CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
SciVerse ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 1724 - 1731
Akdeniz Language Studies Conference 2012
Delving into speech act of requests of Iranian Turkish
informants
Mostafa Shahidi Tabara, Lotfollah Akbari Malekb*
aDepartment of Foreign Languages, Imam Sadig University,Tehran, Iran bIran language Institute, Qom, Iran
Abstract
This paper reports the findings of a study designed to investigate the notion of indirectness in the speech act of requests among native speakers of Iranian Turkish. 180 respondents took a Discourse Completion Test (DCT) with ten scenarios, and returned 1800 requestive speech acts. The acts were then analyzed according to the directness categories introduced by Blum-Kulka et al. (1984) and politeness strategies suggested by Brown and Levinson (1987). Results, after analyses of the data indicated that Blum-Kulka's scale and Brown and Levinson's classification are not complete to measure all the responses made by this study informants. There seems to be a considerable number of informants who have deliberately chosen strategies which are not in Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Brown and Levinson (1987). At the end, a finer scale has been introduced by the authors to overcome the mentioned shortcomings.
© 22012 The Authors. Published b y Els evier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012
Keywords: requestive speech act; request; politeness; Iranian Turkish
1. Introduction
The seminal work of Brown and Levinson (1987) on politeness and indirectness resulted in an upsurge of enthusiasm in conversational analysis. Since then many linguists have tried to investigate politeness
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +9809123515581. E-mail address: loakbari@gmail.com., m_shahidi2005@yahoo.com
1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012 doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.247
and its relationship to indirectness and face. Indirectness occupies a prominent position in politeness studies. A large study, The Cross - Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP), has been conducted on university students in eight languages to see cross - cultural and intralingual variations in speech acts namely, requests and apologies (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984; Blum-Kulka and House, 1989). Some scholars have claimed that 'Indirectness' is culture-dependent (Wierzbicka, 2003). Another study (Marti, 2006) investigated the directness level of Turkish-German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. The study showed that Turkish monolingual speakers seemed to prefer more direct strategies when compared to German speakers.
The literature on politeness and indirectness is replete with the works of numerous scholars mostly non-Iranians and few Iranian scholars have worked on politeness and indirectness. In a study by Salmani (2008) on Persian requests it was found that, Persian speakers used conventionally indirect (CI) strategies in their requestive speech acts. In another study, Akbari (2002) declared that, in addition to the relative power of the speaker over the listener, the social distance between the speaker and the listener, the ranking of the imposition involved in doing the FTA, the presence of the audience, the liking factor and the urgency of the act must all be taken into consideration.
Turkish languages are investigated by some scholars but Iranian Turkish language is not investigated thoroughly. Therefore present study tries to explore politeness in Iranian Turkish.
2. Methodology
2.1. Politeness versus Indirectness
Politeness can be defined as the practical application of good manners or etiquette. It is a culturally-defined phenomenon; therefore what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be quite rude or simply eccentric in another cultural context. Face occupies a central role in politeness. According to Goffman (1955, 1967) face is 'the public self image' or reputation, self-esteem of a person. Face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interactions. In general, people cooperate (and assume each other's cooperation) in maintaining face in interactions, (Brown and Levinson, 1987). Brown and Levinson (1987) identified two kinds of politeness, deriving from Goffman's concept of face: Negative face which represents the desire for autonomy and Positive face, which is related to the want to be approved of by other people.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987) Politeness strategies are used to formulate messages in order to save the hearer's face when face-threatening acts are inevitable or desired. Referring to Coffman's notion of face, as the public self image, Brown and Levinson distinguish four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record and avoidance. Bald On-record: strategies usually do not attempt to soften the threat to the hearer's face. Often using such a strategy will annoy or embarrass the addressee, and so this strategy is most often utilized in situations where the speaker has a close relationship with the audience, such as family or intimate friends. Positive Politeness: strategies aim to minimize the threat to the hearer's positive face. They are used to make the hearer feel satisfied with himself, and are used mostly in situations where the audience knows each other
* Turkish belongs to southwestern or Oghuz, group of Turkic languages. This group also includes Azerbaijani, spoken in Iran, according to Brown & Ogilvie (Brown & Ogilvie, 2009). Heiat (1978) believes that there are at least 26 Turkish languages like, Turkey Turkish, Azerbaijani Turkish (or Iranian Turkish), etc.
pretty well. Negative Politeness: These strategies presume that the speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potential for awkwardness or embarrassment than in bald on record strategies and positive politeness strategies. Negative face is the desire to remain autonomous so the speaker is more apt to include an out for the listener, through distancing styles like apologies. Off-record: The other politeness strategy by Brown and Levinson is the off-record strategy; this strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker from the potential to be imposing. This strategy contains all types of hints, metaphors, etc. For instance, a speaker using the indirect strategy might merely say "wow, it's getting hot in here" insinuating that it would be nice if the listener would get up and turn on the fan without directly asking the listener to do so. Avoidance The final politeness strategy outlined by Brown and Levinson is avoidance which is considered to be even more polite compared with off-record strategy (Brown and Levinson, 1987:20-21).
