Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behaviour:<\/p>\n
Perceptions of social situations and strategic usage of request patterns
\nMaria Economidou-Kogetsidis *
\nDepartment of Languages and Literature, School of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law, University of Nicosia, 46 Makedonitissas Avenue, 1700 Nicosia, Cyprus
\n1. Introduction
\nOne of the fundamental tenets of pragmatics is that utterances and verbal communication in general should be
\ninterpreted based on the sociocultural context (Blum-Kulka, 1997; Kasper and Rose, 2001) and that \u2018\u2018context is crucial in
\nunderstanding language\u2019\u2019 (Becker et al., 1989:521). A number of studies (Becker et al., 1989; Blum-Kulka and House, 1989;
\nTrosborg, 1995; Le Pair, 1996; Fukushima, 1996, 2000; Ballesteros Martin, 2001, 2002; Kwong, 2004 to name but a few) have
\ndemonstrated how speakers\u2019 speech acts and the degree of directness\/indirectness they employ in a specific situation are
\nindeed influenced by certain social\/contextual variables.
\nThe most widely discussed and tested variables are the social variables of social distance (D), social power (P) and
\nimposition (R) of the requested act, proposed by Brown and Levinson\u2019s (1978, 1987) influential model of politeness. Brown
\nand Levinson\u2019s main argument (1978, 1987) is that the social variables of D, P and R are the most important factors
\ninfluencing speakers\u2019 linguistic choices. The authors maintain that these factors combine in an additive fashion, thus the
\nbigger the hearer\u2019s power, social distance and degree of imposition of the act, the greater the face threat will be and the
\ngreater the degree of indirectness to be employed by the speaker. In other words, according to Brown and Levinson (1978,
\n1987), there is a positive correlation between these variables and the degree of indirectness employed.
\nJournal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281
\nA R T I C L E I N F O
\nArticle history:
\nReceived 19 May 2009
\nReceived in revised form 28 January 2010
\nAccepted 1 February 2010
\nKeywords:
\nFamiliarity
\nPower
\nImposition
\nGreek
\nRequests
\nDirectness
\nA B S T R A C T
\nBrown and Levinson (1978) and Brown and Levinson (1987) is that social distance, power
\nand imposition are the most important factors influencing speakers\u2019 linguistic choices and
\nthat there is a positive correlation between these social variables and the degree of
\nindirectness employed. The present study investigates the relationship between social\/
\nsituational and cultural factors and native and non-native speakers\u2019 requesting behaviour. It
\nexamines whether the requestive strategies of English native speakers and of Greek ESL
\nlearners follow a similar trend across different social situations. It additionally tests whether
\nthesame social situations are perceived and rated similarly by the two groups and the extent
\nto which the speakers\u2019 directness is influenced by familiarity, power and imposition. Results
\nhave shown that there are high levels of cross-cultural agreement between the two groups
\nfor trends of situational variation but also some cross-cultural disagreement on the specific
\ndirectness levels employed for given situations. Even though significant differences in the
\nspeakers\u2019 assessment of social reality seems to explain the differences in their linguistic
\nchoices to some extent, this study argues thatpower, familiarity and imposition alone do not
\nalways decide speakers\u2019 directness. A number of intervening situational and cultural factors
\nneed to be taken into account when interpreting speakers\u2019 linguistic choices.
\n 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
\n* Tel.: +357 22461566×105; fax: +357 22357665.
\nE-mail addresses: kogetsidis.m@unic.ac.cy, mkogetsidis@cytanet.com.cy.
\nContents lists available at ScienceDirect
\nJournal of Pragmatics
\njournal homepage: www.elsevier.com\/locate\/pragma
\n0378-2166\/$ \u2013 see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
\ndoi:10.1016\/j.pragma.2010.02.001
\nHowever, in the light of newempirical evidence and criticisms of their model since the time of their 1st edition (1978), the
\nauthorsmodify their claimthat these three factors \u2018\u2018subsumeall others that have a principal effect on such assessment\u2019\u2019 (Brown
\nand Levinson, 1978:85). The authors admit that \u2018\u2018theremay be a residue of other factorswhich are not capturedwithin the P, D,
\nand R dimensions\u2019\u2019 (Brown and Levinson, 1987:16) and refer to \u2018\u2018liking\u2019\u2019 and the presence of an audience as two such factors.
\nA large number of empirical studies, some of which will be discussed below, have provided support for the relationship
\nexisting between these social variables and the speakers\u2019 choice of requesting strategies and\/or modification, while a
\nnumber of others have not. Some studies have focused more on other situational\/contextual factors and argued that factors
\nsuch as speakers and hearers\u2019 rights and obligations (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989; Held, 1996), the estimated likelihood for
\ncompliance, the estimated difficulty in making the request (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989), the magnitude of face threat
\n(Baxter, 1984), the urgency of request (Held, 1996), the speaker\u2019s embarrassment (Held, 1996), the request goal, the setting
\nand the medium (Blum-Kulka et al., 1985), the interlocutors\u2019 age (Rintell, 1981; Blum-Kulka et al., 1985; Held, 1996) and sex
\n(Blum-Kulka et al., 1985), and the formality\/informality of the situation (Felix-Brasdefer, 2006), can be equally or more
\ninfluential factors. Nevertheless, what is sometimes ignored by studies is that some of these factors can, in fact, be subsumed
\nunder Brown and Levinson\u2019s (1978, 1987) P, D and R factors. Right and obligations, for instance, can be subsumed under P and
\npossibly R (see sections 3.2 and 3.3), while the magnitude of face threat is, according to Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), the
\nsum total of P + D + R.
\nTo make things more complicated, the way people perceive and assess such social variables is not only situation
\ndependent but also culturally specific (Brown and Levinson, 1987:248) as \u2018\u2018members of different cultures might differ in
\ntheir perceptions of social situations as well as in the relative importance attributed to any of the social parameters
\nmentioned\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989:137). Spencer-Oatey (1993) warns researchers that \u2018\u2018different sociocultural
\ngroups may hold differing norms regarding the power and distance of a given role relationship\u2019\u2019 and argues that, \u2018\u2018whenever
\npossible, researchers should include assessment checks of people\u2019s perceptions of these variables\u2019\u2019 (1993:28).
\nThe present study is concerned with \u2018\u2018the relationship between situational and cultural factors in determining variable
\npatterns of requestive behaviour\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989:123). As such, it investigates the requesting behaviour and
\ndirectness choices of Greek learners of English (henceforth GLs) and of British English native speakers (henceforth ENSs)
\nacross a number of socially different situations. Using data collected from a discourse completion test and interviews, it
\nexamines whether the requestive strategies of native and non-native speakers follow a similar trend across different social
\nsituations, and the extent to which cultural factors interact with social\/situational factors. It additionally tests whether the
\nsame social situations are perceived and rated similarly by the two language groups, as far as power, familiarity and
\nimposition are concerned. A further aim of this study is to trace the possible links between these emic perceptions of social
\nsituations and the observed strategic usage of request patterns. In order to do this, the contextual parameters of power,
\ndistance and imposition are correlated with the three types of request strategies: most direct, conventionally indirect and
\nnon-conventionally indirect.
\nThe research questions of this study are therefore as follows:
\n(a) To what extent do GLs and ENSs agree on the variation of their requestive behaviour according to the social situation
\n(b) Do Greek learners (GLs) and British English native speakers (ENSs) perceive the same social situations differently in terms
\nof (a) social power (b) familiarity and (c) imposition of the requested act
\n(c) To what extent is the GLs\u2019 selection of requesting strategies determined by the social variables of familiarity, power and
\nimposition\u2014Are there any possible links\/correlations between their perceptions of social reality and the observed usage
\nof request patterns
\nIn the sections below, I firstly review some of the empirical findings in relation to the social variables of D, P and R and in
\nrelation to other situational\/contextual variables, and then offer a short discussion of Greek speakers\u2019 directness and
\npoliteness orientation. Then I explain how the variables of D, P and R are used and defined in this study. The results and a
\ndiscussion of results are presented in the sections that follow.
\n2. Background
\n2.1. Relationship of variables and speech act realisation
\n2.1.1. Power (P)
\nAccording to Brown and Levinson\u2019s predictions (1978, 1987), the bigger the face threat (computed by the three variables
\nD, P and R), the higher the number of the strategy to be employed. In Kasper\u2019s words (1994:3209), there is \u2018\u2018a positive
\ncorrelation between the weight of contextual factors (social distance, power and imposition) and politeness investment\u2019\u2019.
\nBrown and Levinson\u2019s predictions have been both confirmed and rejected by various studies concerned either with
\nrequests or with other speech acts. Cherry (1988), for instance, examined a number of letters written by academics to the
\npresident of an American university and found that power was not influential on the subjects\u2019 requesting strategies.
\nSimilarly, McLaughlin et al. (1983) found that relationship dominance had no influence on offender accounts. Unlike Cherry
\n(1988) and McLaughlin et al. (1983), however, Baxter (1984) found that \u2018\u2018persons with power used less politeness than less
\npowerful persons\u2019\u2019 (1984:427). Her study additionally found that gender emerged as an also relatively powerful predictor of
\nM. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281 2263
\npoliteness strategies thus supporting the view that other variables can be more influential than distance, power and
\nimposition, and that these three variables alone do not always determine speakers\u2019 requesting strategies.
\nSimilar results regarding power were produced by Blum-Kulka et al.\u2019s study (1985), which investigated requests in Israeli
\nsociety. From all the variables considered, the most important predictors of variance were the relative power of the speaker
\nand the request goal. Blum-Kulka and House (1989), examining the social parameters influencing the choice of directness
\nlevel in Hebrew, German and Argentinean speakers, also found that one of the most important factors influencing a request\u2019s
\nlevel of directness was the speaker\u2019s relative dominance. Yet, importantly, Blum-Kulka and House (1989) identified a
\nnumber of additional influential factors. These were the hearer\u2019s degree of obligation to carry out the act, his\/her right to
\ndemand compliance and the estimated likelihood of compliance. The authors also distinguish between \u2018\u2018context external\u2019\u2019
\nand \u2018\u2018context internal\u2019\u2019 factors (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989:130\u2013131, taken from Brown and Fraser, 1979) which explained
\ntheir subjects\u2019 linguistic choices in certain social situations. \u2018\u2018Context external\u2019\u2019 factors include the categories of social
\ndistance, social power and participants\u2019 rights and obligations. \u2018\u2018Context internal\u2019\u2019 factors, on the other hand, refer to factors
\n\u2018\u2018which are directly related to its requestive nature, such as the type of request goal, the degree of imposition involved for the
\nspeaker relative to the specific goal, and the prerequisites needed for compliance\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989:131).
\nScarcella and Brunak (1981) investigated the effect of status in adult first and second language performance and found
\nthat high-level L2speakers, like native speakers, usedmore negative politeness towards superiors. Similarly, BrownandGilman
\n(1989)who examinedShakespeare\u2019s tragedies alsofoundthe power variable to influence the speakers\u2019 requestiveproduction.A
\nsimilar finding was received by Holtgraves and Yang\u2019s study (1990) on requests produced by American and Korean speakers,
\nwhile Cansler and Stiles (1981), Holtgraves et al. (1989), Lustig and King (1980) also found support for the influence of power.
\nEven more recent studies received support for Brown and Levinson\u2019s (1978, 1987) claim. Aeginitou\u2019s study (1994) on
\nfacework and politeness in the Greek EFL classroom, found power to be a determinant of politeness moves. Fukushima\u2019s
\nstudy (2000), on requests in English and Japanese, also revealed positive correlations between the variable of power and
\nchoice of requesting strategies in a number of socially different situations. Similarly, Trosborg (1995) who analysed aspects
\nof interlanguage pragmatics in Danish learners of English found that native speakers of English used significantly more
\nindirect strategies (hints) when interacting with authority figures (1995:276), and Kwong\u2019s study (2004), investigating
\nrefusals produced by Korean native speakers and American English speakers, showed that Korean speakers tended to take a
\nmore mitigating approach in dealing with a higher status person, unlike English speakers who did not seem to be particularly
\nsensitive to status differences.
\n2.1.2. Distance (D)
\nThe variable of distance (D) \u2018\u2018is the one which has received the most contradictory results, as well as criticisms\u2019\u2019
\n(Fukushima, 2000:76). Some studies supported Brown and Levinson\u2019s (1978, 1987) prediction regarding D, while a number
\nof others did not. More specifically, Trosborg (1995), in the study mentioned above, found her English participants to employ
\nfewer hints and more conventional indirectness with friends than with strangers. Similarly, Le Pair (1996), confirmed that
\nthe Spaniards of his study employed more face-saving strategies of the negative polite type in situations where there was a
\nrelatively high social distance between the interlocutors, while they exhibited a preference for direct strategies in those cases
\nwhere there was no or little social distance between the interlocutors.
