Lakoff, R. & Tannen, D. (1979). Communicative strategies in conversation: The case of‘Scenes from a marriage.’ Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the BerkeleyLinguistics Society, 5, 581–592.

Lebra, T. S. & Lebra, W. P. (1974). Japanese Culture and Behavior. Honolulu: Universityof 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), 491–515.Leichty, G. & Applegate, J. L. (1991). Social-cognitive and situational influences on the

use of face-saving persuasive strategies. Human Communication Research, 17 (3),451–484.

Leech, G. N. (1980). Explorations in semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

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. 173–206). London/NewYork: Routledge.

Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of collective avoidance. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 19, 125–136.

Levinson, S. (1981). The Essential Inadequacies of Speech Act Models of Dialogue. InParret, H., Sbisà, M. & Verschueren, J. (Eds.), Possibilities and Limitations ofPragmatics (pp. 473–489). 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), 415–450.LoCastro, V. (1987). Aizuchi: A Japanese Conversational Routine. In Smith, L. E. (Ed.),

Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes (pp. 101–113). 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 discourse-organizing processes. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 169–190.

Lustig, M. W. & King, S. (1980). The effect of communication apprehension and situationon communication strategy choices. Human Communication Research, 7, 74–82.

Lustig, M. W. (1988). Value Differences in Intercultural Communication. In Samovar,L. A. & Porter, R. E. (Eds.), Intercultural Communication: A Reader (pp. 55–61).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G. & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency ininterlanguage apologizing. In Neu, J. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures(pp. 155–187). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Maher, J. C. & Yashiro, K. (1995). Multilingual Japan: An Introduction. Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development, 16, (1) & (2), 1–17.

238

Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal ofPragmatics, 21, 451–486.

March, R. M. (1992). Working for a Japanese Company: Insights into the MulticulturalWorkplace. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion,and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomenain Japan. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403–426.

Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals – observations fromJapanese. Multilingua, 8 (2/3), 207–221.

McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J. & O’Hair, H. D. (1983). The management of failureevents: Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communica-tion Research, 9 (3), 208–224.

Mead, R. (1994). International Management: Cross-Cultural Dimensions. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.

Meier, A. (1992). Brown & Levinson’s Legacy of Politeness. Views, 1 (1), 15–35.Meier, A. J. (1995). Passages of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 381–392.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), 21–28.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. 3260–3278). 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, 427–443.Morgan, J. L. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. (Ed.),

Syntax and Semantics Vol. 9. Pragmatics (pp. 261–280). New York: Academic Press.Morisaki, S. & Gudykunst, W. B. (1994). Face in Japan and the United States. In Ting-

Toomey, S. (Ed.), The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and InterpersonalIssues (pp. 47–93). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Nakane, C. (1967). Tate Shakai no Ningen Kankei: Tanitsu Shakai no Riron. [Personalrelations 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, 1–18.Nwoye, O. G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion

of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 309–328.Ogasawara, R. (1972). Nichibei no Bunka to Kotoba Joron. In Miyauchi Hideo Kyoju

Kanreki Ronbunshu Henshuu Iinkai (Ed.), Nichibei no Kotoba to Bunka [Contras-

239

tive Studies of Japanese and English Language and Cultures] (pp. 13–28). 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. 21–44). 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 andSecond language acquisition (pp. 303–325). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Olshtain, E. & Weinbach, L. (1987). Complaints: A study of speech act behavioramong native and non-native speakers of Hebrew. In Verschueren, J. & Bertucelli-Papi, M. (Eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective (pp. 195–208). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across languages. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper,G. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 155–173).Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Penman, R. (1994). Facework in Communication: Conceptual and Moral Challenges. InTing-Toomey, S. (Ed.), The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and InterpersonalIssues (pp. 15–45). Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.

Pilegaard, M. (1997). Politeness in written business discourse: A textlinguistic perspectiveon requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 223–244.

Putnis, P. (1993). Cultural Generalizations: Help or Hindrance? In Boswood, T., Hoffman,R. & Tung, P. (Eds.), Perspectives on English for Professional Communication (pp.37–53). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Pyle, C. (1975). The function of indirectness. Paper read at N-Wave IV. GeorgetownUniversity, Washington, D. C.

Rasmussen, G. (1997). Review of Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmaticsby Thomas. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 253–261.

Riley, P. (1989). Well don’t blame me! On the interpretation of pragmatic errors. InOleksy, W. (Ed.), Contrastive Pragmatics (pp. 231–249). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rintell, E. (1981). Sociolinguistic variation and pragmatic ability: A look at learners.International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 11–34.

Rintell, E. M. & Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry intomethod. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:Requests and Apologies (pp. 248–272). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corpora-tion.

Roberts, C. & Sarangi, S. (1993). ‘Culture’ revisited in intercultural communication. InBoswood, T., Hoffman, R. & Tung, P. (Eds.), Perspectives on English for ProfessionalCommunication (pp. 97–114). 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, 49–62.Rose, K. R. (1994). On the Validity of Discourse Completion Tests in Non-Western

Contexts. Applied Linguistics, 15 (1), 1–14.Rose, K. R. & Ono, R. (1995). Eliciting Speech Act Data in Japanese: The Effect of

Questionnaire Type. Language Learning, 45 (2), 191–223.

