Topic: Differences and Similarities in speech act indicating the connection between

directness and politeness and/ or indirectness and politeness.

I. INTRODUCTION

Most of human daily communication involves the exchange of underlying intention to achieve
the interlocutors ‘purposes. For example, should the question “Could you open the door?” be
realized as a normal interrogative speech which questions the hearers ‘ability or as a polite
request to the hearers? In this regard, Searle (1969) made distinction between a normal
utterance and speech act as “ the sound or marks one makes in the performance of speech act
are characteristically said to have meaning”(p.6). Among a wide range of Speech Acts, request
is one of the most popular form in everyday communication.

According to Brown and Levinson (1978), requests, as an intrinsic face-threatening acts (FTAs)
threaten the negative face of the hearers as they put imposition on the hearers ‘autonomy of
their action. Therefore, a number of politeness strategies are employed for mitigating the face
- threatening effect on the hearers. In consideration of the common link between indirectness
to politeness, conventional indirect strategy is preferable to other strategies in making request
(Hassall, 1999; Leech, 1983; Reiter, 2002). However, the use of direct level of requests such
as imperatives or obligation statement still carry polite meaning in several cultures as in
German (House & Kasper, 1981), Korea (Byon, 2006) or in Greek (Economidou-Kogetsidis,
2002). In this regard, the essay will discuss the correlation between directness or indirectness
and politeness in making request across cultures.

II. DISCUSSION
1. Request Head Acts and Supportive Moves

There are two primary components of request: head acts and supportive moves. Head acts are
an indispensable part as they carry the core meaning of a request while supportive moves refer
to the optional peripheral modification which aims to either mitigate or aggravate the
imposition of a request. Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989) proposed the structures of
Head act and Supportive Moves: “ (a) the minimal unit only; (b) Post- posed: Head Act +
Supportive Moves, Pre-posed: Supportive Move + Head Act; (c) Multiple Heads” (p. 276)
The classification of head acts are based on the level of directness proposed by Blum-Kulka et
al. (1989). As Blum-Kulka, Danet, and Gherson (1985) claimed that

“The variety ways to make request is probably motivated by the need to minimized
the imposition involved in the act itself. In choosing a strategy located at some point on
the continuum of directness, the speaker reveals his or her appraisal of social situation,
and the degree to which the situation calls for minimization of the imposition involved”.
(p. 114)

In this regard, Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) categorized directness into three levels: direct,
conventional indirect and non-conventional indirect. The most direct level realized by either
“linguistically marked” or “verbal means” (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989, p. 201). While the
conventional indirect level refers to “the contextual preconditions necessary for its performance,
as conventionalized in a given language”, unconventionally indirect which employ either mild
hints to partially refer to the request or strong hints as a “contextual clue “ to decode the
illocution meaning of a request (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989, p. 201).

Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) categorized nine request head acts in regard with level of directness:
direct strategies, conventional indirect request and non-conventionally indirect request. Among
them, mood derivable, performative, hedge performative, obligation statement and want
statement are considered direct strategy. The two head acts: suggestory formular and Query
preparatory belongs to conventionally indirect which use the conventional linguistic form to
convey the illocutionary meaning. The last type of head act is hints (strong hints and mild hints)
which employ non-conventional indirect strategy.

Regarding the supportive moves, Blum-Kulla, et al (1989) makes distinction between internal
supportive moves and external supportive moves according to their relative position to head
acts. The former modifies the intensity of imposition by locating itself within head acts while
the latter may precede or follow the utterance that carry head acts.

Brown and Levinson (1987, p. 320) also discussed three social factors that influence the
seriousness or “the weightiness” of FTAs to both the speakers and the hearers. The correlation
between these factors could determine the choice of appropriate politeness strategies to
mitigate face-threatening effects. They include social distance, relative power and absolute
ranking. Social Distance (D) refers to the degree of closeness in the relationship between the
speakers and the hearers. Relative Power (P) is “the degree to which the hearers can impose
his own plan and his own self-evaluation at the expense of speakers ‘self and evaluation”
(Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 321). Moreover, Brown and Levinson also attributed the relative
power of an interlocutor to “material control” and “metaphysical control” (p. 321). Ranking of
imposition refers to the degree to which FTAs could interfere with the freedom of action of
negative face and with the desire to get appraisal of the positive face (Brown & Levinson,
1987). According to Brown and Levinson (1987), the degree of the weightiness of FTAs to
the hearers will determine the politeness strategies the speakers employ to mitigate the
imposition of FTAs.