In summary, the above-mentioned strategies are used according to the degree of face threat that a person may encounter. The assessment of the amount of the face threat, according to Brown and Levinson depends on these variables: 1. Power of the speaker, 2. Social distance between the interlocutors, 3. Rank (degree of imposition).Therefore, the weight of an FTA can be calculated by adding these values.
2.2. The directness framework used in this study
Directness is described by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) as "the degree to which the speaker's illocutionary intent is apparent from the locution". Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) stated that there have been several attempts to establish a classification of request strategies that would form a universally valid scale of directness. According to Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), three major levels of directness for requests can be identified cross-linguistically on theoretical grounds: impositives, conventionally indirect requests, and nonconventionally indirect requests. A finer scale of nine direct categories, based on these three major levels, was used in the CCSARP (Cross Cultural Speech Act Realization Project) (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984; Blum-Kulka and House, 1989), with nine categories ranging from most direct to least direct as follows:
Table 1: Blum-Kulka et al.'s (1984) directness categories (from direct to indirect)
1. Mood derivative
Clean up the kitchen. The menu please.
2. Explicit performative
3. Hedged performative
4. Locution derivable or obligation statement
5. Want statement
6. Suggestory formula
7. Preparatory or conventionally indirect
8. Strong hint
9. Strong hint
I am asking you to move your car. I must/have to ask you to clean the kitchen now. Madam you'll have to/should/must/ought to move your c I'd like to borrow your notes for a little while.
How about cleaning up the kitchen?
Can I borrow your notes? I was wondering if you would give me a lift.
(Intend: getting a lift) Will you be going home now? (Intend: getting the hearer to clean the kitchen) You have been busy here. Haven't you?
2.3. Instrument
In this study a Discourse Completion Test (DCT) with ten scenarios is used as the tool of data collection. In regard to the DCT, five situations were taken from the CCSARP and the rest were taken from Marti (2006). Two of the situations were redesigned to meet Iranian culture requirements. The instrument was piloted by 20 candidates. The summary of the situations in DCT of the present study is shown in Table 2, below.
Table 2: Summary of situations in DCT
S1. Kitchen
Student-student
Student asks flat mate to clean the kitchen
S2. Notes
52. Notes
53. Extension
54. History Teacher
55. Guest
56. Secretary
57. Change
58. Lift
59. Book
S10. Help
Student-student
Student asks a flat mate to clean the kitchen Student-student
Student asks another student foe course notes Student-teacher
Student teacher for an extension (to hand in a project) Teacher-student
Teacher asks student to give a presentation one week earlier Host-guest
Host asks guest to leave because of dinner invitation Student-secretary
Student asks secretary for a piece of paper
Informant without a specific role-grocer
The informant asks the shopkeeper to change a bill
Informant without a specific role-a couple who are neighbors The informant asks the couple who live on the same street for a lift Student-teacher
Student asks teacher to borrow a book Student-student
Student asks classmates to denote money for charity in class
It is worth mentioning that situational variations of the present study have focused on the concept of social distance and dominance. However, terms of dominance and social distance are difficult to define and to apply in some situations of this study. For instance, in Situation 5, where a host is asked to request a quest to leave, it was too difficult to determine what the power relationship might be.
2.4. Subjects
This study participants were 180 informants. A short questionnaire attached to the DCT was used to obtain background information from the informants. Only participants who defined themselves as Iranian Turkish were included in the study.
3. Results
3.1. Considering the discourse completion test in a broader perspective:
As it can be seen in Table 3, the collected data is analyzed using Blum-Kulka et al.'s (1989) framework. The nine (in)directness categories, have served as the bases for the analysis of the requests of Turkish informants. Moreover, the collected data is going to be evaluated in a broader perspective, which not only will cover responses measured according to Blum-Kulka et al.'s (1989) framework, but also covers; (1) no responses or opting outs, (2) alternative responses, (3) negotiations, (4) preparatory talks and (5) polite forms of speech. It should be mentioned that, Marti (2006) has already discussed three mentioned categories (opting outs, alternative responses, negotiations) in a broader perspective briefly in her study (Marti, 2006).