240

Ruuskanen, D. D. K. (1996). The Effect of Pragmatic Factors on the Definitions of Equiv-alence in Translation. In Jaszczolt, K. & Turner, K. (Eds.), Contrastive Semantics andPragmatics Volume II: Discourse Strategies (pp. 883–895). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Sakamoto, N. & Naotsuka, R. (1982). Polite fictions: Why Japanese and Americansseem 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: Areassessment of Gricean pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 117–154.

Sarangi, S. (1995). Culture. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J. & Blommaert, J. (Eds.),Handbook of Pragmatics Supplement (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sasagawa, Y. (1994a). Ibunkakan ni mirareru “teineisa no rule” no hikaku – 9 gengohikaku chosa data no saibunseki kara –. [A comparison of politeness rules in cross-cultures – from the reanalysis of the data of 9 languages] Ibunkakan Kyouiku, 8,44–58.

Sasagawa, Y. (1994b). Hatsugobaikaikoui no saikou – Nihonjin no communicationniokeru hatsugobaikaikoui no imi –. [Reconsideration of perlocutionary act – Themeaning of perlocutionary act in Japanese communication] Mass CommunicationKenkyu, 44, 58–71.

Sasagawa, Y. (1995). Cultural Studies on Politeness: A view from face-work. InternationalJournal of Pragmatics, 5, 1–25.

Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A compari-son of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457–484.

Sbisà, M. (1992). Review of Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies byBlum-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), 139–157.Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. B. K. (1983). Face in interethnic communication. In Richards,

J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 156–186). 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. 221–239). 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 andSemantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59–82). 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 cross-

culturally? In Shweder, R. A. & Levine, R. A. (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays onmind, self and emotion (pp. 158–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sifianou, M. (1987). Politeness Markers in Greek and in English. Unpublished Ph. D.Thesis, University of Reading.

241

Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-culturalperspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sifianou, M. (1993). Off-record indirectness and the notion of imposition. Multilingua,12 (1), 69–79.

Sifianou, M. (1995a). Indirectness and politeness: The case of English and Greek. ReadingWorking Papers in Linguistics, Department of Linguistic Science, The University ofReading, 2, 241–253.

Sifianou, M. (1995b). Do we need to be silent to be extremely polite? Silence and FTAs.International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (1), 95–110.

Sifianou, M. (1997). Silence and politeness. In Jaworski, A. (Ed.), Silence: InterdisciplinaryPerspectives (pp. 63–84). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Simons, G. F., Vazques, C. & Harris, P. R. (1993). Transcultural Leadership: Empoweringthe 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), 101–121.

Smith, P. B. (1996). National cultures and the values of organizational employees: Timefor another look. In Joynt, P. & Warner, M. (Eds.), Managing Across Cultures:Issues and Perspectives (pp. 92–102). London: International Thomson Business Press.

Smith, P. B. & Bond, M. H. (1993). Social Psychology Across Cultures. London: HarvesterWheatsheaf.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (1992). Cross-cultural politeness: British and Chinese conceptions ofthe tutor-student relationship. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Lancaster.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (1993). Conceptions of social relations and pragmatic research. Journalof Pragmatics, 20, 27–47.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics,26, 1–24.

Stenström, 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 –. [Hearer’s private territory and politeness expressions –How is it possible to be polite in Japanese?] Nihongogaku, 8 (2), 58–67.

Tabakowska, E. (1989). Lexical markers of subjective modality and translationequivalence in English and Polish. Multilingua, 8 (1), 21–36.

Takahashi, S. (1987). A contrastive study of indirectness exemplified in L1 directivespeech 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 byJapanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131–155.

Tanaka, S. & Kawade, S. (1982). Politeness Strategies and Second Language Acquisition.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5 (1), 18–33.

Tannen, D. (1981). Indirectness in Discourse: Ethnicity as Conversation Style. DiscourseProcesses, 4, 221–238.

Tannen, D. (1985). Cross-Cultural Communication. In van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.), Handbookof Discourse Analysis: Discourse Analysis in Society (pp. 203–215). London:Academic Press.

Tarone, E. & Yule, G. (1987). Communication strategies in East-West Interaction. In

242

Smith, L. E. (Ed.), Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes (pp.49–65). New York: Prentice Hall.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112.Thomas, J. (1984). Cross-cultural discourse as ‘unequal encounter’: towards a pragmatic

analysis. Applied Linguistics, 5, 226–235.Thomas, J. (1994). Cooperative Principle. In Asher, R. E. & Simpson, J. M. Y. (Eds.), An

Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 759–762). Oxford: PergamonPress.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London:Longman.

Thomason, R. H. (1990). Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinaryfoundations for pragmatics. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M. E. (Eds.),Intentions in communication (pp. 325–363). 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 Communica-tion (pp. 351–373). Newbury Park: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. & Cocroft, B. (1994). Face and Facework: Theoretical and ResearchIssues. In Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.), The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural andInterpersonal Issues (pp. 307–340). Albany, New York: State University of NewYork 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), 513–538.

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 individualismand collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 257–267.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing psychological context.Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.

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 Collec-tivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (pp. 41–51). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understand-ing Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Ltd.

Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/nonnatives. Journal of Pragmatics,11, 147–167.

Tsunoda, T. (1985). The Japanese Brain: Uniqueness and Universality. Tokyo: TaishukanShoten.

