The written DCT data was categorised and analysed using the Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP) coding manual (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989).
The CCSARP was constructed based on the elicited responses from two DCTs examining the realization of two different speech acts: requests and apologies. The CCSARP is an extensive data analysis tool, and since the DCT used for the present study only examines requests, the present chapter ignores the coding manual’s categorization of apology strategies. More detailed descriptions of the different, relevant request categories are covered in chapter 4.
31
In the instance of requests, the elicited response is by the coding manual broken down into an alerter, a head act, adjuncts to the head acts (or: supportive moves), and the request’s perspective. An alerter is how the speaker gains the hearer’s attention through, for example, calling the other person’s name, or by using a pronoun, title, endearment term (e.g. honey), or any combinations of these (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989: 276). The head act is the
“[…] minimal unit which can realize a request; it is the core of the request sequence” (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989: 265), for example “give me that pen”.
The head act may be internally modified through use of e.g. the politeness marker
‘please’, past tense forms or negation, hedging, or combinations of these, for instance “you couldn’t hand me that pen, please?” This head act may also be externally modified by the adjuncts. These adjuncts occur either before or after the modified head act, and these
modifiers include e.g. a preparator, grounder, disarmer, or for example insults and/or threats (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989: 287-288).
The preparator typically involves asking for permission to make a request. The
grounder is used when giving a reason for making the request, and the disarmer serves to limit the risk of having the request rejected. An example may serve to demonstrate a combination of an alerter, a modified head act of ‘give me a ride’ and three supportive moves: a preparator, disarmer and grounder (though see Blum-Kulka et al (1989) or Savic (2014) for additional categories):
“Tom, I would like to ask you for a favour, though I know you don’t enjoy driving. You couldn’t possibly give me a ride into town on Sunday? I have a doctor’s
appointment.”
‘Tom’ functions in this example as the alerter. A preparator then follows, ‘I would like to ask you for a favour’, before the disarmer ‘though I know you don’t enjoy driving’. The head act has been internally modified through use of past tense and negation, in addition to using the downtoner ‘possibly’. Finally, the speaker uses a grounder, ‘I have a doctor’s appointment’.
The request perspective of the speech act changes depending on who realizes the request, e.g. the speaker (can I borrow that?), hearer (could you give me that?), both (could we leave?), or whether impersonal pronouns are used to avoid targeting either the speaker or the hearer (can one get some help?) (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989: 278). Brown and Levinson’s (1987) FTA theory is applied to examine the directness of the request strategy, the
32
“[…] degree to which the speaker’s illocutionary intent is apparent from the locution” (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989: 278).
The FTA strategies are either on- or off record. If done on record, it is realised with or without redressive action (counteracting any damage to the addressee’s positive or negative face) (Brown and Levinson 1987: 69). An example of an FTA done on record without redressive action (baldly), e.g. “get out of my way” is significantly more direct than an FTA done off record through use of a hint, e.g. “it is a little cold in here” (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989: 280).
As these examples demonstrate, quantitative data analysis methods are “well defined and differentiated” (Seliger and Shohamy 1989: 201). The collected data fits into established categories and may be further converted into numerical forms and statistical tables depending on the number of counted occurrences of e.g. on record FTAs with externally or internally modified head acts.
Qualitative data, on the other hand, often contain long sequences of recorded written or oral texts, e.g. interviews, with significant variations in the collected material (e.g. attitudes and opinions). Though there may be patterns and shared similarities between the recordings, the “[…] categories emerge from the data themselves rather than a specific analysis being imposed on the data” (Seliger and Shohamy 1989: 205). Rather than using pre-determined categories of analysis, such categories are inductive (Seliger and Shohamy 1989: 205); the collected data forms the basis of analysis used on the remainder of the data. As such,
qualitative data analysis might be described as a recurring process until the analysis represents what the researcher interprets as the “essential features” (Seliger and Shohamy 1989: 211) of the material.
The gathered interview material was first transcribed, then analysed question-by-question for similarities, i.e. a pattern, and differences between the participants’ answers. 166 answered DCTs resulted in 996 requests, or FTAs, for analysis. The head act was identified, then analysed for internal and external modification, i.e. the number of times combinations of negation and/or past tense was used, and the most commonly recurring adjuncts. Furthermore, the requests were analysed to establish what type of interrogative they were, i.e. whether the requests were off record hints, or indirect requests referring to ability, permission, possibility or willingness.
Requests referring to ability take the modal verb ‘can’, e.g. ‘can you give me the book?’ Permission requests take the modal verb ‘may’, as in ‘may I borrow a book?’.
Requests referring to possibility are often impersonal, e.g. ‘is it possible to borrow a book?’ a
33
type of request that questions the feasibility of a request rather than realising the request (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper 1989: 280). Willingness requests are demonstrated by the modal verb ‘will’, e.g. ‘will you lend me a book?’. Hints do not immediately reveal the illocutionary intent, however they contain elements of the intended illocution, for example ‘I forgot my book today.’ Additionally, the FTAs were categorized by their degree of directness, i.e. whether they were on or off record according to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) FTA theory.