2. Indirectness and Politeness in request across cultures

Most of the pragmatic theories (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Leech, 1983) support the correlation
between indirectness and politeness. According to Leech (1983), indirectness reduces the
imposition on the hearers by giving them an option to accept or refuse a request. The level of
politeness could be enhanced by using more indirect illocutions as “they increase the level of
optionality and the more indirect an illocution is, the more diminished and tentative its force
tends to be” (Leech, 1983, pp. 131-132). In the same line of thinking, Searle (1975) observed
that “ politeness is the most prominent motivation for indirectness in request, and certain forms
tend to become the conventionally polite ways of making indirect request” (p. 76). Furthermore,
Brown and Levinson (1987) also noticed that the connection between indirectness and
politeness derives from the desire to protect the hearers ‘negative face with the use of negative
politeness strategies and off-record strategies. Negative politeness minimizes face- threatening
nature of a request by the speakers ‘recognition of the hearers ‘want not to be interfered with
their freedom of action. On the other hand, off-record strategies employ the hint strategy to
reduce the imposing nature of a request on the hearers; hence an off- record request generally
relies on the contextual clue to decode its ‘pragmatic meaning.

A number of studies on request speech act have shown that the preference for conventionally
indirect request as a way to show politeness in many cultures. Félix-Brasdefer (2005) study on
indirectness and politeness in Mexican request shows that the choice of politeness strategies
including head acts and supportive moves depends on the consideration of power and distance
relation between interlocutors. In situations which there is an unequal power and the high
degree of distance, conventionally indirect request, mostly in the form of query preparatory
was more preferable than direct and unconventionally indirect request. On the other hand,
Mexican people tends to use direct request to show solidarity in case of close relationship
between the interlocutors. Regarding the supportive moves, external modifications including
precursors, reason and alternatives are mostly used to smoothen the harness of imposition on
the hearers.

Similarly, Hassall’ s (1999) study on Indonesian request strategies also confirm the preference
for conventionally indirect request to mitigate FTAs when the degree of imposition is high and
the speakers ‘status are lower than that of the hearers. Most of the conventionally indirect
requests are realized by query preparatory with the support of modal verbs to enquire the
hearers ‘ability or their permission. Additionally, direct strategies, mostly in the form of
imperatives are used between the higher –status speakers to the lower- status hearers for asking
information. Another noticeable finding is that the unconventionally indirect requests or hints
are regarded as impolite according to the Indonesian interactional standard.

In the study of the conventionally indirect request between Peninsular and Uruguayan Spanish
(Reiter, 2002), the finding revealed that both cultures opt for conventionally indirect request in
high- distant interaction. However, the request strategies of Peninsular differ from Uruguayan
Spanish in the choice of head acts and supportive moves. Regarding head acts, Peninsular
Spanish tends to use Te/le imporata/ría = verb type as the head acts while Uruguayan shows
preference for “negatively phrased head acts” (Reiter, 2002, p. 146). In term of supportive
moves, external modifications are most realized as precursors, grounders and disarmers in both
languages, among which grounders and disarmers are frequently used in conventionally
indirect request. Although both cultures generally downgrade their imposition by internal
modification, Uruguayans internally mitigate their request more often than Peninsular Spanish.

In the study on request strategies between Russian and English, Mills (1993) found out
although both cultures use indirect interrogatives for requesting a favor, the choice of negative
and positive inquiries differs between two of them. In regard with the same three consideration
“1) H’s intention to perform; 2) H’s ability to perform; and 3) reference to potential
inconvenience to H” (Mills, 1993, p. 113), Russian tends to use negative interrogative form of
requests while English speakers generally use positive enquiries. Interestingly, the study also
shows that non-native American speakers of Russian tends to apply the request strategies in
their cultures to making request in Russian, which results in several pragmatic failures in
request. For example, the combination of “positive questioning of H’s ability” with the popular
use of mitigating device “please” in English request leads to “pragma linguistic failure” in
Russian culture (Mills, 1993, p. 114).
3. Directness and Politeness in request across cultures