Tsuruta, Y., Rossiter, P. & Coulton, T. (1988). Eigo no Social Skill: Politeness Systems inEnglish and Japanese. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.

Turner, K. (1995). The principal principles of pragmatic inference: co-operation. LanguageTeaching, 28, 67–76.

Turner, K. (1996). The principal principles of pragmatic inference: politeness. LanguageTeaching, 29, 1–13.

243

Turner, K. (1997). Semantics vs. Pragmatics. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J. & Blommaert,J. (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, 1997 Supplement (pp. 1–23). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.

Veltman, F. (1994). Inference. In Asher, R. E. & Simpson, J. M. Y. (Eds.), The Encyclopediaof Language and Linguistics (pp. 1670–1671). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Verschueren, J.,Östman, 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 Blum-

Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests andApologies (pp. 197–218). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Walters, J. (1979). Strategies for requesting in Spanish and English: Structural similaritiesand pragmatic differences. Language Learning, 29 (2), 277–293.

Watts, R. J. (1989). Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politicbehavior. Multilingua, 8 (2–3), 131–166.

Watts, R. J. (1992). Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsideringclaims for universality. In Watts, R., Ide, S. & Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness inLanguage: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp. 43–69). Berlin: Moutonde 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 itsHistory, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Weizman, E. (1985). Towards an analysis of opaque utterances. Theoretical Linguistics,12, 153–163.

Weizman, E. (1989). Requestive Hints. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.),Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 71–95). Norwood, N. J.:Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Weizman, E. (1993). Interlanguage Requestive Hints. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S.(Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 123–137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Werkhofer, K. T. (1992). Traditional and modern views: The social constitution and thepower of politeness. In Watts, R. J., Ide, S. & Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in Language(pp. 155–199). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wetzel, P. J. (1985). In-Group/Out-Group Deixis: Situational Variation in the Verbs ofGiving and Receiving in Japanese. In Forgas, J. P. (Ed.), Language and SocialSituations (pp. 141–157). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Wetzel, P. J. (1993). The language of vertical relationships and linguistic analysis.Multilingua, 12 (4), 387–406.

Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T. & Bond, M. H. (1989). Collectivism-individualism in everydaysocial life: The middle kingdom and the melting pot. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 57, 79–86.

White, R. V. (1993). Saying please: Pragmalinguistic failure in English interaction. ELTJournal, 47 (3), 193–202.

White, R. V. (1994). Inter-cultural Communication & Training. Unpublished manu-script.

244

Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts.Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145–198.

Wierzbicka, A. (1986). Does language reflect culture? Evidence from Australian English.Language in Society, 15, 349–373.

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 inSociety, 20, 333–385.

Wierzbicka, A. (1994a). “Cultural scripts”: A semantic approach to cultural analysisand cross cultural communication. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 5, 1–24.

Wierzbicka, A. (1994b). ‘Cultural scripts’: A new approach to the study of cross-culturalcommunication. In Pütz, M. (Ed.), Language Contact and Language Conflict (pp.67–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Winterhoff-Spurk, P., Herrmann, T. & Weindrich, D. (1986). Requesting rewards: A studyof distributive justice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5 (1), 13–31.

Wolfson, N. (1983). Rules of speaking. In Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Languageand Communication (pp. 61–89). New York: Longman.

Wolfson, N. (1988). The Bulge: A Theory of Speech Behavior and Social Distance. InFine, J. (Ed.), Second Language Discourse: A Textbook of Current Research (pp.21–38). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Wolfson, N., Marmor, T. & Jones, S. (1989). Problems in the Comparison of SpeechActs Across Cultures. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests & Apologies (pp. 174–196). Norwood, N. J.: AblexPublishing Corporation.

Wood, L. A. & Kroger, R. O. (1991). Politeness and forms of address. Journal of Languageand Social Psychology, 10 (3), 145–168.

Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A Perspective from the Self. InKim, U. et al. (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, andApplications (pp. 175–188). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Yamazaki, T. (1997a). Ayamari no Shoso – Nichibei Koukousei no Gengo Koudou HikakuKenkyu. [Various Aspects of Apology – A comparative study on linguistic behavioursby Japanese and American high school students] Paper presented at 6th ShakaiGengogaku 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 toSocial Psychology (pp. 67–85). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yeung, L. N. T. (1997). Polite requests in English and Chinese business correspondencein Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 505–522.

Yoshida, T. (1994). Interpersonal Versus Non-Interpersonal Realities: An Effective ToolIndividualists Can Use to Better Understand Collectivists. In Brislin, R. W. & Yoshida,T. (Eds.), Improving Intercultural Interactions: Modules for Cross-Cultural TrainingPrograms (pp. 243–267). 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.