Table 3: Summary of responses to the DCT by Turkish informants
Situation Impositive Conventional Hints Opt ALT mean K- square Significance Least Most
Kitchen 6 (1¡£¿10 A 3 Hit OA 81 on /rïrï OA 42 A £ !££ 0 A 2/83 43/40 Significant 2 3
note 6/6/% 21 23/33% 3/33% 66 73/33% 90/00% 3 3/33% 46/66 0 0 0 0 0 1/80 23/40 Significant Significant Significant 3 2
Extension 39 /18/1 z 30 11 /C\ A o/v 12 1/1/21 0/ 0 n 0 n 1/67 4/67 Significant 3 1
History teacher 48/15% 18 OH/nno/v 3//04% 57 £1111 OA 14/81% 15 1 £/£10A 0 0 n 0 0 n 1/97 12/20 Significant Significant 3 2
Guest 20/00% 0 H/nn OA 0/00% 63/33% 3 16/6 7% 75 0 45 50% 0 3 2/96 46/23 Significant Significant 1 3
Secretary 24 3/85% 57 96/ 15% 6 0 n OA 0% 3/33% 0 n 1/79 15/38 Significant Significant 3 2
Change 2//59% 0 H/nn OA 65/52% 72 6/ 90% 15 1 7/0/10/, 3 1/110/n 0 12 1 H110/n 2/17 33/17 Significant Significant 1 2
Lift 0/00% 0 H/nn OA 82/ /6% 21 17/24% 69 3/33% 18 11 ¡110 A 13/33% 0 n 2/77 27/80 Significant Significant 1 3
Book 0/00% 3 3/33% 23/33% 78 86/67% 76/6 7% 9 10/00% 7 3/33% 0 0 0 0 0 2/07 38/60 Significant Significant Significant 2 1
Help 9 51 27 6 0 0 2/21 10/21 Significant Significant 1 2
There seems to be a considerable number of informants in the collected data that have deliberately chosen not to do an FTA (Opting out). Brown and Levinson (1988) considered this "opting out" as a pragmatic choice. Here, in Table 3 Turkish informants' responses to the DCT can be evaluated in a broader perspective. In some situations, instead of making a straightforward request, the informants proposed alternative solutions. For instance when they were required to ask for change, some of them made a small purchase to get change. Following is an example in which a Turkish speaker buys chewing gum to get change.
Saggiz varivuz?
Do you have a stick of chewing gum ?
In some cases, informants attempted to negotiate while making a request and in some other cases they preferred to make preparatory talks to establish common ground such as: How are you? Good evening? How was it? As can be seen in the following example: Sal^ ustad. yurulmuyasiz. bagi§layin ki muzahim oldum. bag^layin ...
Hello teacher. How are you? Sorry for interruption. Excuse me ...
Table 3 presents the summary of categories for Turkish informants. Now for detailed explanation, each item is considered separately.
Opting out
One type of these responses is "no response" or "opting out". Opting out is one of the strategies which is used by Turkish speakers very much. As far as the collected data is concerned, Turkish informants tend to use opting out strategy in Kitchen, Guest, Change, Lift and Help Situations.
As can be seen in Table 3, in Kitchen Situation 46/66% of the Turkish speakers stated that they would not ask their flatmates to clean the kitchen. Some of the informants tried to explain their choice of opting out. (Perhaps he was busy); Following are some examples: Kitchen Situation
Xiib malum dii. a§paz xanani man sila ram. §ayad dostumun i§i varimi§. Well, that's for sure, I will clean the kitchen. Maybe he had some problems. Guest Situation
Qunagim bilmami§ ora ki fagirilmi^am zang elaram va ii zrxalig elaram ki geda bilmiram va qunagin da uzuna gatirmaram .
I'll call the place where I'm going to go to the party and apologize that I cannot attend without my guest realizing it.
Evda qalaram va qunagliga getmaram. sura zang vurram va deyaram " galammadm. qunagim galdi ".
I'll stay home and will not go to the party. Then I'll call the host say: 'I cannot come, a gust came over.' Change situation Piilun xirinlan geQaram. I'll not get the change.
Alternative responses
An alternative response is one of the strategies which is used by Turkish speakers according to the collected date. As far as the data is concerned, Turkish informants tend to use alternative responses in Guest and Change Situations.