\nMore recent studies, on the other hand, mostly concernedwith Spanish speakers, showed howhigher requesting directness
\nis expected between status-equal friends (-D). This was found in Felix-Brasdefer\u2019s (2006) results on refusal strategies among
\nmale speakers ofMexican Spanishwhich showed that \u2018\u2018social power and social distance are conditioning factors in the selection
\nof linguistic strategies\u2019\u2019 (2006:2177) in the Mexican community examined. Brown and Levinson\u2019s (1978, 1987) predictions
\nwere also confirmed in Felix-Brasdefer\u2019s study (2005) concerning indirectness and politeness in Mexican Spanish and in
\nMa\u00b4rquez Reiter\u2019s (2000, 2002) publication on linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay. Ma\u00b4rquez Reiter\u2019s (2000, 2002)
\nSpanish males and females framed their requests according to the social distance so that more directnesswas employedwhen
\nsocial distance was smaller. Diaz Perez (1999) similarly found that the higher the degree of imposition and\/or social distance,
\nthemore conventionally indirect strategies her English and Spanish subjects employed. Finally, BallesterosMartin (2001, 2002,
\ncited in Ma\u00b4rquez Reiter and Placencia, 2005:178) showed how \u2018\u2018mitigated requests in Spanish tended to be employed when
\nthere was social distance between the interlocutors and when the speakers considered that it was their right to request
\nsomething fromthe addressee. By the same token, if the speaker has more social power than the hearer and more of a right to
\n\u2018demand\u2019, he observed that he\/she is less likely to make use of mitigation\u2019\u2019 (Ma\u00b4rquez Reiter and Placencia, 2005:178).
\nContrary to the above findings, however, Fukushima\u2019s results (2000) in the study mentioned above, did not confirm the
\npositive correlation between distance and directness. Her results revealed negative correlations between the two, indicating
\nthat the bigger the social distance between the speaker (S) and the hearer (H), themore direct the requesting strategies became.
\nSuch partial confirmation of Brown and Levinson\u2019s prediction was similarly received in Holtgraves and Yang\u2019s study (1990).
\nEventhoughthey founddistance tobe associatedwiththe requestsproducedbyAmericanandKorean speakers, they also found
\nthat bald-on-record requestswere perceived by bothAmericans and Koreans as indicating the greatest distance rather than the
\nleastdistance. Similarly, Baxter (1984) in the same study of compliance-gaining aspolitenessmentionedabove, foundcloseness
\nto be associated with politeness strategies but \u2018\u2018in a manner opposite to that expected by Brown and Levinson\u2019\u2019 (Baxter,
\n1984:453): direct strategies were given higher likelihood ratings in distant relationships than in close relationships.
\nBlum-Kulka and House (1989), on the other hand, in their study mentioned above, found that the relative social distance
\nbetween the interlocutors was not a determinant factor for the subjects\u2019 requestive directness. Similar results were obtained
\n2264 M. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281
\nin Blum-Kulka et al.\u2019s study (1985) on the language of requesting in Israeli society. The authors found that neither sex nor the
\nrelative social distance had a strong predictive value. Brown and Gilman (1989), who analysed Shakespeare\u2019s tragedies, also
\ncame to the conclusion that distance had no effect on politeness behaviour, while McLaughlin et al. (1983), contrary to Brown
\nand Levinson\u2019s thinking, also showed that intimacy did not predict that level of politeness in offender accounts.
\n2.1.3. Imposition (R)
\nAs far as the effect of imposition (R) on speakers\u2019 linguistic strategies is concerned, Brown and Gilman (1989) found rating
\nof imposition to be consistent with Brown and Levinson\u2019s prediction of politeness. Similarly, McLaughlin et al. (1983)
\nreceived support for the weighting of imposition in managing failure events by finding politeness to increase with the
\nseverity of the social offence. Trosborg (1995:277) found hints to be employed more in situations in which the requested
\nservice was felt to be special and carried a high degree of imposition. Fukushima (2000) similarly received positive
\ncorrelations between the choice of requesting strategies and the variable of imposition in half of the situations studied. More
\nrecently, Schauer\u2019s (2007) longitudinal study of German EFL university students indicated that her three participating groups
\n(British English native speakers, study abroad German learners of English and \u2018at home\u2019 German learners of English) all used
\n\u2018\u2018a considerably larger variety of external modifiers in situations involving a high imposition request\u2019\u2019 (2007:211).
\nHowever, in Baxter\u2019s study (1984), imposition provided no predictive force in accounting for politeness while Hartford and
\nBardovi-Harlig (1996) also report mixed results in the email requests fromstudents to university lecturers. The authors found
\nthat lowand high levels of impositionwere found in both negative and positive affect requests, thus coming to the conclusion
\nthat imposition is not a factor that strongly affects the Assessment of the requests of the native speakers. However, thiswas not
\nthe case for non-native speakers. Their study showed that levels of imposition may indeed play a role in the Assessment of nonnative
\nspeakers\u2019 requests. Finally, Rose\u2019s (2000) cross-sectional study of the interlanguage development of young Cantonese
\nlearners of English revealed little evidence of sensitivity to situational variation related to imposition and social status.
\nThe exact relationship between the social variables and the degree of directness\/indirectness employed by speakers is
\nstill very much under investigation. The same can also be said for the degree of influence that these variables have on the
\nspeakers\u2019 linguistic choices. What is also important, however, is that the above variables, as well as other factors, often
\ninteract with each other in any given social situation.
\nFinally, what the exact components of D, P and R precisely are, is also a subject for discussion. In section 3, I consider the
\nvariables of social power, familiarity (rather than social distance) and imposition from the viewpoint of their components
\nand explain how these variables are defined and used throughout the present study.
\n2.2. Greek and English speakers: directness and politeness
\nNumerous cross-cultural studies have indicated that there is variation in the speech-act performance between two
\ndifferent speech communities, especially in relation to the level of directness of their request realisation. Such differences
\nhave been observed between the English and the Greek interactional styles, with Greek speakers being found more direct in
\ntheir speech behaviour than British English and American English speakers (Tannen, 1981; Sifianou, 1992a; Economidou-
\nKogetsidis, 2003, 2005). According to Sifianou (1992a), on the verbal level, requests, wishes, advice and suggestions among
\nGreek members of the in-group \u2018\u2018are expressed structurally more directly than in English because they are not perceived as
\nimpositions to the same extent\u2019\u2019 (1992a:42). Such high directness is particularly evident in certain requests that are not facethreatening
\nin the Greek culture, especially in contexts such as in shops, on the phone or in the family (Sifianou, 1992a,b;
\nPavlidou, 1994; Antonopoulou, 2001; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2005). In such contexts, the degree of familiarity is either very
\nhigh (i.e. among family members), the participants\u2019 roles (and therefore rights and obligations) are culturally and
\nsituationally fixed and specific (\u2018standard\u2019 situations (House, 1989)), or the result benefits the addressee (i.e. in service
\nencounters) (Antonopoulou, 2001; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2005). According to Antonopoulou (2001:246), in such contexts,
\nmitigating devices are \u2018\u2018hardly necessary to mitigate impositions, as there are no impositions involved\u2019\u2019.
\nIt has been argued that this tendency for higher directness on the part of Greek speakers is consistent with the ethos of
\ndirectness of the Greek society and its preference for informality, spontaneity, solidarity, in-group membership and overt
\nexpressions of feelings (Vassiliou et al., 1972; Triandis and Vassiliou, 1972). Following Brown and Levinson\u2019s well-known
\ndistinction between positive and negative politeness (1978, 1987), the Greek culture has importantly been found to favour
\npositive politeness (Sifianou, 1992a, 2001 [1989]; Pavlidou, 1994, 1997, 1998; Makri-Tsilipakou, 2001; Economidou-
\nKogetsidis, 2003, 2005), particularly in the personal sphere. Such positive politeness is often manifested through the Greek
\nspeakers\u2019 extensive use of bald-on-record strategies (e.g. imperative or elliptical requests), their emphasis on external rather
\nthan internal request modification (in the case of Greek learners of English\u2014cf. Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2008, 2009) and the
\nwide use of other linguistic devices (i.e. in-group markers) that promote solidarity and intimacy.
\nThe British culture, on the other hand, has been characterized as a culture with a negative politeness orientation,
\nfavouring tact, individuality, avoiding impositions and redressing threats to face (Scollon and Scollon, 1983; Wierzbicka,
\n1991; Sifianou, 1992a, 2001 [1989]; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2003, 2004, 2005). According to Sifianou (1992a) who
\ncompared politeness phenomena in England and Greece, \u2018\u2018the English seem to place a higher value on privacy and
\nindividuality\u2019\u2019 (1992a:41) (i.e. the negative aspect of face) and English requests are more sparingly employed as they are
\nperceived as impositions to a greater extent. As a result, English requests are preferably expressed more elaborately and
\nindirectly and higher restrictions are placed on bald-on-record strategies. English native speakers tend to acknowledge the
\nM. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281 2265
\naddressee\u2019s autonomy by inviting them to comply with the request and minimize impositions typically through the use of
\nconventional indirectness and internal mitigating devices (Blum-Kulka, 1989).
\nFollowing the different cultural orientation and linguistic preferences above, it is expected that the GLs\u2019 requesting
\nproduction in the present study will also be characterised by a high degree of directness.
\n3. Defining the social variables
\nThe terminological inconsistency associated with the above variables makes it essential that we clarify the way that the
\nabove variables can be defined before proceeding with the discussion of their use. A number of authors (Wierzbicka, 1991;
\nSpencer-Oatey, 1996; Fukushima, 2000) have emphasised the importance for precise use of the above terminology, as crosscultural
\npragmatic studies often \u2018\u2018use the same terms with different meanings, or different terms with the same meaning,
\nand that the parameters are rarely explicitly defined\u2019\u2019 (Spencer-Oatey, 1996:1).
\n3.1. Familiarity (F)\u2014a definition
\nA number of different labels are often used for this dimension, perhaps the most common ones being: \u2018\u2018(social) distance\u2019\u2019
\n(Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987; Blum-Kulka et al., 1985, 1989; Fukushima, 2000; Holtgraves and Yang, 1990; Thomas,
\n1995; Ma\u00b4rquez Reiter, 2002), \u2018\u2018solidarity\u2019\u2019 (Brown and Gilman, 1972), \u2018\u2018familiarity\u2019\u2019 (Olshtain, 1989; Fukushima, 1990),
\n\u2018\u2018closeness\u2019\u2019 (Baxter, 1984) (for an extended list and discussion on the different labels used see Fukushima, 2000; Spencer-
\nOatey, 1996). In many of the definitions used in the studies motioned above, \u2018familiarity\u2019 seems to be a component of social
\ndistance rather than an identical term to social distance. Spencer-Oatey (1996) summarises that \u2018\u2018authors have variously
\ninterpreted distance as comprising one or more of the following (often overlapping) components:
\n– Social similarity\/difference (e.g. Brown and Gilman, 1972 [1960].
\n– Frequency of contact (e.g. Slugoski and Turnbull, 1988).
\n– Length of acquaintance (e.g. Slugoski and Turnbull, 1988).
\n– Familiarity, or how well people know each other (e.g. Holmes, 1990).
\n– Sense of like-mindedness (e.g. Brown and Gilman, 1972 [1960]).
\n– Positive\/negative affect (e.g. Baxter, 1984)\u2019\u2019.
\n(Spencer-Oatey, 1996:7)
\nThe present empirical study uses the term \u2018\u2018familiarity\u2019\u2019 (F) instead of \u2018\u2018social distance\u2019\u2019 as it is felt that the term \u2018\u2018familiarity\u2019\u2019
\nwas easier to understand by the participants of the study who were asked to fill in the questionnaire. The term \u2018familiarity\u2019 as
\nused in the present study refers to closeness and intimacy. It follows part of Fukushima\u2019s definition of \u2018social distance\u2019 as it is
\npresented in her study (2000:87), with the \u2018affect\u2019 factor taken out. Fukushima\u2019s (2000) explains that social distance can be
\ndetermined by (a) whether people are similar or different, (b) how well they know each other, and (c) whether they like each
\nother (affect) (Fukushima, 2000:87). Social variables such as age, social class, ethnicity, occupation, sex, beliefs, and value
\nsystems are some of the components that account for whether people are similar or different, while length of acquaintance,
\nfrequency of contact and the amount of self-disclosure are the components that account for how well people know each
\nother (Fukushima, 2000:87). Not all of these components need to exist in a relationship. Familiarity might exist because of
\none or more of the above components and the degree of importance of each component may vary not only situationally but,
\nmore importantly, cross-culturally.
\nI would agree with Fukushima\u2019s definition above regarding the term \u2018\u2018familiarity\u2019\u2019 but would argue that familiarity is not,
\nin my view, determined by affect. Referring to the example of two cousins who grew up together, have known each other for
\nyears, live near each other (and see each other often), one could claim that even though both parties are similar in age,
\nethnicity, beliefs, social class, they might still not like each other very much because they are so different. The degree of
\nfamiliarity between the two remains extremely high regardless of the fact that there is no affect.