245

Appendices

Appendix 1. Graphs

1.1. Graphs of Requesting Strategies

1.1.1. Requesting Strategies in Situation 1

Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n

1 = direct requests2 = conventionally indirect requests3 = off-record requests

JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

246

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1.1.2. Data


Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1 2 3

247

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

248

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

249

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

250

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

251

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

252

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

253

1.1.9. Requesting Strategies in In-group

Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1 2 3

254

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1.1.10. Requesting Strategies in Out-group

Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

255

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1.2. Graphs of Responding Strategies to Off-record Requests

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

Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n

1 = demonstrating solicitousness2 = taking an alternative means3 = refusing a request

JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

256

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

257

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

258

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

259

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

260

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

261

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%


Stra

tegy

Cho

ice

Dis

trib

utio

n


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

262


0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%St

rate

gy C

hoic

e D

istr

ibut

ion


JapaneseBritish

1 2 3

263

Appendix 2. Questionnaires in English

2.1. Questionnaire for the Pilot Study

RESEARCH INTO INTER-DISCOURSAL COMMUNICATION

Name (Optional):

Male FemaleAge: (circle one) 18-20 21-23 24-29 30-39 40-49 50+

Country of Birth:

Nationality:Ethnicity: • White(circle one) • Black

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

about Ethnicity

Where you have livedlongest in the past 10 years:

Would you please read the following nine situations carefully and tick abox, circle a number, or write your response, as directed. Each situationconsists of Part A, Part B and Part C.

In Part A, you will be asked about (1) the power difference; (2) the socialdistance; and (3) the imposition. Here are some examples of each.(1) The power difference between strangers may be small, but the powerdifference between a principal and a student may be big.(2) The social distance among family members may be small, but thesocial distance between strangers may be big.(3) The imposition on Y may be low if X asks Y for something free or afavour which requires little time or effort, but the imposition on Y may be

264

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

Situation 1

X is a post graduate student. This is the second year of X’s course. X isgoing home tomorrow by air. In order to go to the airport, X needstransport. Last year when departing, X ordered a taxi. But the taxi didnot come at the time X ordered. In danger of missing the flight, X phonedthe tutor, Y, who lives quite close to the hall of residence, and Y gave X alift to the airport. Thanks to Y’s help, X caught the flight.

It is a year later. X will be leaving for home tomorrow, Saturday, and isworried about getting to the airport, as X is not confident about thereliability of the local taxi service in view of last year’s 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 beinghigh.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

265

Part B

X is talking to the tutor. You are X. What do you do? Choose one of thefollowing by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response.

1. I’m flying back home tomorrow. Since I had some problems getting ataxi last year, please give me a lift to the airport.

2. I’m flying back home tomorrow. Since I had some problems getting ataxi last year, could you give me a lift to the airport?

3. I’m flying back home tomorrow. Last year I had some problems gettinga 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. Shall I give you a lift to the airport?2. Oh, yes. You had some problems with the taxi, didn’t you?3. Say nothing.4. Change the subject.5. Other (write what):

Situation 2

X is a post graduate student. X came from overseas to study at Universityof Reading, having purchased a computer, Macintosh, and a printer.Unfortunately, X cannot get the printer started, having tried to solve theproblem by buying another transformer and by changing the cartridge ofthe printer. Despite all X’s efforts, the printer will not work. Since X hasto submit a number of papers, X is in trouble. X’s tutor, Y, also uses aMacintosh with a printer.

266

Part A


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How do you perceive the imposition on Y, if Y prints out X’s floppydisk?Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 beinghigh.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B

The tutor tells X to submit a paper by next week. You are X. What do youdo? Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary,writing the response.

1. I can’t get my printer to work. I will bring my floppy disk. Please printit out for me.

2. I can’t get my printer to work. If I brought my floppy disk, could youprint it out for me?

3. I can’t get my printer to work.4. You would not make a request in this situation.5. Other (write what):

267

Part C


I canít get my printer to work.

Choose one of the following by circling the number, and if necessary,writing the response.

1. If you will bring me your floppy disk, I will print it out for you.2. Oh, that’s annoying.3. Say nothing.4. Change the subject.5. Other (write what):

Situation 3

X is a post graduate student. X’s tutor, Y, recommended X a book whichwould be helpful for X’s research. X went to the university library, but thelibrary did not have the book in question. X noticed the book in Y’s office.Y is not using the book at the moment.

Part A


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

268

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

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B

X is in Y’s office the next day. You are X. What do you do? Choose one ofthe following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response.

1. I couldn’t 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 nextweek.

2. I couldn’t find the book you recommended me yesterday in the library.If you are not using your copy, could you lend it to me? I’ll return itnext week.

3. I couldn’t 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


I couldnít find the book you recommended me yesterday in the library.


1. Shall I lend you my copy?2. Oh, is that so?3. Say nothing.4. Change the subject.5. Other (write what):

269

Situation 4

X is a student at University of Reading. X is not originally from Readingand lives in a university students’ hall. X’s parents send X some moneyevery month, but this month’s money has not arrived yet. X is short ofmoney. W is one of X’s classmates. X and W often eat their lunch togetherat 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 topay for lunch?Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 beinghigh.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B

W asks X if they can have lunch together today. X would like to havelunch with W, but X does not have enough money. You are X. What doyou do? Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if neces-sary, writing the response.

270

1. Since the money my parents sent me has not arrived yet, I am short ofmoney. Please lend me some money so that I can pay for lunch. I willpay 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 shortof 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, X’s classmate. How would you respond if X said the following:

The money my parents sent me hasnít arrived yet.


1. Shall I lend you some money?2. Oh, is that so?3. Say nothing.4. Change the subject.5. Other (write what):

Situation 5

X lives in a self-catering university students’ hall. X has been ill and hasnot been grocery shopping for two weeks. X is running out of food. Xwants to have some bread and milk, but X is still not feeling well. V is X’snext 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.