Scollon and Scollon (1983, pp. 156,179) divided Brown and Levinson politeness strategies into
two categories: “(1) Deference politeness strategies imply formality and respect; they include
negative politeness, off-record and do nothing; (2) Solidarity politeness strategies, on the other
hand, implies camaraderie, and in-group membership; they include bald-on record and positive
politeness”. In this regard, while indirectness serves as a popular strategy to show politeness in
request (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Leech, 1983), many cultures show preference for direct
request strategies or solidarity politeness strategies to show closeness and solidarity among
group members such as in Mexican, Korean, German and Polish cultures (Byon, 2006; Félix-
Brasdefer, 2005; Matisoff & Wierzbicka, 1996; Pavlidou, 2000). Moreover, many cultures also
regard indirectness as impolite. According to Blum-Kulla (1987), (in)directness in speech act
refers to “relative length of the inferential path needed to arrive at an utterance’ s illocutionary
point” (p. 133). In this regard, the degree of inference in indirect request would determine the
interpretive effort of the hearers (Blum-Kulka, 1987). This interpretive demand on the hearers
could cast a doubt on the speakers ‘sincerity (Ogiermann, 2009).

The link between directness and politeness in request could be observed in a number of cultures.
In Korea, Byon ‘s (2006) study on “Honorifics in achieving linguistic politeness in Korean
request” has shown the preference for direct request strategies in three situations: “(a) the
speech act benefits the addressee, (b) the speaker is in a position of authority or power, and /or
(c) interlocutors are intimate with one another” (Byon, 2006, p. 269). Although most of the
direct request strategies are in the form of imperative and performative, Korean direct requests
are still not regarded as impolite due to the use of “deferential speech level” (Byon, 2006, p.
268). The use of direct request strategies in specific situations is explained based on the
hierarchical nature of Korean society which “honors deference and submission to authority”
(Byon, 2006, p. 268). In this regard, the imposition of a request on the hearers is considered a
socially natural politeness in Korea.

As a hierarchical society, Chinese culture share many similarities to Korean culture in regard
with the correspondence between directness and politeness in requests. In China, Lee- Wong
‘s (1994) study showed that the choice of direct or conventional indirect request relies in the
consideration of three contextual factors: “Relative Power”, “Social Distance” and “Ranking
of Imposition” (Lee-Wong, 1994, p. 500). In this regard, Chinese people tend to employ
directness strategies of making request, mostly in the form of imperatives when “ (a) the request
is deemed to be easily carried out, (b) both interactants are familiar or socially close, (c) the
speaker is in a position of power or authority” (Lee-Wong, 1994, p. 509). According to Lee-
Wong (1994), this consideration on the three cultural factors derives from Chinese tradition
which places a strong value on “li” or “reasonableness” (p. 506). Furthermore, Chinese code
of conducts aim to express “sincerity” and “solidarity”, so the tentativeness of conventionally
indirect request may create distance between the interlocutors and cause misunderstanding that
the speakers have a doubt on the hearers ‘ability to do the request. Finally, direct request
strategies also result from “the need to be explicit and clear” (Lee-Wong, 1994, p. 510).

As a solidarity- oriented society, Greek also shows preference for the use of direct request
strategies in closed- distant social relationship. In the study of “Request strategies in English
and Greek: Observations from an Airline’ s Call Centre”, Economidou-Kogetsidis (2002)
found the high degree of directness in Greek request as opposed to English’s use of
conventionally indirect request. This difference in request strategies could also be explained
from the morphological level since “the Greek morphological system for making the
imperative is more elaborate than the English” (Sifianou, 1999, p. 126). Sifianou (1999)
pointed out that “there is a distinct morphological system for marking imperatives for singular,
plural, active and passive voice as well as for the present, past and occasionally the present
perfect tense” (p. 126). Therefore, the imperative form of request in Greek carries not only
demand but also desire and wish. Moreover, Greek also employs direct request strategies as “a
reminder of duty” (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2002, p. 25) in standard situations as the telephone
business exchange when the callers have the authority to impose requests and the operators
have the duty to do the request.