\n3.2. Social power\u2014a definition
\nAs with distance, social power also carries the problem of terminological inconsistency. A number of studies have again
\nused different terms for this dimension, the most common ones being: \u2018\u2018(social) power\u2019\u2019 (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987;
\nBlum-Kulka et al., 1985; Craig et al., 1986; Olshtain, 1989; Holtgraves and Yang, 1990; Aeginitou, 1994; Fukushima, 2000;
\nMa\u00b4rquez Reiter, 2002), \u2018\u2018status\u2019\u2019 (Scarcella and Brunak, 1981; Craig et al., 1986; Becker et al., 1989; Bardovi-Harlig and
\nHartford, 1990; Rose, 2000; Nelson et al., 2002; Kwong, 2004) and \u2018\u2018dominance\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989; Trosborg,
\n1995) (for an extended list and discussion on the different labels used see Fukushima, 2000; Spencer-Oatey, 1996).
\nIn their interpretations of the \u2018vertical\u2019 dimension of interlocutor relations, authors have emphasised one or more of the
\nfollowing aspects:
\n– Power of control (e.g. Brown and Gilman, 1972 [1960]; Brown and Levinson, 1987 [1978]).
\n– Social status or rank (e.g. Cansler and Stiles, 1981).
\n2266 M. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281
\n– Authority, or the legitimate right to exert influence (e.g. Leichty and Applegate, 1991).
\n– A general notion of equality\u2013inequality (e.g. Holtgraves, 1986).
\n(Spencer-Oatey, 1996:11)
\nThe conception of \u2018\u2018power\u2019\u2019 in the present study follows Brown and Gilman\u2019s (1972 [1960]) definition below which
\nemphasises control of another person\u2019s behaviour, rather than social rank or social status.
\n\u2018\u2018One person may be said to have power over another in the degree that he is able to control the behaviour of the other.
\nPower is a relationship between at least two persons, and it is nonreciprocal in the sense that both cannot have power in
\nthe same area of behaviour. There are many bases of power-physical strength, wealth, age, sex, institutionalised role in
\nthe church, the state, the army or within the family\u2019\u2019 (Brown and Gilman, 1972:255).
\nThe components of power include such factors as social status, social class, institutionalised role, age, sex, wealth, physical
\nstrength, regional or ethnic identity (Fukushima, 2000). As a consequence of these, someone has power over someone else, so
\nthe notion of equality-inequality arises. \u2018\u2018If someone has power over someone else, s\/he can control the other to some extent.
\nS\/he has authority or the legitimate right to exert influence\u2019\u2019 (Fukushima, 2000:85).
\nWhat is therefore also added to this conceptualisation of power is the notion of legitimate right to exert influence,
\nas proposed in Leichty and Applegate\u2019s work (1991). \u2018\u2018Legitimate power\u2019\u2019 (Leichty and Applegate, 1991:481) can be the
\nresult of social status, rank or institutionalised role depending on the specific situation. This agrees with what Thomas
\n(1995:127) refers to as \u2018\u2018legitimate power\u2019\u2019 which is \u2018\u2018the type of powermost subject to cross-cultural variation\u2019\u2019 (Thomas,
\n1995:127).
\nEqually importantly, social power is also closely associated with the rights and obligations associated with the role.
\nAccording to Blum-Kulka and House (1989), rights and obligations are definable on the grounds of social relations (context
\nexternal factors). In a customer-waiter relationship, for example,waiters are obliged to provide good service and, if they fail
\nto do so, customers have the right to complain, so in this respect, it is the customer who has greater power.
\nThe above components are not only situation-specific but also culture-specific. \u2018\u2018In an egalitarian culture, for example,
\nsocial class may not be an important component, but in a culture which emphasises vertical relationships, social class or
\nstatus may become important, as is evidently the case in Japan\u2019\u2019 (Fukushima, 2000:85). Similarly, customers in one culture
\nmight not have the same rights as customers in a different, more customer-care oriented culture.
\n3.3. Imposition\u2014a definition
\nUnlike power and familiarity, the meaning of imposition \u2018\u2018does not vary much among researchers\u2019\u2019 (Fukushima, 2000:84).
\nOne area of inconsistency, however, is whether rights and obligations are components of imposition. Some authors seem to
\ninclude them in their definition of imposition (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Fukushima, 2000), while others do not (Thomas,
\n1995). For Thomas (1995) the definition of imposition is \u2018\u2018how great the request you are making is\u2019\u2019 (Thomas, 1995:130) and
\nthe answer depends on the value of what is being asked for. Thomas (1995) refers to Goffman\u2019s (1967) notion of \u2018\u2018free goods\u2019\u20191
\nand \u2018\u2018non-free goods\u2019\u2019 to explain the value of what is being asked.
\nFor Fukushima (2000) the size of imposition depends on factors such as time, effort, financial burden and psychological
\nburden on the part of the addressee. Fukushima\u2019s \u2018\u2018standpoint towards imposition is to include rights and obligations, since
\nimposition will also be influenced by whether the requester has a right to make a certain request and whether the requestee
\nhas an obligation to pursue the request\u2019\u2019 (Fukushima, 2000:88). For example, in certain cultures university lecturers might
\nhave the right to request the student to carry their books and notes back to their office at the end of the lecture, whereas in
\nother cultures (especially in Western cultures) this might constitute a greater imposition, as such a task falls outside
\nstudents\u2019 obligations and teachers\u2019 rights.
\nThe term \u2018imposition\u2019 in the present study is defined using Thomas\u2019 definition (1995:130) (\u2018\u2018how great is the request you
\nare making\u2019\u2019) and Fukushima\u2019s (2000) proposed factors which affect the size of the imposition (e.g. time, effort, financial
\nburden, psychological burden, rights and obligations). Indeed, rights and obligations need to be included under the variable
\nof imposition as \u2018\u2018the degree of imposition of the requested act will be high if the requester does not have a right to ask a
\ncertain request, and the requestee does not have an obligation to pursue it\u2019\u2019 (Fukushima, 2000:88). This might be seen in the
\ncase of standard situations where there is high obligation for Hto comply and a strong right for S to pose the request. There is,
\ntherefore, low difficulty for both H to pose the request and for H to accept and carry out the requested act. Yet, as pointed out
\nabove, whether S has the right to pose the request or not is related to power. This shows how the variables are often
\ninterrelated as some of their components overlap. Similarly to familiarity and power, imposition may also vary individually,
\nsituationally and cross-culturally.
\nIt is important to note that the components presented in the definition of each variable are my interpretations, and the
\nparticipants in this study might have different components of each variable in mind. However, an examination of what each
\nsubject considers to be the components of each variable falls outside the scope of the present study.
\n1 Goffman\u2019s (1967) term \u2018\u2018free goods\u2019\u2019 refers to those small things (i.e. coffee, cigarettes, and glass of water) which are considered as having no value as
\nsuch and can therefore be obtained without someone making a specific request. Of course, what constitutes free and non-free goods often differs from
\nculture to culture.
\nM. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281 2267
\n4. Methods and procedures
\n4.1. Participants
\nOne hundred and ninety two participants took part in this study: 92 native speakers of British English and 100 native
\nspeakers of Greek, second language speakers of English. All the participants were full-time university students in the UK and
\nthey were either enrolled in an undergraduate or a postgraduate study. In order to ensure greater internal validity, only
\nstudents aged 17\u201330 were included in the study. The mean age for the Greek participants was 22.4 and the mean age for the
\nBritish participants was 21.7. For the Greek participants, there were 51 males and 49 females. For the British participants,
\nthere were 45 males and 47 females.
\nThe Greek participants had been in the U.K. for an average of 2.8 years at the time of the study. They all grew up in
\nGreece and were native speakers of the Greek language. English was a foreign language for all of them and none of them
\nhad lived in the UK or in any other country for any period of time prior to the present study. As they were all enrolled for a
\nBachelor or a Masters degree, they all satisfied the English Language requirement for entry to an undergraduate or a
\npostgraduate study having passed one of the formal English language tests (e.g. ESOL level 2, IELTS Grade 6.0, TOEFL 550
\n+, GCSE or IGCSE English Language: Minimum C, etc.). Their English language proficiency level can therefore be
\ncharacterized as \u2018advanced\u2019.
\nThe British participants came from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Completed questionnaires from respondents
\nwho reported to have lived in a foreign country for more than one year were rejected. Similarly, responses from participants
\nwho reported to be native speakers of an additional language other than English were also eliminated. As Britain is a
\nmulticultural society, no ethnic-minority participants were used in order to avoid influences from other cultures and
\nlanguages as much as possible. Thus only students of white European ethnic origin were selected to participate (for a
\ndiscussion of \u2018\u2018British English\u2019\u2019 see Stewart, 2005:116).
\n4.2. Data collection procedures
\n4.2.1. The DCT
\nA written discourse completion task (WDCT), previously pilot-tested, was the main elicitation instrument of the study but
\ninterview data were also collected. The discourse completion task was designed to elicit requests in writing in the English
\nlanguage. Through the use of the elicitation instrument, a total number of 1920 requests were collected, coded and analysed.
\nThe DCT consisted of two parts. The first part, which was a discourse-completion, open-ended questionnaire, comprised
\n10 social situations, all of which had been designed to elicit requests. The pilot study had already proved that they could
\neffectively elicit requesting strategies and a number of these situations had already been successfully used in other studies
\n(Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; Takahashi, 1992). Participants were again given a short
\ndescription of the situation, which specified the setting, the familiarity and the social power between the participants. They
\nwere then asked to complete the dialogue, responding as they thought the person in the situation would, thus providing a
\nrequesting strategy. The social situations represented by this questionnaire varied by design along the dimensions of social
\npower and familiarity. The scenarios were as follows:
\n1. Tuition fees: The speaker gives private language tuition to the hearer. The hearer forgets to pay him\/her so the speaker has
\nto remind him\/her about the money.
\n2. Job leave: The speaker is a new employee and has to ask his\/her boss for a few days\u2019 leave to see his\/her dying
\ngrandmother.
\n3. Baby-sitting: An emergency comes up so the speaker has to ask his\/her parents to baby-sit for the evening.
\n4. Restaurant: The speaker is in a restaurant with a group of friends and gives his\/her order to the waiter.
\n5. Assignment extension: A student asks for an assignment extension from one of his\/her lecturers who knows him\/her best.
\n6. Booking ticket: The speaker rings an airline reservation centre to book a flight.
\n7. Bank loan: The speaker asks the bank manager for a loan of \u00a32000.
\n8. Dinner: The speaker asks his\/her best friend to pass him\/her the salad during dinner.
\n9. Street directions: The speaker asks a pedestrian for some directions.
\n10. Police: The speaker is a traffic warden and has to ask a driver, who has parked on a yellow line and is blocking a garage
\nentrance, to move his\/her car immediately.
\nSix role constellations were represented: (a) SP (social power): x > y\/F (familiarity): high (situation 1), (b) SP (social power):
\nx > y\/F (familiarity): low (situation 10), (c) SP (social power): x < y\/F (familiarity): high (situation 5), (d) SP (social power):
\nx < y\/F (familiarity): low (situation 2) (situation 7), (e) SP (social power): x = y\/F (familiarity): high (situation 3) (situation 8),
\n(f) SP (social power): x = y\/F (familiarity): low (situation 4) (situation 6) (situation 9).
\nThese descriptions are of course my own perceptions and might not represent the participants\u2019 views (e.g. SP might for
\nsome participants rest on the H rather than on the S in situation 1, and the interlocutors\u2019 relationship might be seen as
\ncarrying low rather than high familiarity). For this reason, the participants\u2019 perception of social reality is something which is
\nexamined in the second part of the DCT (the situation assessment questionnaire).
\n2268 M. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281
\nThese selected situations were also chosen in such a way as to include both \u2018\u2018standard\u2019\u2019 and \u2018\u2018non-standard\u2019\u2019 (House, 1989)
\nsituations. Three \u2018\u2018standard\u2019\u2019 situations such as Restaurant, Ticket and Police are situations, which present \u2018\u2018a pre-fixed
\nconstellation of rights and obligations\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989:142), where the listener has a high obligation to
\ncomply and the speaker has a strong right and a low degree of difficulty to pose the request. Such situations are standard
\nsituations in the sense that precisely those parameters which make requesting such potentially difficult work interactionally
\nare relatively set or standardised. Results in previous studies (House, 1989) have shown that the notion of a \u2018standard
\nsituation\u2019 is a crucial determinant of learners\u2019 choice of requestive strategies.
\nFinally, the chosen situations intended to elicit both requests for action and requests for information. This was decided in
\norder to achieve greater requesting variation and because requests for information ((\u2018\u2018Asks\u2019\u2019): Hassall, 1999) were analysed
\nseparately on their own scale of directness.
\nTheWDCT,whichwas themain elicitation instrument used for themost extensive research project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) on speech acts today
\n(the CCSARP; Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989), and numerous cross-cultural and interlanguage
\nstudies have been conducted since then using this instrument (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1986; Fearch and Kasper, 1989;
\nFukushima, 1990; Takahashi, 1992; VanMulken, 1996; Lee, 2005;Woodfield, 2006; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2008, 2009),
\nstill remains the most heavily criticised research instrument in linguistic studies for a number of justifiable reasons.