271

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 andmilk for X?Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 beinghigh.

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 thenumber, and if necessary, writing the response.

1. I have run out of bread and milk. I’m still not feeling well. Please getme some bread and milk.

2. I have run out of bread and milk. I’m still not feeling well. Could youget 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, X’s next door neighbour in the same students’ hall. How wouldyou respond if X said the following:

I have run out of bread and milk.

272


1. Shall I get some bread and milk for you?2. Oh, is that so?3. Say nothing.4. Change the subject.5. Other (write what):

Situation 6

X lives in a self-catering university students’ hall. X is cooking in thecommon kitchen, but discovers that there is no salt left. V, X’s next doorneighbour 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 beinghigh.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

273

Part B

The dish X is cooking certainly needs some salt. You are X. What do youdo? Choose one of the following by circling the number and, if necessary,writing the response.

1. I’ve run out of salt. Please lend me some.2. I’ve run out of salt. Could you lend me some?3. I’ve run out of salt.4. You would not make a request in this situation.5. Other (write what):

Part C

You are V, X’s next door neighbour in the hall. How would you respond ifX said the following:

Iíve run out of salt.


1. Here, you can use mine.2. Oh, really?3. Say nothing.4. Change the subject.5. Other (write what):

Situation 7

X is an overseas student at University of Reading. X is going home tocollect data for X’s thesis. X has finished packing. X’s suitcase weighsmore than 20 kg, which is the weight limit, because X has so many materialsfor data collection.

Y is X’s tutor. X and Y have a common friend, Z, in X’s country. Y hassome gifts for Z. One of the gifts is quite a thick book.

274

Part A


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How do you perceive the imposition on X, if X carries Y’s gifts anddelivers them to Z?Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 beinghigh.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B

X came to Y’s office to say good-bye. You are Y. What do you do? Chooseone of the following by circling the number and, if necessary, writing theresponse.

1. I have some gifts for Z. Please deliver them to Z.2. I have some gifts for Z. Could you deliver them to Z?3. I have some gifts for Z.4. You would not make a request in this situation.5. Other (write what):

275

Part C

You are X, Y’s supervisee. How would you respond if Y said the following?

I have some gifts for Z.


1. Shall I deliver them to Z?2. Oh, that’s nice.3. Say nothing.4. Change the subject.5. Other (write what):

Situation 8

Y is an academic staff member at University of Reading. Y usually cyclesto university. X is one of Y’s post graduate students. Y lives close to X’sstudents’ hall.

At five o’clock X and Y happen to come out of the department buildingat the same time. It is pouring with rain. Y didn’t bring any waterproofclothing. X is about to go home by car.

Part A


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.

276

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 beinghigh.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B

You are Y, X’s tutor. You came to the university by bicycle as usual. Whatdo you do? Choose one of the following by circling the number and, ifnecessary, writing the response.

1. Are you going home? Please give me a lift home. I didn’t bring anywaterproof clothing.

2. Are you going home? Could you give me a lift home? I didn’t bring anywaterproof 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, Y’s supervisee. How would you respond if Y said the following:

Are you going home?


1. Yes. Shall I give you a lift home?2. Yes, I am.3. Say nothing.4. Change the subject.5. Other (write what):

277

Situation 9

Y is an academic staff member at University of Reading. Y has severalstudents for tutorials. X is one of Y’s students. Y has told X to come to seeY at ten o’clock next Friday, their regular tutorial time. However, an urgentstaff meeting will be held from ten o’clock that day. X does not have anyclass on Friday afternoon.

Part A


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 someother time?Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being low, 5 beinghigh.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part B

Today is Thursday. You are Y. What do you do ? Choose one of thefollowing by circling the number and, if necessary, writing the response.

1. I’ve just learned that we’re having a special staff meeting at ten o’clocktomorrow, so, please come to see me at two o’clock instead of ten.

278

2. I’ve just learned that we’re having a special staff meeting at ten o’clocktomorrow, so, could you come to see me at two o’clock instead of ten?

3. I’ve just learned that we’re having a special staff meeting at ten o’clocktomorrow.

4. You would not make a request in this situation.5. Other (write what):

Part C

You are X, Y’s supervisee. How would you respond if Y said the following:

Iíve just learned that weíre having a special staff meeting at ten oíclocktomorrow.


1. Shall I come some other time?2. Oh, is that so?3. Say nothing.4. Change the subject.5. Other (write what):

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

279

2.2. Questionnaire for Situational Assessment (SA 96)

SITUATIONAL ASSESSMENT ON REQUEST SITUATIONS

Name (Optional):Male Female

Age: (circle one) 18-20 21-23 24-29 30-39 40-49 50+

Country of Birth:Nationality:

Ethnicity: White(circle one) Black

Caribbean BlackAfrican BlackOtherIndian PakistaniBangladeshiChineseAsian OtherOther (say what):Unwilling to provide informationabout Ethnicity

Where you have livedlongest in the past 10 years:

In this questionnaire, you will be asked to assess the following items in therequest described situations below:

1. How natural/authentic is each situation? In other words, is each situa-tion likely to occur in reality in your culture?2. If you think there is a status difference between the requester (the personwho makes requests) and the requestee (the person who is asked to performthe requested act), how big is it?e.g. The status difference among friends may be small, but the statusdifference between a principal and a student may be big.3. If you think there is an age difference between the requester and therequestee, how big is it?4. Do you think that the requester and the requestee are close?e.g. One may feel close to one’s family members.