As it can be seen in Table 3, in Guest Situation 3/33% of both Turkish speakers stated that they would not ask their guest to leave their homes, instead they would use some alternative responses like, 'let's go to the party together', and in Change Situation in which the task was to ask a grocer to provide change for a bill; Turkish informants preferred to use alternative responses (13/33%), like buying something of small value such as a stick of chewing gum. Following are some more examples:
Preparatory talks
Another kind of strategy which is used by a number of informants in data is preparatory talks. This strategy like, alternative responses and opting outs, is one of the strategies which is used by both Turkish and Persian speakers according to the collected date. As far as this study data is concerned, Turkish informants tend to use preparatory talks in some Situations.
According to the responses provided by the informants in DCT, some of the speakers prefer to use preparatory talks to establish common ground. Preparatory talks were such as: How are you? Good evening? How was it? Did you enjoy? Some preparatory talks can be seen in the following example: Teacher Situation:
Sal^ ustad. yurulmuyasiz. bagi§layin ki muzahim oldum. ustad bag§laym...
Hello teacher, How are you? Sorry for taking your time,... Lift Situation:
Bagijlayin. salam. yax§isiz ? eva gedirsiz ? icaza var manda sizinn gelam?
Excuse me. Hello, are you fine? Are you going home? Would it be Ok if I come with you ?
To sum up, preparatory talks used by Turkish informants in this study DCT show the dynamic character of the act of requesting. Moving beyond the limited categorization of directness proposed by Blum-Kulka et al.'s (1989), this study DCT examples are a rich and valuable data representing informants' alternative ways of getting their messages across and remind that in real life situations speakers seem to prefer to have variety of ways to make their requests.
4. Suggestions
In this part of the study, some suggestions are going to be made about the theoretical problems that were faced in analyzing DCT of Turkish informants. At first, politeness strategies that used to formulate messages in order to save the hearer's face when face-threatening acts are inevitable or desired are reviewed here again.
Bald On-record: strategies do not attempt to soften the threat to the hearer's face. Positive politeness strategies aim to minimize the threat to the hearer's positive face. Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer's negative face and emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer.
Off-record: This strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker from the potential to be imposing.
Avoidance: No FTA is performed in this strategy, which is considered to be more polite even compared with off-record strategy.
It can be concluded that, the five mentioned strategies are used according to the degree of face threat that a person may encounter. As it was showed by considering the discourse completion test in a broader perspective, the result of DCT shows that, some of the strategies used by some informants can not be justified by this five-category politeness scale. They were, no responses or opting outs, alternative responses, negotiations and preparatory talks.
The writers believe that, alternative responses and preparatory talks can be added to the politeness categories and make it a seven-category politeness scale as follows:
1. Bald on record, 2. Positive politeness, 3. Negative politeness, 4. Preparation, 5. Off records, 7. Alternative Reponses. 8. Avoidance
The main reason behind proposing this new framework is that, speakers reduce the amount of face threat by preparatory talks more when compared with positive and negative politeness, that is why preparatory talks strategy is located after positive and negative politeness. Besides, preparatory talks strategy is before off record, since in off-record, the informant uses indirect language to minimize the potential imposition on the hearer. In alternative responses, speakers make their request in an indirect way, but no request is made in avoidance, that is why alternative responses is located before avoidance in this suggested framework. In other words, no request is made in alternative responses which is related directly to the thing one is going to get in alternative responses, but an indirect or perhaps another request is made in this strategy, while in avoidance, the request is dropped completely which is very safe in comparison with alternative responses.
References
Blum-Kulka, Sh., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5 (3), 196-213.
Blum-Kulka, Sh., House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior. In: Norwood, NJ, pp.123-154.
Blum-Kulka, Sh., House, J, & Gabriele, K. (1989). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: an introductory overview. In: Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (Eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 1-34.
Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 56-311.
Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Brown, K. & Ogilvie, S. (2009). Concise Encyclopedia of Languages' of the World. Elsevier Ltd., Oxford, pp. 1109-1116.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18, 213-231.
Goffman, . (1967). Interaction Rituals: Essays on Face to Face Behavior. Bantam Books, Garden City, New York.
Heiat, Javad, 1978. Seiri Dar Tarix Zaban Va Lahjehaye Torki (A survey of Turkish language and accents' History). Nashre NOW. Tehran.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Essex: Longman.
Marti, L. (2006). Indirectness and politeness in Turkish-German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1836-1869.
Salmani, M. A. (2008). Persian requests: Redress of face through indirectness. Iranian Journal of Languages Studies.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantic of human interaction . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.s