\nMethodological concerns include its hypothetical nature of the situations and how representative the WDCT data are to
\nauthentic spoken language (Rintell and Mitchell, 1989; Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig, 1992; Sasaki, 1998).Woodfield (2005,
\n2008), for example, reports on negative comments from research participants regarding both the authenticity of the
\nresearch tasks and the reliability of written responses. Golato (2003:91\u201392), similarly suggests that written DCTs are
\ninappropriate for studying actual language as they require participants not to conversationally interact but to \u2018\u2018articulate
\nwhat they believe would be situationally appropriate responses within possible, yet imaginary, interactional settings\u2019\u2019.
\nBardovi-Harlig and Hartford (2005:11) also argue that among the instruments available to researchers for examining
\nproduction in pragmatics studies, production questionnaires do not generate interactive language samples, while Kasper
\n(2008:294) points out that \u2018\u2018DCTs and other questionnaire formats elicit intuitional data rather than data on language use
\nand behaviour\u2019\u2019.
\nWhile acknowledging the extensive criticisms of WDCTs in the literature, the DCT was still employed because the
\nfocus of the present study was on such intuitional data. The study focuses on the nature of the pragmalinguistic and
\nsociopragmatic resources employed by learners and native speakers rather than on the nature of speech acts in
\ninteraction (Kasper, 2008). Kasper and Rose (2002) agree that \u2018\u2018when carefully designed, DCTs provide useful
\ninformation about speakers\u2019 pragmalinguistic knowledge of the strategies and linguistic forms by which communicative
\nacts can be implemented and about their sociopragmatic knowledge of the context factors under which particular
\nstrategic and linguistic choices are appropriate\u2019\u2019 (2002:96). Acknowledging, therefore, the fact that the language
\ncollected is not authentic spoken language, the findings of the present study should be regarded as findings relating to
\nwhat speakers tend to view as being pragmatically appropriate linguistic behaviour rather than findings deriving from
\nactual discourse.
\nThe use of DCT additionally offered a number of important practical advantages to the purposes of the present study.
\nAlthough DCTs do not offer interactive language samples, they can offer data of high comparability due to the controlled
\nnature of the task (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford, 2005:11). Even though naturally occurring data would have been the ideal
\ndata, such data for cross-cultural studies presents major practical limitations. Legal and ethical considerations aside, it would
\nbe practically impossible to collect large data of a given speech act in the same situational and interpersonal context. As
\nRintell and Mitchell point out (1989:250) \u2018\u2018it is impossible to control the contextual variables so as to ensure that the same
\ncontext will be repeated even once\u2019\u2019 (Rintell and Mitchell, 1989:250). For the present study, the DCT allowed great control of
\nthe contextual variables important to the study (Rintell and Mitchell, 1989:250) and permitted the gathering of large data
\n\u2018\u2018on a wide range of difficult-to-observe linguistic phenomena\u2019\u2019 (Billmyer and Varghese, 2000:518). At the same time, it
\nallowed control over the demographic information related to the subjects used.
\n4.2.2. The situational assessment questionnaire
\nThe second part of the DCT was a situational assessment questionnaire which aimed to find out whether these situations
\nare perceived and rated similarly by the two language groups. Such cross-cultural variation in the perception of social reality
\nhas been linked to differences in the speakers\u2019 requestive behaviour. The Greek learners, for example, might be found to
\ndecrease their requestive directness with higher social power and increase it accordingly with higher familiarity.
\nThe situational assessment questionnaire (see Fig. 1) followed the same structure as the instrument used by Blum-
\nKulka and House (1989), with the main difference being that it concerned only three social parameters: (a) social power,
\n(b) familiarity, and (c) imposition of the requested act. Participants were asked to rate each of the above social
\ndimensions on a Likert scale of 1\u20133, where 1 was the lowest and 3 the highest. They were asked to report not only on the
\nspeaker\u2019s social power but also on the listener\u2019s social power. Four social dimensions for each situation were therefore
\nexamined.
\nTo keep Assessments as specific to the situations as possible, the questions contained explicit reference to the
\ninterlocutors\u2019 relationship (e.g. parents, best friend, and driver) or name (e.g. Mike). To avoid any confusion in relation to
\nthe terminology of \u2018\u2018familiarity\u2019\u2019, \u2018\u2018power\u2019\u2019 and \u2018\u2018imposition\u2019\u2019, short and simple explanations of these terms were provided at
\nthe beginning of the questionnaire.
\nM. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281 2269
\n4.2.3. The interviews
\nSemi-structured interviews were also conducted in relation to both native speakers and the learners\u2019 production. These
\ninterviews aimed to gain some qualitative insights into the participants\u2019 views, beliefs and opinions regarding requests and
\npoliteness. As interviewing was not the main research instrument of the study and was simply used as a complimentary tool,
\nonly four informants were interviewed (2 GLs and 2 ENSs).
\nAmong other things, the interviewees were asked to comment on the situational features of social power and familiarity
\nbetween the two interactants, as well as on the imposition of the requested act. They were additionally asked to comment on
\nhow and whether their written response would have been any different if one of these social parameters had been any
\ndifferent. The interviewees were asked to take a few minutes to read their copy of completed questionnaire in order to
\nfamiliarise themselves with the situations and their own responses again. The duration of each interview was approximately
\n30 min long. The total interview time collected was therefore 120 min.
\n5. Data analysis
\nThe requesting strategies yielded were analysed within a shared analytical framework. The analysis was based on an
\nindependent Assessment of each request head act according to its degree of directness. Directness is taken to mean the
\ndegree to which the speaker\u2019s illocutionary intent is apparent from the locution (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989:278),while head
\nact is \u2018\u2018theminimal unitwhich can realize a request\u2019\u2019, in otherwords \u2018\u2018the core of the request sequence\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka et al.,
\n1989:275).
\nBased on the dimension of directness\/indirectness, a coding scheme was therefore developed for the cross-linguistic
\nanalysis of both English and Greek requesting strategies. This coding scheme, which was in effect a directness\/indirectness
\nmodel, was based on the coding scheme of the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realisation Project (CCSARP) (Blum-Kulka and
\nOlshtain, 1984; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989), with a number of modifications and adaptations made to it to account for requests
\nreceived not successfully covered by the taxonomy\u2019s existing predicting value.2
\nIn addition to the above, requests for action and requests for information were analysed on a separate scale of directness.
\nAs Hassall (1999) argues, requests for information (\u2018\u2018asks\u2019\u2019) need to be analysed separately from other requests because of
\nproblems presented by one strategy for asking for information, the \u2018\u2018direct question\u2019\u2019. A direct question (e.g. \u2018\u2018Where is the
\ntrain station\u2019\u2019) is the most direct way of all to ask for information, but as a means of asking anything other than information
\n(e.g. for goods or a service) (e.g. mother to son before going out: \u2018\u2018Where is your jacket\u2019\u2019), a question is not direct (Hassall,
\n1999:594\u2013595).
\nBoth requests for action and requests for information were analysed along the following main directness levels of (a) most
\ndirect strategies,3 (b) conventionally indirect strategies,4 and (c) non-conventionally indirect strategies.5 A forth option (d) of
\nopting out of the act altogether (\u2018don\u2019t do the face-threatening act (FTA))\u2019 was also offered.
\nFig. 1. Sample from the situational assessment questionnaire.
\n2 The data of the present study, for example, yielded a new requesting sub-strategy which included \u2018reminder requests\u2019. Such utterances served to remind
\nthe hearer about an expected or a prohibited action. Such a request might be (a) an expectation request (e.g. \u2018\u2018Mike, you haven\u2019t paid me today.\u2019\u2019, \u2018\u2018You owe
\nme some money, don\u2019t you think\u2019\u2019), or (b) a prohibited-action request (e.g.. \u2018\u2018You can\u2019t park here!\u2019\u2019). Another new category developed included \u2018pre-decided
\nstatements\u2019. These are utterances in which the speaker chooses to skip the requestive illocution altogether and instead simply checks whether his\/her
\ndecision about the course of action he\/she will take is acceptable by the hearer. Such requests are normally employed in situations where S feels it would be
\nmore appropriate to help himself\/herself rather than employ some kind of requestive construction (i.e. for free goods) (e.g. \u2018\u2018I won\u2019t be in tomorrow. I hope
\nit\u2019s OK.\u2019\u2019). Both reminder requests and pre-decided requests were classified in the most-direct strategy level of requests.
\n3 This strategy level which covers \u2018\u2018explicit requests that are syntactically marked as such, for example, imperatives, or by other verbal means that name
\nthe act as a request, such as performatives (Austin, 1962) and hedged performatives (Fraser, 1975)\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka, 1989:46) (e.g. \u2018\u2018Please look after the kids
\nfor the evening.\u2019\u2019, \u2018\u2018I\u2019m here to ask for an extension\u2019\u2019). Obligation, want and need statements (e.g. \u2018\u2018I need you to pay me\u2019\u2019) also fall into this level.
\n4 This strategy level covers strategies that realise the act by reference to contextual preconditions necessary for its performance, as conventionalised in a
\ngiven language (Blum-Kulka, 1989:47). Conventioanlly indirect requests might typically include utterances which contain a suggestion for H to do X (Blum-
\nKulka et al., 1989:18) (e.g. \u2018\u2018How about looking the kids tonight\u2019\u2019), or utterances containing reference to preparatory conditions (e.g. ability, willingness,
\npossibility) as conventionalised in any specific language (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989:18) (e.g. \u2018\u2018Could you look after the kids tonight\u2019\u2019, \u2018\u2018Would it be possible to
\ntake a few days off work\u2019\u2019).
\n5 Non-conventionally indirect strategy level covers the open-ended group of indirect strategies that realise the request either by partial reference to the
\nobject or element needed for the implementation of the act or by reliance on contextual clues (Blum-Kulka, 1989:47). This category includes strategies
\nwhich are not conventionalised in the language and hence require more inferencing activity for the hearer to derive the speaker\u2019s requestive intent. Strong
\nand mild hints, as well as \u2018\u2018non-explicit question directives\u2019\u2019 (Ervin-Tripp, 1976) (e.g. \u2018\u2018Where\u2019s your jacket\u2019\u2019) belong to this most indirect strategy level.
\n2270 M. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281
\n6. Results
\n6.1. Situational and cross-cultural variation of main requesting strategies
\nTo what extent do GLs and ENSs agree on the variation of their requestive behaviour according to the social situation The
\nanalysis of the distribution of the main request strategy types in the ten situations examined revealed that:
\n(a) There are high levels of cross-cultural agreement between the Greek and the English speakers for trends of situational
\nvariation namely, relatively higher levels of directness are licensed insome situations thaninothers across bothcultures
\n(see Figs. 2\u20135).
\n(b) There is some cross-cultural variation in choices of directness level within some situations. Thus, the two groups were
\nfound to disagree on the specific directness levels appropriate for given situations (Table 1).
\nDespite the general cross-cultural agreement between the ENSs and the GLs for trends of situation variation and, as can be
\nobserved from Table 1, different results were revealed for each DCT situation regarding the main requesting strategies
\nemployed by the two groups. In order to identify which of these percentage differences were statistically significant,
\nchi-square tests of Independence were conducted. The statistical analysis results showed that there was a significant
\ndifference in the choice of the main requesting strategies between GLs and ENSs in the Tuition fees (situation 1) and the
\nAssignment situation (situation 5) (chi-square was significant at the 0.01 level). Looking more closely at situation 1 (Tuition
\nfees), the ENSs were significantly more direct than the GLs. More specifically, 50% of the strategies employed by the British
\nFig. 3. The use of conventionally indirect strategies in the ten request situations by ENSs and GLs.
\nFig. 2. The use of direct strategies in the ten request situations by ENSs and GLs.
\nM. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281 2271
\nparticipants belonged to the most direct strategy level, whereas only 20.5% of GLs\u2019 strategies belonged to this directness
\nlevel. The results also indicated that GLs strongly favoured conventional indirectness in this situation, whereas only 25.6% of
\nENSs opted for conventional indirectness. Interestingly, the results of the Tuition fees situation revealed that more GLs opted
\nout of this face-threatening act altogether by choosing to say nothing as compared to ENSs (compare 8.3% vs. 1.3%\u2014see
\nTable 1). Looking more closely at situation 5 (Assignment) (Table 1), it was the Greek participants who used significantly
\nmore direct strategies (50.6%) compared to ENSs (10.7%). The vast majority of ENSs\u2019 strategies were conventionally indirect
\n(85.7%), whereas only 49.4% of GLs\u2019 strategies were conventionally indirect. While ENSs made some use of nonconventionally
\nindirect strategies (3.6%), GLs made no use of these strategies at all (0%).