One may feel comfortable disclosing oneself with close persons.

280

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

Situation 1

X is a university student. This is the second year of X’s course. X is goinghome 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 atthe 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 theairport. Thanks to Y’s help, X caught the flight.


X wants Y to give a lift to the airport.

1. How natural/authentic is this situation? In other words, is this situationlikely to occur in reality in your culture?Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being natural orcommon 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.

281

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 aprinter in X’s country before coming to study here. The voltage is differentin two countries, so X has brought a transformer along with the computerand printer set-up.

Unfortunately, X cannot get the printer started, even after X boughtanother transformer and changed the printer cartridge. Despite all X’sefforts, the printer will not work. Since X has to submit a numberof papers, X is in trouble. X’s tutor, Y, also uses a Macintosh with aprinter.

X wants Y to print out the documents on X’s floppy disks.

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

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

282

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, 5being big.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for Y to print out Xís 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. X’s tutor, Y, recommended X a book whichwould be helpful for X’s research. X went to the university library, but thelibrary did not have the book in question. X noticed the book in Y’s office.Y is not using the book at the moment.

X wants to borrow the book from Y.

283


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

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

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

284

Situation 4

X is a university student who lives in a university students’ hall of residence.X’s parents send X some money every month, but this month’s money hasnot arrived yet. X is short of money. W is one of X’s classmates. X and Woften eat their lunch together at a university canteen. W suggested havinglunch together with X. X wants to do so, but X does not have enoughmoney to pay for the meal.

X wants to borrow money for lunch from W.


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.

285

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 Xhas been ill and has not been grocery shopping for two weeks, X is runningout of food. X needs to have some bread and milk, but X is still not feelingwell enough to go out shopping. V, who is X’s next door neighbour in thehall, is about to go shopping.

X wants to ask V to buy some bread and milk.


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.

286

4. Do you think that X and V are close?Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being close, 5being 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 cookingin the common kitchen, but discovers that there is no salt left. V, X’s nextdoor neighbour in the hall is also cooking in the kitchen.

X wants to borrow some salt from V.


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.

287

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 finishedpacking. Because X has so many materials for data collection, the suitcaseweighs more than 22kg, which is just over the weight limit.


Although Y knows that X’s suitcase is already quite heavy, Y wants Xto take Y’s gifts for Z so as to be sure that the gifts do not get lost.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

288

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, 5being big.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for X to deliver Yís 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 Y’s students. Ylives close to X’s students’ hall of residence.

At five o’clock X and Y happen to come out of the department buildingat the same time. It is pouring with rain. Y didn’t bring any waterproofclothing. X is about to go home by car.

Y wants X to give a lift home in X’s car.

289


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


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.

290

Situation 9

Y is a lecturer who has several students for tutorials. X is one of thesestudents. Y has told X to come for a tutorial at ten o’clock next Friday,their regular tutorial time. However, an urgent staff meeting will be heldfrom ten o’clock that day. X does not have any commitments on Fridayafternoon.

Y wants X to come at two o’clock instead of ten.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

291

5. How difficult do you think it is for X to come at two oíclock instead often?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 couldnot afford to buy all the software X wanted to have. X knows that X’stutor, Y, has this software.

X wants Y to lend the software to X so that X can copy it.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

292


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for Y to lend Yís 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 schoolin the United States. X needs a letter of recommendation to submit to auniversity in the United States. Y has been X’s tutor.

X wants Y to write a letter of recommendation for X.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

293


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for Y to write a letter of recommendationfor 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 isgoing to give a concert soon. X is supposed to phone the club captainabout the concert today, but X does not have the captain’s 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. 2. 3. 4. 5.

294

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 theclub 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 24hours a day. X has become friends with U, who also works at the shop.One night X had to work until three o’clock in the morning. X was aboutto go home, but X’s car would not start. U, who has a car, lives close tothe shop. U was not on duty that day and was sleeping at home.

X wants U to give X a lift home.

295


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.

296

Situation 14

X is a university student who works part-time at a shop. X is supposed towork next Saturday, but X has recently received an invitation to a partywhich will be held next Saturday. X wants to go to that party. U alsoworks at the same place, but U is not scheduled to work next Saturday. Udoes not have any commitments that day.

X wants U to replace X at work next Saturday.


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.

297

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. Xhas to practice some songs for the concert which will be held soon, andhas discovered that W, X’s classmate, happens to have a CD of thosesongs.

X wants to borrow W’s CD.


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.

298

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 Wís 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 universitystudent who works part-time at T’s shop. T needs some more people towork 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. 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.

299

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 workfor 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 printedmaterials which Y asked the departmental to photocopy. X is one of Y’ssupervisees who attends Y’s class.

Y wants X to pick up the printed materials from the secretary.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

300


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. How difficult do you think it is for X to pick up the printed materialsfrom 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 withanother university next month. They have to get in touch with somemembers of the other university’s basketball club.

S wants X to phone some members of the other university’s basketballclub.

301


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 abasketball 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 anycomments, would you please write them below.