The consideration of in-group and out-group relationship also influences the choice of direct
or indirect request strategies of Japanese and British. Fukushima (1996) ‘s study was based on
two situations that differed in the degree of imposition: situation 1, asking for information has
less degree of imposition than situation 2 which asked for action. Interestingly, Fukushima
(1996) claimed that the difference in the choice of request strategies lies in the different
perception of in-group members between Japanese and British. Japanese considers two
participants who equal in status and live next door in a student hall as in- group members while
British regards them as out-group members. Therefore, in both situations, Japanese employed
more direct request strategies and less supportive moves (mostly pre-commitment) than British
who showed more preference for conventional forms of request and mitigating supportive
 moves, especially grounding (Fukushima, 1996). This observation reveals that Japanese culture
tend to use positive politeness and going-bald-on-record for request strategies to show
solidarity in closed-distant relationship.

Ogiermann (2009) carried out a study on “Politeness and in-directness across cultures: a
comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests”. The finding showed interesting
results on the distinction between the West and the East culture in use of direct vs
conventionally indirect request strategies. The data showed the lower percentage of English
(4%) and German (5%) use of imperative in their request than that of Polish and Russian with
20% and 35 % respectively. Ogiermann (2009) explained that this difference between the two
cultures results from Slavic perception on request as a non-threating act to the hearers ‘face.
Another striking difference is the use of supportive moves. While English participants prefer
consultative modifiers and Germans use down toners, syntactic downgrading, especially tense
and negation is preferable by Poles and Russians (Ogiermann, 2009).

III. CONCLUSION

Among several speech acts, the use of request gains most degree of frequency in our daily
communication ranging from informal to formal level. With its ‘directive nature, politeness
strategies of making request are used to mitigate the face-threatening impact on the hearers. In
many cultures such as English (House & Kasper, 1981), Mexican (Félix-Brasdefer, 2005)
Indonesia (Hassall, 1999), Spanish (Reiter, 2002) the increase in degree of indirectness is
correlated with the higher degree of politeness. On the other hand, there is a link between
directness and politeness in making request in German (House & Kasper, 1981), Korea (Byon,
2006), China (Lee-Wong, 1994) , Japan (Fukushima, 1996), Polish and Russia (Ogiermann,
2009). The discussion on the connection between directness or indirectness and politeness in
request across cultures shows that the choice on direct requests or conventional indirect
requests are influence by the cultural perception on three factors social distance, power relation
and the ranking of imposition. Therefore, in regard with the attempt to mitigate the imposition
on the hearers, making request in an intercultural interaction should follow the appropriateness
of direct or indirect request strategies determined by the hearers ‘culture.
REFERENCE

Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of

pragmatics, 11(2), 131-146.
Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B., & Gherson, R. (1985). The language of requesting in Israeli society
Language and social situations (pp. 113-139): Springer.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and
apologies (Vol. 31). Norwood: Ablex Pub.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena
Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311): Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4):
Cambridge university press.
Byon, A. S. (2006). The role of linguistic indirectness and honorifics in achieving linguistic
politeness in Korean requests.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2002). Requesting strategies in English and Greek: observations
from an airline's call centre. Nottingham linguistic circular, 17, 17-32.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2005). Indirectness and politeness in Mexican requests. Paper presented
at the Selected proceedings of the 7th Hispanic linguistics symposium.
Fukushima, S. (1996). Request strategies in British English and Japanese. Language Sciences,
18(3), 671-688.
Hassall, T. (1999). Request strategies in Indonesian. Pragmatics, 9(4), 585-606.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. Conversational
routine, 157185.
Lee-Wong, S. M. (1994). Imperatives in requests: Direct or impolite observations from Chinese.
Pragmatics, 4(4), 491-515.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Matisoff, J. A., & Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human
Interaction: JSTOR.
Mills, M. (1993). On Russian and English pragmalinguistic requestive strategies. Journal of
Slavic linguistics, 1(1), 92-115.
Ogiermann, E. (2009). Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English,
German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research. Language,
Behaviour, Culture, 5(2), 189-216.
Pavlidou, T. (2000). Telephone conversations in Greek and German: Attending to the
relationship aspect of communication. Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through
talk across cultures, 121-140.
Reiter, R. M. (2002). A contrastive study of conventional indirectness in Spanish: Evidence
from Peninsular and Uruguayan Spanish. Pragmatics, 12(2), 135-151.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. B. (1983). Face in interethnic communication. Language and
communication, 156188.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol. 626):
Cambridge university press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3), ed. by
Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 59-82: New York: Academic Press.
Sifianou, M. (1999). Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural
perspective. Clarendon Press: Oxford.