\nYet, despite the above disagreement in the participants\u2019 choices of directness levels in these two social situations, the use
\nof the three main strategy types (direct\/ conventionally indirect\/ non-conventionally indirect) follows a similar trend across
\nthe majority of the situations in both groups. The highest degree of cross-cultural agreement can be observed in the Babysitting,
\nRestaurant, Dinner, and Directions situations (see Table 1). Higher levels of direct strategies are licensed by both
\ngroups in the Restaurant, Ticket and Bank loan situation. Similarly, higher levels of conventional indirectness are licensed by
\nboth groups in the Baby-sitting, Dinner and Directions situation (see Table 1). Finally, neither the ENSs nor the GLs favoured
\nnon-conventional indirectness in the situations tested.
\n6.2. Cross-cultural variation in the assessment of social variables
\nDo GLs and ENSs perceive the same social situations differently in terms of (a) social power, (b) familiarity and (c)
\nimposition of the requested act People from different cultures often hold differing views regarding the social and situational
\nfactors involved and the relative importance they attribute to the parameters involved (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989;
\nSpencer-Oatey, 1992, 1993, 1997; Fukushima, 2000). The argument here is that differences in the participants\u2019 perception of
\nsocial reality can lead to differences in the participants\u2019 linguistic choices (i.e. requesting strategy selection and degree of
\ndirectness).
\nFig. 4. The use of non-conventionally indirect strategies in the ten request situations by ENSs and GLs.
\nFig. 5. The use of \u2018Don\u2019t do the FTA\u2019 in the ten request situations by ENSs and GLs.
\n2272 M. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281
\nIn order to investigate this research question, mean scores of each language group (Greek\/British) were calculated. These
\nscores were calculated in relation to the above social variables and to each social situation. T-tests, a \u2018\u2018procedure that tests the
\ndifference between two groups for normally distributed interval data\u2019\u2019 (Hatch and Lazaration, 1991:249), were conducted in
\norder to establish whether the mean differences were statistically significant. The mean scores and the t-test results are all
\npresented in Table 2.
\nAs can also be observed from Table 2, cross-cultural disagreement was perceived in the participants\u2019 assessment of these
\nsocial variables in the majority of the situations. More specifically, the two groups assessed the relative weight of these
\nparameters differently in situations 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 (i.e. in all situations except fromsituations 4 and 9). The resultswere as
\nfollows:
\n(1) There was a significant difference in the assessment of familiarity in the Tuition fees situation. ENSs assessed the
\nfamiliarity between S and H as greater as compared to GLs.
\n(2) There was a significant difference in the assessment of social power that S has over H in the Tuition fees, Baby-sitting and
\nBank loan situation. ENSs assessed the social power that S has over H in the Tuition fees situation as greater as compared
\nto GLs. GLs, on the other hand, assessed the social power that S has over his\/her parents (Baby-sitting situation) and over
\nhis\/her best friend (Dinner situation) as greater as compared to ENSs.
\nTable 1
\nPercentage distribution and chi-square results of main request strategy types in ten social situations (nGreek = 100, nEnglish = 92).
\nSituation Strategy type GLs % ENSs % Chi-square results
\nSituation 1 (Tuition fees) 1. Most direct 20.5 50.0 x2 = 19.44
\n2. Conventionally indirect 50.7 25.6 df = 3
\n3. Non-conventionally indirect 20.5 23.1 p = 0.000**
\n4. Do not do FTA 8.3 1.3
\nSituation 2 (Job leave) 1. Most direct 51.9 38.4 x2 = 4.41
\n2. Conventionally indirect 46.9 61.6 df = 2
\n3. Non-conventionally indirect 1.2 0 p = 0.110, NS
\n4. Do not do FTA 0 0
\nSituation 3 (Baby-sitting) 1. Most direct 10.8 11.7 x2 = 0.76
\n2. Conventionally indirect 84.3 85.9 df = 2
\n3. Non-conventionally indirect 4.9 2.4 p = 0.684, NS
\n4. Do not do FTA 0 0
\nSituation 4 (Restaurant) 1. Most direct 67.5 57.0 x2 = 1.85
\n2. Conventionally indirect 32.5 43.0 df = 1
\n3. Non-conventionally indirect 0 0 p = 0.173, NS
\n4. Do not do FTA 0 0
\nSituation 5 (Assignment) 1. Most direct 50.6 10.7 x2 = 32.85
\n2. Conventionally indirect 49.4 85.7 df = 2
\n3. Non-conventionally indirect 0 3.6 p = 0.000**
\n4. Do not do FTA 0 0
\nSituation 6 (Ticket) 1. Most direct 78.0 65.1 x2 = 3.87
\n2. Conventionally indirect 18.3 31.4 df = 2
\n3. Non-conventionally indirect 3.7 3.5 p = 0.145, NS
\n4. Do not do FTA 0.0 0.0
\nSituation 7 (Bank loan) 1. Most direct 72.1 61.9 x2 = 2.64
\n2. Conventionally indirect 24.4 35.7 df = 2
\n3. Non-conventionally indirect 3.5 2.4 p = 0.267, NS
\n4. Do not do FTA 0 0
\nSituation 8 (Dinner) 1. Most direct 20.8 27.3 x2 = 0.89
\n2. Conventionally indirect 77.9 71.4 df = 2
\n3. Non-conventionally indirect 1.3 1.3 p = 0.640, NS
\n4. Do not do FTA 0 0
\nSituation 9 (Directions) 1. Most direct\/bald-on record 1.2 1.2 x2 = 0.98
\n2. Conventionally indirect 98.8 97.6 df = 2
\n3. Non-conventionally indirect 0 1.2 p = 0.612, NS
\n4. Do not do FTA 0 0
\nSituation 10 (Police) 1. Most direct 56.2 44.4 x2 = 3.62
\n2. Conventionally indirect 43.8 52.8 df = 2
\n3. Non-conventionally indirect 0 2.8 p = 0.164, NS
\n4. Do not do FTA 0 0
\n** p < 0.01, NS: not significant.
\nM. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281 2273
\n(3) There was a significant difference in the assessment of social power thatHhas over S in the Bank loan situation. The social
\npower that the bank manager (H) has over S was assessed as bigger by ENSs than by GLs.
\n(4) There was a significant difference in the assessment of imposition of the requested act in the Assignment, Ticket, Dinner
\nand Police situation. In the Assignment situation, the level of imposition was rated higher by the ENSs than by the GLs. In
\nthe Ticket, Dinner and Police situation, on the other hand, the level of imposition of the requested act was rated higher by
\nthe GLs than the ENSs.
\n6.3. Correlation analysis between assessment of social reality and levels of directness
\nTo what extent is the GLs\u2019 selection of requesting strategies determined by the social variables of familiarly, power and
\nimposition In other words, are there any systematic links\/correlations between their perceptions of social reality and the
\nobserved levels of directness The participants were expected to vary their requesting strategies depending on their
\nperception of the above social variables (i.e. the greater the familiarity between S and H, the more direct their requesting
\nstrategies are expected to become). Statistical analyses were conducted to test out the correlation between the learners\u2019
\nassessment of social variables and their choice of requesting strategies. The Spearman Rank-Order Correlation (Rho) test was
\nused for this analysis as \u2018\u2018the Spearman correlation is appropriate for both rank-order data and interval data with the
\nstrength of ranks\u2019\u2019 (Hatch and Lazaration, 1991:451).
\nThe results of Spearman\u2019s correlation, presented in Table 3, revealed that there are correlations between the learners\u2019
\nchoice of requesting strategies and their assessment of social variables only in the Baby-sitting (situation 3) and the Dinner
\n(situation 8) situation. More specifically, results showed that:
\n(1) There is no correlation between the learners\u2019 degree of directness and their assessment of familiarity.
\n(2) There is no correlation between the learners\u2019 degree of directness and their assessment of H\u2019 social power.
\n(3) There is a negative correlation between the learners\u2019 degree of directness and their assessment of the speaker\u2019s social
\npower in the Dinner situation (rs = 0.269, p = 0.019). This indicates that the greater the degree of P the speaker has over
\nhis\/her best friend, the more direct the requesting strategies become.
\nTable 2
\nT-test results and mean scores of social variables by ENSs and GLs.
\nFamiliarity Social power of S Social power of H Imposition
\nSituation 1 (Tuition fees) G: 1.91 G: 2.18 G: 1.53 G: 1.84
\nB: 2.06 B: 2.48 B: 1.43 B: 1.87
\nt(162) = 2.018* t(163) = 3.041** t(161) = 0.985 t(161) = 0.312
\nSituation 2 (Job leave) G: 1.43 G: 1.30 G: 2.63 G: 2.21
\nB: 1.29 B: 1.30 B: 2.59 B: 2.25
\nt(161.5) = 1.700 t(162) = 0.055 t(163) = 0.431 t(159) = 0.333
\nSituation 3 (Baby-sitting) G: 2.87 G: 2.31 G: 2.30 G: 1.86
\nB: 2.95 B: 1.91 B: 2.25 B: 1.81
\nt(138.3) = 1.615 t(158.5) = 4.149** t(162) =0.524 t(144.7) = 0.497
\nSituation 4 (Restaurant) G: 1.21 G: 2.27 G: 1.36 G: 1.64
\nB: 1.28 B: 2.36 B: 1.50 B: 1.46
\nt(147.3) = 0.805 t(151) = 0.886 t(151) = 1.523 t(151) = 1.569
\nSituation 5 (Assignment) G: 1.95 G: 1.20 G: 2.61 G: 2.14
\nB: 2.11 B: 1.27 B: 2.69 B: 2.45
\nt(161) = 1.782 t(162) = 1.039 t(162) = 0.908 t(156.1) = 3.130**
\nSituation 6 (Ticket) G: 1.22 G: 1.96 G: 1.62 G: 1.64
\nB: 1.20 B: 2.14 B: 1.74 B: 1.41
\nt(157.9) = 0.272 t(164) = 1.502 t(163) = 1.207 t(151.5) = 1.207*
\nSituation 7 (Bank loan) G: 1.26 G: 1.46 G: 2.40 G: 2.00
\nB: 1.31 B: 1.38 B: 2.69 B: 1.99
\nt(163) = 0.673 t(163) = 0.803 t(159.6) = 3.071** t(162) = 0.109
\nSituation 8 (Dinner) G: 2.82 G: 2.26 G: 2.25 G: 1.71
\nB: 2.91 B: 1.97 B: 2.07 B: 1.49
\nt(143.01) = 1.295 t(148.05) = 2.496* t(149.9) = 1.607 t(144.7) = 1.929*
\nSituation 9 (Directions) G: 1.16 G: 1.19 G: 1.38 G: 1.47
\nB: 1.10 B: 1.32 B: 1.48 B: 1.52
\nt(127.01) = 0.999 t(159.37) = 1.542 t(158.38) = 1.038 t(163) = 0.573
\nSituation 10 (Police) G: 1.31 G: 2.69 G: 1.26 G: 2.18
\nB: 1.21 B: 2.72 B: 1.22 B: 1.85
\nt(136.51) = 1.127 t(144) = 0.352 t(144) = 0.403 t(143) = 2.844*
\n*p < 0.05, **p 0.01. G = Greek subjects\/mean scores, B = British subjects\/mean scores.
\n2274 M. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281
\n(4) There is a negative correlation between the learners\u2019 degree of directness and their assessment of imposition in the Babysitting
\nsituation (rs = 0.228, p = 0.042). This indicates that the greater the imposition, the more direct the learners\u2019
\nstrategies become.
\n7. Discussion
\nThe findings in relation to the participants\u2019 variation of requesting behaviour clearly show that P, F and R interact with
\ncultural and other situational factors. While both the GLs and the ENSs varied their requests by situation, they differed in
\ntheir specific choices within each situation. This finding agrees with Blum-Kulka and House\u2019s (1989) finding whose study of
\nAustralian English, German, French, Hebrew and Argentinian Spanish speakers\u2019 requests showed that \u2018\u2018while the overall
\ndistribution along the scale of indirectness follows similar patterns in all languages, the specific proportions in the choices
\nbetween the more direct and less direct strategies are culture-specific\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989:133).
\nThe results showed that the GLs were significantly more indirect in the Tuition fees situation than the ENSs. That was
\ncontrary to the finding of previous studies (Tannen, 1981; Sifianou, 1992a; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2005) which showed
\nthat Greek speakers are more direct in their speech behaviour than British and American English speakers. An explanation
\nregarding these differences in the subjects\u2019 directness could be found in differences in their conception of social relations.
\nResults from the situational assessment analysis above indicated that GLs and ENSs hold differing norms regarding the
\nfamiliarity and the social power involved in the Tuition fees situation. More specifically, the ENSs assessed both the
\nfamiliarity between S and H and the social power that S has over H as higher. As a result, the ENSs were the ones who
\nemployed more direct requests to remind for the owed fee. Very direct requests such as \u2018\u2018That\u2019ll be \u00a310 then Mike\u2019\u2019, \u2018\u2018Can I
\nhave the money please\u2019\u2019 or \u2018\u2018Do you have your money ready\u2019\u2019 were used extensively by the British participants who, also
\naccording to the interviews, saw this request as being well within their professional rights:
\n\u2018\u2018- Interviewer: Some people\u2019s response was \u2018\u2018I would never ask for the money. I feel embarrassed.\u2019\u2019 What do you think
\nabout this statement
\n– Interviewee: \u2018\u2018. . .at the end of the day it is your job and if you went to work somewhere else and you didn\u2019t get paid, you\u2019d
\nwant them to pay you. So if he doesn\u2019t pay you it\u2019s more or less the same. You\u2019ve taught him for that lesson, you\u2019ve given
\nhim a lesson but he hasn\u2019t paid you. . .So I wouldn\u2019t really agree with the statement.\u2019\u2019
\n(Male interviewee\u2014English participant)
\nGreek participants, on the other hand, primarily opted for conventionally indirect strategies, while a number of them opted
\nout of the face threatening act altogether, preferring not to request the fee at all. This was also supported by the Greek
\nparticipants interviewed who emphasised that unless they were really desperate for the money, they would not ask until
\nnext time.