302

2.3. Questionnaire for the Main Study

Questionnaire on Request Situations

Name:

Sex: Male FemaleAge:

Country of Birth:

Nationality:Where you have lived longestin the past 10 years:

This questionnaire will ask you about request situations. It consists ofthree 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 describedrequest situations.

1. If you think there is a power difference between the requester and therequestee, how big is it? The power difference may be related to the relativestatus, role or age of the parties. e.g. The status difference between friendswill 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 therequestee, how big is it? Social distance is related to the degree of closenessor familiarity between the parties. e.g. The relationship between friendswill usually be close compared with that between people who are notfriends.3. How great an imposition do you think the requested act will be on therequestee? The imposition may be high if the requested act requires a lotof time or effort on the part of the requestee or will be a psychological orfinancial burden; or if the requester does not have a right to ask the requesteeto perform the requested act; or if the requestee does not have an obligationto carry out the requested act. e.g. It would usually be a greater impositionto ask someone to lend their car than to post a letter.

303

In Part B, you are asked to choose how you would make requests in thesituations described. Three choices are given for each situation. In eachchoice,

1. different strategies for making requests are described, and2. examples are given.

Example:1. Strategy: Stating the problem + Making a direct request2. Example: ‘I couldn’t 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 youwould make the request concerned. Remember: choose only one strategyand circle the number.

In Part C, you are asked to choose how you would respond to requestswhich are expressed very indirectly. Three choices are given in eachsituation. 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 couldnít find the book you recommended meyesterday in the library.

1. Strategy: Preempting a request, i.e., offering to lend the requester thebook

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 youwould respond to the request concerned. Remember: choose only onestrategy and circle the number.

304

Situation 1X is an overseas student. X, who is going home to collect data, has finishedpacking. Because X has so many materials for data collection, the suitcasealready weighs a lot more than 22kg, which is over the weight limit.


Although Y knows that X’s suitcase is already quite heavy, Y wants X totake the gifts for Z so as to be sure that they do not get lost.

Part A1. 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, 5being 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, 5being big.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3. How big an imposition on X do you think it is to deliver Yís 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 BYou are Y. How would you make a request to X?

(1) Stating the reason + Making a direct requeste.g. I have some gifts for Z. I want to be sure that they don’t get lost.Please deliver them to Z.

305

(2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect requeste.g. I have some gifts for Z. I want to be sure that they don’t get lost.Could you deliver them to Z?

(3) Stating the reasone.g. I have some gifts for Z. I want to be sure that they don’t get lost.

Part CYou are X, Y’s 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 donít get lost.

(1) Preempting Y’s requeste.g. Shall I deliver them?

(2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourselfe.g. Why don’t you send them by registered mail?

(3) Refusing Y’s requeste.g. I’d love to take them for you, but I’m afraid I’m very overweight withmy own luggage.

Situation 2

X is a university student who works part-time at a shop. X is supposed towork next Saturday, but X has recently received an invitation to a partywhich will be held next Saturday. X wants to go to the party. U also worksat the same place, but is not scheduled to work next Saturday and doesnot have any commitments that day.

X wants U to replace X at work next Saturday.

Part A1. 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.

306

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 BYou are X. How would you make a request to U?

(1) Stating the reason + Making a direct requeste.g. I’ve just received an invitation to a party which will be held nextSaturday. Please replace me at work next Saturday.

(2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect requeste.g. I’ve just received an invitation to a party which will be held nextSaturday. Could you replace me at work next Saturday?

(3) Stating the reasone.g. I’ve just received an invitation to a party which will be held nextSaturday.

Part CYou are U, who works at the same shop with X. How would you respondif X said the following:Iíve just received an invitation to a party which will be held next Saturday.

(1) Preempting X’s requeste.g. Would you like me to replace you at work next Saturday?

(2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourselfe.g. Can’t you ask the boss to change your work schedule?

(3) Refusing X’s requeste.g. I’d love to replace you at work, but I want to work in the library.

307

Situation 3X is in the last year of a university and intends to go to a graduate schoolin the United States. X needs a letter of recommendation to submit to auniversity in the United States. Y has been X’s tutor.

X wants Y to write a letter of recommendation.

Part A1. 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 ofrecommendation for X?Complete the following by ticking a box on the scale, 1 being small,5 being big.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part BYou are X. How would you make a request to Y?

(1) Stating the reason + Making a direct requeste.g. I want to go to a graduate school in the United States. I need a letterof recommendation to submit with the application. Please write a letter ofrecommendation for me.

(2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect requeste.g. I want to go to a graduate school in the United States. I need a letter

308

of recommendation to submit with the application. Could you write aletter of recommendation for me?

(3) Stating the reasone.g. I want to go to a graduate school in the United States. I need a letterof recommendation to submit with the application.

Part CYou are Y, X’s 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 ofrecommendation to submit with the application.

(1) Preempting X’s requeste.g. Would you like me to write one?

(2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourselfe.g. Why don’t you ask the head of department to write one for you?

(3) Refusing X’s requeste.g. I’m afraid I can’t write one for you.

Situation 4

Y is a lecturer. Y usually cycles to university. X is one of Y’s students. Ylives close to X’s students’ hall of residence.

At five o’clock X and Y happen to come out of the department building atthe same time. It is pouring with rain. Y didn’t bring an umbrella. X isabout to leave by car.