\nTable 3
\nSpearman\u2019s rank order correlation coefficients between the GLs\u2019 choice of requesting strategies and the assessment of social variables.
\nFamiliarity Social power of S Social power of H Imposition
\nSituation 1 (Tuition fees) rs = 0.143 rs = 0.132 rs = 0.107 rs = 0.117
\np = 0.233, NS p = 0.270, NS p = 0.376, NS p = 0.335, NS
\nSituation 2 (Job leave) rs = 0.094 rs = 0.030 rs = 0.023 rs = 0.121
\np = 0.415, NS p = 0.797, NS p = 0.842, NS p = 0.293, NS
\nSituation 3 (Baby-sitting) rs = 0.150 rs = 0.090 rs = 0.153 rs = 0.228
\np = 0.178, NS p = 0.424, NS p = 0.175, NS p = 0.042*
\nSituation 4 (Restaurant) rs = 0.126 rs = 0.038 rs = 0.161 rs = 0.143
\np = 0.280, NS p = 0.745, NS p = 0.167, NS p = 0.222, NS
\nSituation 5 (Assignment) rs = 0.139 rs = 0.120 rs = 0.082 rs = 0.068
\np = 0.221, NS p = 0.292, NS p = 0.470, NS p = 0.549, NS
\nSituation 6 (Ticket) rs = 0.029 rs = 0.088 rs = 0.005 rs = 0.109
\np = 0.799, NS p = 0.434, NS p = 0.968, NS p = 0.336, NS
\nSituation 7 (Bank loan) rs = 0.049 rs = 0.124 rs = 0.019 rs = 0.106
\np = 0.668, NS p = 0.272, NS p = 0.866, NS p = 0.353, NS
\nSituation 8 (Dinner) rs = 0.194 rs = 0.269 rs = 0.115 rs = 0.017
\np = 0.093, NS p = 0.019* p = 0.326, NS p = 0.882, NS
\nSituation 9 (Directions) rs = 0.037 rs = 0.045 rs = 0.079 rs = 0.090
\np = 0.742, NS p = 0.691, NS p = 0.491, NS p = 0.427, NS
\nSituation 10 (Police) rs = 0.136 rs = 0.089 rs = 0.069 rs = 0.082
\np = 0.255, NS p = 0.459, NS p = 0.567, NS p = 0.492, NS
\n* p < 0.05.
\nM. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281 2275
\n\u2018\u2018If I didn\u2019t really need this money, then I\u2019d wait until next time to see whether he remembers [my italics]. . .I wouldn\u2019t want to
\nmake him feel that I\u2019m pushing him to pay me. . ..\u2019\u2019 [translated from Greek]
\n(Female interviewee\u2014Greek participant)
\nThis finding can be seen as tentatively supporting Brown and Levinson\u2019s main argument (1978, 1987) that the social
\nvariables of social distance, power and imposition are important factors influencing the choice of politeness strategies.
\nExamining the interview comments more closely, it can additionally be argued that such cross-cultural disagreement on the
\ndegree of directness employed can more specifically be attributed to such \u2018\u2018context external\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka and House,
\n1989:131) factors such as rights and obligations, which, as mentioned above, are directly associated with social power.
\nBlum-Kulka and House (1989:145) explain that:
\n\u2018\u2018in the sociolinguistic literature, estimates of right and obligations are considered to affect a request level\u2019s of directness
\nin a correlated relationship: The greater the right of the speaker to ask and the greater the obligation of the hearer to
\ncomply, the less the motivation for the use of indirectness (Labov and Fanshel, 1977)\u2019\u2019
\n(Blum-Kulka and House, 1989:145\u2013146)
\nHow strong these rights and obligations are is culture-specific and in the Tuition fees situation the speaker\u2019s right to remind
\nfor the owed fee and the hearer\u2019s obligation to pay is probably seen as bigger by the British rather than by the Greek
\nparticipants. This can be confirmed by the fact that the ENSs assessed the social power that S has over H as higher.
\nThis finding is also in line with the negative politeness orientation of the British society which values personal autonomy
\nand independence. For the Greek speakers, cultural factors such as positive politeness considerations seem to play a more
\ndecisive role in the linguistic choices than P, F and R, something which could also explain the fact that no correlations
\nbetween the learners\u2019 directness and their assessment of F, P and R emerged. Such positive politeness considerations might
\ninclude protecting H\u2019s face from embarrassment, showing concern for H\u2019s feelings by avoiding disapproval and criticism and\/
\nor avoiding a taboo topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) such a money request.
\nIt seems very likely that the request for the owed fee in this situation does not constitute a threat to the addressee\u2019s
\nnegative face, as far as the Greek learners are concerned. Contrary to Brown and Levinson\u2019s theory (1978, 1987) according to
\nwhich requests are by nature face threatening acts that threaten the addressee\u2019s (H) negative face want (Brown and
\nLevinson, 1987:65), this request can be seen as constituting a threat to the addressee\u2019s positive face instead, \u2018\u2018by indicating
\nthat the speaker does not care about the addressee\u2019s feelings\u2019\u2019 (Brown and Levinson, 1987:66). According to Brown and
\nLevinson\u2019s theory (1978, 1987), this happens if the addressee expresses disapproval, reprimands, accusations, insults, gives
\nthe addressee possible reasons to be embarrassed by him, mentions of taboo topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service)s, etc. (Brown and Levinson, 1987:66\u201367).
\nReminding the addressee for the owed money is a taboo topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) in the Greek society and can not only cause embarrassment,
\nbut also be interpreted as a reprimand, disapproval or even accusation towards H. As a result, it can also threaten the
\nspeaker\u2019s positive face by threatening his\/her \u2018\u2018desire to be ratified, understood, approved of, liked or admired\u2019\u2019 (Brown and
\nLevinson, 1987:62). The use of more indirect strategies on the part of the Greek learners can therefore be seen as a positive
\npoliteness strategy used to minimise the above risks, and it is in line with the general positive politeness orientation of the
\nGreek society. The Greek participants\u2019 positive politeness considerations were vividly revealed in their interview comments
\nwhich made reference to embarrassment and loss of trust:
\n\u2018\u2018Well. . .If I wasn\u2019t desperate for the money I wouldn\u2019t want to look pushy…I wouldn\u2019t want to make him feel that I\u2019m
\npushing him to pay me. . .or that I don\u2019t trust him enough. . .or that I think he might do a runner…\u2019\u2019 [my italics] [translated
\nfrom Greek]
\n(Male interviewee\u2014Greek participant)
\n\u2018\u2018. . .I think by asking Mike for the money, your request could have a personal effect on him. . .he is a student. . .he might not
\nhave enough money and he might be planning to pay you next week. . .I might embarrass him. . .\u2019\u2019 [my italics] [translated
\nfrom Greek]
\n(Female interviewee\u2014Greek participant)
\nYet, GLs were significantly more direct than ENSs in the Assignment situation (i.e. asking a lecturer for an assignment
\nextension). While ENSs opted primarily for conventionally indirect strategies and more specifically for Question Assignment preparatory
\n(possibility) substrategies, GLs opted extensively for direct strategies and more specifically for want and need statements (e.g.
\n\u2018\u2018Hello. It\u2019s great need. I hadserious personal problemsandI need to take anextensionfor the assignment.\u2019\u2019).Apossible explanation
\nregarding the differences in the participants\u2019 requesting choices in the Assignment situation could again be found in differences
\nin their subjects\u2019 perception of social reality and more specifically, in differences in their perception of the imposition of the
\nrequested act. The results presented above (Table 2) indicated that there were significant differences in the participants\u2019
\nassessment of the imposition involved in this situation. More specifically, the GLs assessed the imposition of requesting an
\nassignment extension as lower than the ENSs did, therefore employing higher requestive directness. A link between the
\nsubjects\u2019 assessment of social reality and their choice of requesting strategies and degree of directness can therefore be
\nsuggested.
\n2276 M. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281
\nIn this Assignment situation, interactants have a student\u2013lecturer relationship. As pointed out by Fukushima (2000) and
\nin the definition of imposition above, \u2018\u2018the degree of imposition of the requested act is related to the requester\u2019s right to make
\na certain request. How that right is perceived is culturally influenced\u2019\u2019 (2000:183). The fact that the British participants
\nassessed the imposition as higher here may be accounted for by different perceptions of the speaker\u2019s rights and of the size of
\nfactors such as time, effort and psychological burden on the part of the addressee. It might be the case that the Greek learners
\nregarded an extension request as being within their student rights, or as part of the lecturer\u2019s routine responsibilities, which
\ninvolves minimal effort, time or psychological burden on his\/her part. The interviews carried out with two Greek participants
\nin relation to this situation showed that the only concerns that they had with this request were not concerns regarding the
\ndegree of imposition involved, but concerns regarding their own loss of face in case the lecturer doubted their sincerity and
\nthought they were lying.
\nThis finding is also consistent with the ethos of directness and positive politeness orientation of the Greek society.
\nAccording to Sifianou (1992a), \u2018\u2018in positive politeness cultures where people depend on each other more and rely on their
\npersonal experience of those others, explicit expression of needs and feelings is expected. . .\u2019\u2019 (my italics) (1992a:42). Following
\nthis, it could therefore be argued that the use of higher directness (through an extensive use of need and want statements) by
\nGLs in this situation is not only the result of their perception of the related imposition, but also of additional situational\/
\n\u2018\u2018context external\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989:131) factors such as the requestive goal and the urgency of the request. This
\nwould agree with Blum-Kulka et al.\u2019s (1985) finding which showed the request goal to be a particularly influential factor. The
\nfact that the correlation analysis did not confirm a correlation between the learners\u2019 choice of strategies and their assessment
\nof the social variables tested makes it rather probable that other situational factors are at play.
\nWhat also becomes apparent from the finding regarding the GLs\u2019 assessment of social variables, is that the learners lacked
\nL2-native-like sociopragmatic competence. The results have showed that the learners have \u2018\u2018different perceptions of what
\nconstitutes appropriate linguistic behaviour\u2019\u2019 (Thomas, 1983:99) and it can therefore be claimed that their situational
\nassessment revealed an instance of \u2018\u2018sociopragmatic failure\u2019\u2019 (Thomas, 1983:99). Such failure occurs when learners assess the
\nrelevant situational factors on the basis of their native sociopragmatic norms rather than the norms of the target culture.
\nAccording to Jaworski (1994), sociopragmatic failure, being social before linguistic, is often much more difficult to be
\ncorrected and overcome, as this would involve \u2018\u2018making changes in the students\u2019 own beliefs and value system\u2019\u2019 (Jaworski,
\n1994:51).
\nDespite the disagreement in the participants\u2019 choices of directness levels and assessment of social reality in the above two
\nsituations (Tuition fees and Assignment), the use of the three main strategy types follows a similar trend across the majority of
\nthe situations in both groups.More specifically, as stated above, a high degree of cross-cultural agreement regarding the use of
\ndirect strategieswas licensed by both groups in theRestaurant, Ticket and Bank loansituation. This cross-cultural agreementon
\nthe appropriateness of high directness can be attributed to such context external factors again such as rights and obligations,
\nassociated with the \u2018standard\u2019 nature of Restaurant, Ticket and Bank loan situation. Even though the Bank loan situation is not
\ntypically \u2018standard\u2019 in the sense that theH(the bankmanager)doesnot have a highobligation to comply (i.e.whether a loanwill
\nbe granted is at the discretion of the bank and the bankmanager), the speaker nevertheless has a strong right to pose the request
\nas part of the nature of the exchange. Despite the fact that the GLs assessed H\u2019s social power as higher, the decision of both
\ngroups seems to have been more powerfully influenced by their perception of the involved rights and obligations.