Y wants to get a lift home.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

309


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 BYou are Y. How would you make a request to X?

(1) Stating the reason + Making a direct requeste.g. I didn’t bring my umbrella. Please give me a lift home.

(2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect requeste.g. I didn’t bring my umbrella. Could you give me a lift home?

(3) Stating the reasone.g. I didn’t bring my umbrella.

Part CYou are X, Y’s student. How would you respond if Y said the following:I didnít bring my umbrella.

(1) Preempting Y’s requeste.g. Shall I give you a lift home?

(2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourselfe.g. Can’t you borrow one?

(3) Refusing Y’s requeste.g. I’d love to give you a lift, but I’m not going straight home today.

310

Situation 5X lives in a self-catering university students’ hall of residence. Whilecooking in the shared kitchen, X discovers that there is no salt left. V, X’snext door neighbour in the hall is also cooking in the kitchen.

X wants to borrow some salt from V.

Part A1. 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 BYou are X. How would you make a request to V?

(1) Stating the reason + Making a direct requeste.g. I’ve run out of salt. Please lend me some.

(2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect requeste.g. I’ve run out of salt. Could you lend me some?

(3) Stating the reasone.g. I’ve run out of salt.

311

Part CYou are V, X’s next door neighbour in the hall. How would you respond ifX said the following:Iíve run out of salt.

(1) Preempting X’s requeste.g. Here, you can have some of mine.

(2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourselfe.g. Can’t you do without salt today?

(3) Refusing X’s requeste.g. I don’t have any salt.

Situation 6X is a university student who belongs to a university guitar club which isgoing to give a concert soon. X is supposed to phone the club captain, Q,about the concert today, but X doesn’t have Q’s phone number. P, a seniormember of the same club, is a close friend of the club captain.

X wants to ask P for the club captain’s phone number.

Part A1. 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 phonenumber of Q, the club captain?

312

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

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part BYou are X. How would you make a request to P?

(1) Stating the reason + Making a direct requeste.g. I have to phone Q about the concert, but I haven’t got Q’s phonenumber. Please tell me Q’s phone number.

(2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect requeste.g. I have to phone Q about the concert, but I haven’t got Q’s phonenumber. Could you tell me Q’s phone number?

(3) Stating the reasone.g. I have to phone Q about the concert, but I haven’t got Q’s phonenumber.

Part CYou are P, X’s senior at a university guitar club. How would you respondif X said the following:I have to phone Q about the concert, but I havenít got Qís phone number.

(1) Preempting X’s requeste.g. Let me give you Q’s phone number.

(2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourselfe.g. You can find Q’s phone number in the membership list.

(3) Refusing X’s requeste.g. I’m not supposed to tell anybody Q’s phone number.

Situation 7

X is a university student. This is the second year of X’s course. Tomorrow,X is flying home. In order to go to the airport, X needs transport. It takesabout an hour to go to the airport by car. Last year when departing, X

313

ordered a taxi. But the taxi did not come at the agreed time. In danger ofmissing the flight, X phoned the tutor, Y, who lives quite close to the hallof residence, and Y gave X a lift to the airport. Thanks to Y’s help, Xcaught the flight.


X wants Y to give a lift to the airport.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

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

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Part BYou are X. How would you make a request to Y?

(1) Stating the reason + Making a direct requeste.g. I’m flying back home tomorrow. Last year I had some problems gettinga taxi. Please give me a lift to the airport.

314

(2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect requeste.g. I’m flying back home tomorrow. Last year I had some problems gettinga taxi. Could you give me a lift to the airport?

(3) Stating the reasone.g. I’m flying back home tomorrow. Last year I had some problems gettinga taxi.

Part CYou are Y, X’s supervisor. How would you respond if X said the following:Iím flying back home tomorrow. Last year I had some problems getting ataxi.

(1) Preempting X’s requeste.g. Shall I give you a lift to the airport?

(2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourselfe.g. You’d better use another taxi firm this year.

(3) Refusing X’s requeste.g. I’d love to give you a lift, but I’m busy tomorrow.

Situation 8X is a university student who lives in a university students’ hall of residence.X’s parents send X some money every month, but as this month’s moneyhas not arrived yet, X is very short of money. W is one of X’s classmates.X and W often eat their lunch together. W has just suggested having lunchtogether today. X wants to do so, but doesn’t have enough money for ameal out.

X wants to borrow money for lunch from W.

Part A1. 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.

315

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 BYou are X. How would you make a request to W?

(1) Stating the reason + Making a direct requeste.g. My parents’ money hasn’t arrived yet. Please lend me some money sothat I can pay for my lunch.

(2) Stating the reason + Making an indirect requeste.g. My parents’ money hasn’t arrived yet. Could you lend me some moneyso that I can pay for my lunch?

(3) Stating the reasone.g. My parents’ money hasn’t arrived yet.

Part CYou are W, X’s classmate. How would you respond if X said the following:My parentsí money hasnít arrived yet.

(1) Preempting X’s requeste.g. Shall I lend you some money till it comes?

(2) Suggesting an alternative means other than doing something yourselfe.g. Can’t you pay by cheque?

(3) Refusing X’s requeste.g. I’d love to lend you some, but I’m a bit short myself at the moment.

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

Documents

Politeness in British and Japanese