\nSimilarly, higher levels of conventional indirectness were licensed by both groups in the Baby-sitting, Dinner and Street
\ndirections situation despite differences in the way that both groups assessed the social variables P, F and R in the Dinner and
\nBaby-sitting situation. This seems to suggest that the above variables were not particularity influential in the participants\u2019
\nlinguistic choices. This cross-cultural agreement on the appropriateness of conventional indirectness in these three
\nsituations can be attributed to such \u2018\u2018context internal\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989:131) factors \u2018\u2018which are directly related
\nto its requestive nature, such as the type of request goal, the degree of imposition involved for the speaker relative to the
\nspecific goal, and the prerequisites needed for compliance\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989:131). Indeed, as Blum-Kulka and
\nHouse (1989) explain, when receiving preference of conventionality in similar situations, situations such as the above
\n\u2018\u2018concern asking for a favour, and in all the ability and willingness of the addressee to comply are important prerequisites for
\ncompliance\u2019\u2019 (1989:131), rendering questions related to ability and willingness contextually highly relevant. According to
\nClark (1979), speakers can more easily back out of admitting a requestive intent and hearers avoid a requestive
\ninterpretation by making reference to the literal meaning of a conventional indirect utterance and by checking feasibility of
\ncompliance. Thus in the case of a request that entails imposing on someone\u2019s time, the \u2018\u2018speaker might first try and establish
\nwhether the relevant condition holds\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989:131). One of the Greek interviewees also supports this
\npoint by emphasising reference to his parents\u2019 ability to baby-sit:
\n\u2018\u2018I would use a question mark to make it more polite. I wouldn\u2019t express it as a fact. My parents might have plans for the
\nevening and might not be able to look after the children. I would ask first \u2018Are you doing anything tonight\u2019\u2019
\n(Male interviewee\u2014Greek participant)
\nYet, looking at the Spearman correlation results (presented above), a negative correlation between the Greek learners\u2019 degree
\nof directness and their assessment of the imposition in the Baby-sitting situation can be observed. This indicated that the
\nbigger the imposition, the more direct the learners\u2019 strategies become. This partly confirms Brown and Levinson\u2019s (1978,
\n1987) claim, in the sense that the variable of imposition is related to the choice of requesting strategies, but it does not
\nM. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281 2277
\nsupport their claim that the bigger the imposition, the higher the number of strategy to be employed. Appeals here may again
\nbe made to cultural factors at play concerning the Greek culture and its members for preference for directness and honesty
\nover tact and minimising impositions.
\nSimilarly, looking at the correlation results related to the Dinner situation, a negative correlation between the learners\u2019
\ndegree of directness and their assessment of the S\u2019s social power emerged. This indicated that the bigger the degree of power
\nthe speaker has over his\/her friend, the more direct the requests become. Unlike above, this finding is consistent with Brown
\nand Levinson\u2019s prediction which expects directness to increase with speaker\u2019s power.
\n8. Limitations of the study
\nTurning to the limitations of the present study, a number of points need to be raised in order to warrant attention for
\nfuture research studies.
\nThe first point concerns the use of a written discourse completion test as the main methodological instrument. As
\nacknowledged in section 4.2.1, the DCT has been extensively criticised in the interlanguage pragmatics literature primarily
\ndue to its non-interactive nature (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford, 2005:11) and for being a tool which yields written language
\nsamples that might not be representative to authentic, spontaneous spoken language. It must therefore be acknowledged
\nthat the move in pragmatics research towards capturing more authentic, interactive data (Cohen, 2004, 2007; Kasper, 2008)
\nis particularly important and similar future studies should aim at analysing spoken data gathered with a different
\nmethodological tool that allows more interaction (e.g. oral role-plays).
\nA second limitation of the present study concerns the nature of some of the situations used in the DCT. More specifically,
\nsituations 10 (Police) and 3 (Baby-sitting) lack naturalness as they refer to scenarios that the student population might not
\neasily associate with. In situation 10, the participants have to play the role of a \u2018traffic warden\u2019 while in situation 3 the
\nparticipants have to play the role of a \u2018parent\u2019. The problem with situations that lack naturalness is a problem also noted by
\nFukushima (2000:135) and Bonikowska (1988:170) and future research studies should try and avoid such unrealistic
\nsituations.
\nThirdly, the participant profile of the present study was limited to undergraduate and postgraduate students and it is
\ntherefore important to be aware that these findings might not be generalisable to other social groups. Further research with
\nother social groups and perhaps with a wider range of different social situations is necessary in order to draw more general
\nconclusions.
\n9. Summary and conclusions
\nThe analysis of the distribution of the main request strategy types in the ten, socially different situations examined
\nrevealed that there are high levels of cross-cultural agreement between the Greek learners of English and the English native
\nspeakers for trends of situational variation, namely, relatively higher levels of directness are licensed in some situations than
\nin others across both cultures. This cross-cultural agreement can be explained by the \u2018standard\u2019 nature of the situations
\nwhere they used higher directness (Restaurant, Ticket, Bank loan situation), and the requestive nature of the Baby-sitting,
\nDinner and Directions situations which warranted for conventional indirectness.
\nThe study, however, also revealed some cross-cultural variation in choices of directness level within some situations, as
\nthe two groups were found to disagree on the specific directness levels employed for given situations. In explaining this
\nvariation, appeals were made to some significant differences in the speakers\u2019 perception of social reality. Following the
\nsituational assessment test employed in the present study, a number of significant differences in the speakers\u2019 assessment of
\nfamiliarity, power and imposition were revealed, along with a degree of sociopragmatic failure on the part of the GLs. The
\nsignificant differences in the speakers\u2019 degree of requestive directness in the Tuition fees and Assignment situations were
\nexplained following the speakers\u2019 assessment differences of social reality, therefore providing support for the relationship
\nexisting between the variables of P, F and R and the speakers\u2019 choice of requesting strategies.
\nNevertheless, even though speakers\u2019 assessment of P, F and R seems to explain the differences in their linguistic choices to
\nsome extent, following the results of the correlation analysis carried out, it could additionally be argued that none of these
\nsocial variables was particularly influential on the speakers\u2019 requestive production. This finding challenges Brown and
\nLevinson\u2019s (1978, 1987) claim that the variables of power, distance and imposition are the most important factors
\ninfluencing speakers\u2019 linguistic choices. Following the results of the study, a number of other situational \u2018\u2018context external\u2019\u2019
\nand \u2018\u2018context internal\u2019\u2019 (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989) factors were suggested as being more influential on the speakers\u2019
\nstrategy selection. More specifically, appeals were made to \u2018context external\u2019 factors such as rights and obligations
\nconcerning the differences which emerged in the Tuition fees and Assignment situation. Other \u2018context internal\u2019 factors such
\nas \u2018the request goal\u2019 and the \u2018urgency of the request\u2019, along with cultural factors such as \u2018positive politeness considerations\u2019
\nwere also found to successfully explain speakers\u2019 linguistic choices.
\nThe results of this study clearly point towards a complex picture which relies on the culture-dependency of
\nsociolinguistic variables. As Blum-Kulka and House (1989) point out, \u2018\u2018the cultural factor operates in determining general
\nlevels of directness; it explains the differences between the directness means obtained between languages over and beyond
\nsituational variations\u2019\u2019 (1989:150). The picture which emerged from this study is a complex one and shows that a number of
\nintervening social, contextual and cultural factors interact with one another in order to explain speakers\u2019 linguistic choices.
\n2278 M. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281
\nThe intricate ways with which these variables interact demand further research. What the exact role of factors such as \u2018rights
\nand obligations\u2019, \u2018urgency of the request\u2019 and \u2018politeness considerations\u2019 is needs to be examined in greater depth and
\npossibly with the employment of different methodological tools.
\nAcknowledgements
\nI would like to express my thanks to the participants of this study, the editor of the Journal of Pragmatics and the two
\nanonymous reviewers for their detailed and insightful comments.
\nReferences
\nAeginitou, Violeta, 1994. \u2018\u2018Begin your sentences with a capital letter\u2019\u2019: facework and politeness in the Greek EFL Classroom. Unpublished PhD thesis.
\nUniversity of Lancaster, Lancaster.
\nAntonopoulou, Eleni, 2001. Brief service encounters: gender and politeness. In: Bayraktaroglu, A., Sifianou, M. (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness Across
\nBoundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 241\u2013270.
\nAustin, John L., 1962. How to do Things with Words. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
\nBallesteros Martin, Francisco Jose\u00b4 , 2001. La contesia espanola frente a la cortesia inglesa. Estudio pragmalinguistico de las exhortaciones impositivas.
\nEstudios Ingleses de la Universidad Computense 9, 171\u2013207.
\nBallesteros Martin, Francisco Jose\u00b4 , 2002. Mechanismos de atenuacion en espanole ingles. Implicaciones pragmaticas en la cortesia. Circulo de Linguisitica
\nAplicada a la Communicacion 11, 2\u201321.
\nBardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Hartford, Beverly, 1990. Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: status balance in the academic advising session.
\nLanguage Learning 40 (4), 467\u2013501.
\nBardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Hartford, Beverly, 2005. Institutional discourse and interlanguage pragmatic research. In: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B.
\n(Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics: Exploring Institutional Talk. Lawrence Erlbaum, London, pp. 7\u201336.
\nBaxter, Leslie, 1984. An investigation of compliance gaining as politeness. Human Communication Research 10 (3), 427\u2013456.
\nBecker, Judith A., Kimmel, Herber, Bevill, Michael L., 1989. The Interactive effects of request form and speaker status on judgments of requests. Journal of
\nPsycholinguistic Research 18 (5), 521\u2013531.
\nBillmyer, Kristine, Varghese, Manka, 2000. Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied
\nLinguistics 21 (4), 517\u2013552.
\nBlum-Kulka, Shoshana, 1997. Discourse pragmatics. In: Van Dijk, T.A. (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. Sage, London, pp. 38\u201363.
\nBlum-Kulka, Shoshana, 1989. Playing it safe: the role of conventionality in indirectness. In: Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural
\nPragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 37\u201370.
\nBlum-Kulka, Shoshana, Danet, Brenda, Gherson, Rimona, 1985. The language of requesting in Israeli society. In: Forgas, J. (Ed.), Language and Social
\nSituation. Springer Verlag, New York\/Berlin, pp. 113\u2013141.
\nBlum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, 1989. Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior. In: Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G.
\n(Eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 123\u2013154.
\nBlum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
\nBlum-Kulka, Shoshana, Olshtain, Elite, 1984. Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics 5 (3), 196\u2013
\n213.
\nBlum-Kulka, Shoshana, Olshtain, Elite, 1986. Too many words: length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8 (2), 165\u2013
\n179.
\nBonikowska, Malgorzata, 1988. The choice of opting out. Applied Linguistics 9 (2), 169\u2013181.
\nBrown, Penelope, Fraser, Colin, 1979. Speech as a marker of situation. In: Scherer, K., Gils, H. (Eds.), Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge University Press,
\nCambridge, pp. 33\u201363.
\nBrown, Roger, Gilman, Albert, 1972. Pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Gigliogli, P. (Ed.), Language and Social Context. Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp.
\n252\u2013282.
\nBrown, Roger, Gilman, Albert, 1989. Politeness theory and Shakespeare\u2019s four major tragedies. Language in Society 18 (2), 159\u2013212.
\nBrown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In: Goody, E. (Ed.), Questions and Politeness. Cambridge
\nUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 56\u2013289.
\nBrown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
\nCansler, David, Stiles, William, 1981. Relative status and interpersonal presumptuousness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 17 (5), 459\u2013471.
\nCherry, Roger D., 1988. Politeness in written persuasion. Journal of Pragmatics 12 (1), 63\u201381.
\nCraig, Robert T., Tracy, Karen, Spisak, Frances, 1986. The discourse of requests: assessment of a politeness approach. Human Communication Research 12
\n(4), 437\u2013468.
\nClark, Herbert, 1979. Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology 11, 430\u2013477.
\nCohen, Andrew, 2004. Assessing speech acts in a second language. In: Boxer, D., Cohen, A. (Eds.), Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning.
\nMultilingual Matters, Clevedon, UK, pp. 302\u2013327.
\nCohen, Andrew, 2007. Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners In: Paper Presented at the American Association for
\nApplied Linguistics, CA April, 2007.
\nDiaz Perez, Francisco Javier, 1999. Requesting in British English and Peninsular Spanish: a comparative analysis of politeness strategies. In: Alvarez Benito,
\nG. (Ed.), Lenguas en Contacto. Mergablum, Seville, pp. 171\u2013180.
\nEconomidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, 2003. Requesting strategies and cross-cultural pragmatics: Greek and English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of
\nNottingham, Nottingham, UK.
\nEconomidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, 2004. Requestive directness in intercultural communication: Greek and English. In: Leigh, J., Loo, E. (Eds.), Outer Limits: A
\nReader in Communication and Behaviour Across Cultures. Language Australia, Melbourne, pp. 25\u201348.
\nEconomidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, 2005. Yes, tell me please, what time is the midday flight from Athens arriving\u2019\u2019: telephone service encounters and
\npoliteness. Intercultural Pragmatics 2 (3), 253\u2013273.
\nEconomidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, 2008. Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage request production: the case of Greek learners of English. Journal of
\nPoliteness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 4 (1), 111\u2013138.
\nEconomidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, 2009. Interlanguage request modification: the use of lexical\/phrasal downgraders and mitigating supportive moves.
\nMultilingua 28 (1), 79\u2013111.
\nErvin-Tripp, Susan, 1976. Is Sybil there The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5 (1), 25\u201366.
\nFearch, Claus, Kasper, Gabriele, 1989. Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In: Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G.
\n(Eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 221\u2013247.
\nFelix-Brasdefer, Cesar J., 2006. Linguistic politeness in Mexico: refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (12),
\n2158\u20132187.
\nM. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281 2279
\nFelix-Brasdefer, Cesar J., 2005. Indirectness and politeness in Mexican requests. In: Eddington, D. (Ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic (the best nursing writing service, a studybay for your papers) Linguistic
\nSymposium. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, pp. 66\u201378.
\nFraser, Bruce, 1975. Hedged performatives. In: Cole, P.,Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, pp. 187\u2013
\n210.
\nFukushima, Saeko, 1990. Offers and requests: performance by Japanese learners of English. World Englishes 9 (3), 317\u2013325.
\nFukushima, Saeko, 1996. Request strategies in British English and Japanese. Language Sciences 18 (3\u20134), 671\u2013688.
\nFukushima, Saeko, 2000. Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Peter Lang, Berlin.
\nGoffman, Ervin, 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-face Behavior. Anchor, New York.
\nGolato, Andrea, 2003. Studying complement responses: a comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24 (1), 90\u2013121.
\nHartford, Beverly, Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, 1996. \u2018\u2018At your earliest convenience\u2019\u2019: a study of written student requests to faculty. In: Bouton, L.F. (Ed.),
\nPragmatics and Language Learning, Monograph Series, Volume 7. Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois, Urbana-
\nCampaign, pp. 55\u201369.
\nHartford, Beverly, Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, 1992. Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In: Bouton, L., Kachru, Y.
\n(Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph series Volume 3. Division of English as an international language, University of Illinois, Urbana-
\nChampaign, pp. 33\u201352.
\nHassall, Tim, 1999. Request strategies in Indonesian. Pragmatics 9 (4), 585\u2013606.
\nHatch, Evelyn, Lazaraton, Anne, 1991. The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Newbury House, New York.
\nHeld, Gudrun, 1996. Two polite speech acts in contrastive view: aspects of the realization of requesting and thanking in French and Italian. In: Hellinger,
\nM., Ammon, U. (Eds.), Contrastive Sociolinguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, pp. 363\u2013384.
\nHolmes, Janet, 1990. Apologies in New Zeland English. Language in Society 19, 155\u2013199.
\nHoltgraves, Thomas, 1986. Language structure in social interaction: perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of
\nPersonality and Social Psychology 51 (2), 305\u2013314.
\nHoltgraves, Thomas, Srull, Thomas K., Socall, Daniel, 1989. Conversation memory: the effects of speaker status on memory for the assertiveness of
\nconversation remarks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 (2), 149\u2013160.
\nHoltgraves, Thomas, Yang, Joong-Nam, 1990. Politeness as universal: cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use.
\nJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (4), 719\u2013729.
\nHouse, Juliane, 1989. Politeness in English and German: the functions of \u2018please\u2019 and \u2018bitte\u2019. In: Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural
\nPragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 96\u2013119.
\nJaworski, Adam, 1994. Pragmatic failure in a second language: greeting responses in English by Polish students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics
\n32 (1), 41\u201355.
\nKasper, Gabriele, 1994. Politeness. In: Asher, R.E., Simpson, J.M.Y. (Eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 3206\u2013
\n3211.
\nKasper, Gabriele, 2008. Data collection in pragmatics research. In: Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.), Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness
\nTheory. Continuum, London, pp. 316\u2013341.
\nKasper, Gabriele, Rose, Kenneth, 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching. In: Rose, K., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge Applied
\nLinguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1\u20139.
\nKasper, Gabriele, Rose, Kenneth, 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Blackwell, Oxford.
\nKwong, Jihyun, 2004. Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua 23 (4), 339\u2013364.
\nLabov, William, Fanshel, David, 1977. Therapeutic Discourse. Academic press, New York.
\nLee, Cynthia, 2005. A cross-linguistic study on the linguistic expressions of Cantonese and English requests. Pragmatics 15 (2\u20133), 395\u2013422.
\nLe Pair, Rob, 1996. Spanish requests strategies: a cross-cultural analysis from an intercultural perspective. Language Sciences 118 (3\u20134), 651\u2013670.
\nLeichty, Greg, Applegate, James, 1991. Social-cognitive and situational influences on the use of face-saving persuasive strategies. Human Communication
\nResearch 17 (3), 451\u2013484.
\nLustig, Myron W., King, Stephen, 1980. The effect of communication apprehension and situation on communication strategy choices. Human Communication
\nResearch 7 (1), 74\u201382.
\nMakri-Tsilipakou, Marianthi, 2001. Congratulations and bravo! In: Sifianou, M., Bayraktaroglu, A. (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The Case
\nof Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 137\u2013176.
\nMa\u00b4rquez Reiter, Rosina, 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies. John Benjamins, Amsterdam\/
\nPhiladelphia.
\nMa\u00b4rquez Reiter, Rosina, 2002. A contrastive study of conventional indirectness in Spanish: evidence from Peninsular and Uruguayan Spanish. Pragmatics 12
\n(2), 135\u2013151.
\nMa\u00b4rquez Reiter, Rosina, Placencia, Maria Elena, 2005. Spanish Pragmatics. Palgrave McMillan, New York.
\nMcLaughlin, Margaret, Cody, Michael, O\u2019Hair, Henry D., 1983. The management of failure events: some contextual determinants of accounting behaviour.
\nHuman Communication Research 9 (3), 208\u2013224.
\nNelson, Gayle L., Carson, Joan, Al Batal, Mahmoud, El Bakary, Waguida, 2002. Corss-cultural pragmatics: strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American
\nEnglish refusals. Applied Linguistics 23 (2), 163\u2013189.
\nOlshtain, Elite, 1989. Apologies across languages. In: Blum-Kulka, S., Kasper, G., House, J. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex,
\nNorwood, NJ, pp. 155\u2013217.
\nPavlidou, Theodossia, 1994. Contrasting German\u2013Greek politeness and the consequences. Journal of Pragmatics 21 (5), 487\u2013511.
\nPavlidou, Theodossia, 1997. The last five turns: preliminary remarks on closings in Greek and German telephone calls. International Journal of the Sociology
\nof Language 126, 145\u2013162.
\nPavlidou, Theodossia, 1998. Greek and German telephone closings: patterns of confirmation and agreement. Pragmatics 8 (1), 79\u201394.
\nRintell, Ellen M., 1981. Sociolinguistic variation and pragmatic ability: a look at learners. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27, 11\u201333.
\nRintell, Ellen, Mitchell, Candace J., 1989. Studying requests and apologies: an inquiry into method. In: Blum-Kulka, S., Kasper, G., House, J. (Eds.), Cross-
\nCultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 248\u2013272.
\nRose, Kenneth, 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22,
\n27\u201367.
\nSasaki, Miyuki, 1998. Investigating EFL students\u2019 production of speech acts: a comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics
\n30 (4), 457\u2013484.
\nScarcella, Robin, Brunak, Joanna, 1981. On speaking politely in a second language. International Journal of Sociology of Language 27, 59\u201375.
\nSchauer, Gila A., 2007. Finding the right words in the study abroad context: the development of German learners\u2019 use of external modifiers in English.
\nIntercultural Pragmatics 4 (2), 193\u2013220.
\nScollon, Ron, Scollon, Suzanne, 1983. Face in interethnic communication. In: Richards, J., Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Language and Communication. Longman,
\nLondon\/New York, pp. 156\u2013188.
\nSifianou, Maria, 1989. On the telephone again!: differences in telephone behaviour Language in Society 18 (4), 524\u2013544.
\nSifianou, Maria, 1992a. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece, A Cross-cultural Perspective. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
\nSifianou, Maria, 1992b. The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: modern Greek versus English. Journal of Pragmatics 17 (2), 155\u2013173.
\nSifianou, Maria, 2001 [1989] On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behavior. In: Georgakopoulou, A., Spanaki, M. (Eds.), A Reader in Greek
\nSociolinguistics. Studies in Modern Greek Language, Culture and Communication Peter Lang, pp. 137\u2013159. First published in 1989 in Language in
\nSociety 18 (4), 527\u2013544.
\n2280 M. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281
\nSlugoski, Ben, Turnbull, William, 1988. Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: sarcasm, banter and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology
\n7 (2), 101\u2013121.
\nSpencer-Oatey, Helen, 1992. Cross-Cultural politeness: British and Chinese conceptions of the tutor\u2013student relationship. Unpublished PhD thesis.
\nUniversity of Lancaster, Lancaster.
\nSpencer-Oatey, Helen, 1993. Conceptions of social relations and pragmatics research. Journal of Pragmatics 20 (1), 27\u201347.
\nSpencer-Oatey, Helen, 1996. Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics 26 (1), 1\u201324.
\nSpencer-Oatey, Helen, 1997. Unequal relationships in high and low power distance societies: a comparative study of tutor\u2013student role relations in Britain
\nand China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 28 (3), 284\u2013302.
\nStewart, Miranda, 2005. Politeness in Britain. In: Hickey, L., Stewart, M. (Eds.), Politeness in Europe. Multilingua Matters, Clevedon, pp. 116\u2013129.
\nTakahashi, Satomi, 1992. Transferability of indirect request strategies. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 11 (1), 69\u2013124.
\nTannen, Deborah, 1981. Indirectness in discourse: ethnicity as conversational style. Discourse Processes 4 (3), 221\u2013238.
\nThomas, Jenny, 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4 (2), 91\u2013112.
\nThomas, Jenny, 1995. Meaning in Interaction\u2014An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman, London.
\nTriandis, Harry, Vassiliou, Vasso, 1972. A comparative analysis of subjunctive culture. In: Triandis, H. (Ed.), The Analysis of Subjective Culture, Comparative
\nStudies in Behavioral Science. Wiley, New York, pp. 299\u2013335.
\nTrosborg, Anna, 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
\nVan Mulken, Margot, 1996. Politeness markers in French and Dutch requests. Language Sciences 8 (3\u20134), 689\u2013702.
\nVassiliou, Vasso, Triandis, Harry C., Vassiliou, George, McGuire, Howard, 1972. Interpersonal contact and stereotyping. In: Triandis, H.C. (Ed.), The Analysis
\nof Subjective Culture, Comparative Studies in Behavioral Science. Wiley, New York, pp. 89\u2013115.
\nWierzbicka, Anna, 1991. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 53, Cross Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Mouton de
\nGruyter, Berlin, New York.
\nWoodfield, Helen, 2005. Problematizing discourse completion tasks: voices from verbal report. In: Paper Presented at the 14th World Congress of Applied
\nLinguistics (AILA), Madison, WI, USA.
\nWoodfield, Helen, 2006. Requests in English: ESL learners\u2019 responses to written discourse completion tasks. In: Paper Presented at the 31st International
\nLAUD Symposium. Intercultural Pragmatics, Linguistics, Social and Cognitive Approaches, Landau\/Pfalz, Germany.
\nWoodfield, Helen, 2008. Problematizing discourse completion tasks: voices from verbal report. Assessment and Research in Education 21, 43\u201369.
\nMaria Economidou-Kogetsidis is currently an Helpant professor at the University of Nicosia, Cyprus. She holds a doctorate in Cross-cultural pragmatics from the
\nSchool of English Studies of the University of Nottingham, UK. Her research areas are cross-cultural communication, interlanguage and intercultural pragmatics,
\nsociopragmatics, pragmalinguistics and politeness. Her publications have appeared in Intercultural Pragmatics, Journal of Politeness Research and Multilingua.
\nHer current research focuses on the pragmatic performance of Greek Cypriot learners of English.
\nM. Economidou-Kogetsidis \/ Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 2262\u20132281 2281<\/p>\n
according case 1 and 2 to choose a research topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), must talk about these two case. And research area should abut pratmatics.<\/p>\n
Structure:
\n1. introduction
\n2. a summary(
\n3. a critical review(
\n4. conclusion<\/p>\n
2please analysis by pragmatics<\/p>\n
3lecture 7 is about pragmatics,the ppt I have upload in additional file.<\/p>\n
4referenceHarvard style, and I need 13 reference.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behaviour: Perceptions of social situations and strategic usage of request patterns Maria Economidou-Kogetsidis * Department of Languages and Literature,\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8827,10099,10540,10536,10892,10538,10539,10537,10891],"tags":[10549,10616,10615,7687,10627,8857,10552,10295,10548,10622,8907],"class_list":["post-130059","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australia-essays","category-buy-essay","category-cheap-essay-writers","category-get-assignments-done","category-page-paper","category-phd-essay-writers","category-research-paper-writing-service-for-any-topic","category-study-bay-essay","category-write-my-assignment-ireland","tag-ai-plagiarism-free-essay-writing-tool","tag-australian-best-tutors","tag-best-trans-tutors","tag-buy-essay-uk","tag-cheap-dissertation-writer","tag-help-with-writing-an-essay","tag-help-write-my-paper-ai-free","tag-homework-for-you","tag-online-essay-writers","tag-phd-essays","tag-write-my-essay-for-me"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130059","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130059"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130059\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130059"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130059"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130059"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}