Coding scheme for request strategies

The complexities of designing a one-size-fits-all coding scheme are evidenced in the

frequent modifications made to the content and number of strategies devised in the

original CCSARP classifications for many speech act studies (Blum Kulka et al.,

1989). This is perhaps no more apparent than with requests. The large volume of

studies on request speech acts have resulted in a number of comprehensive variants

of the CCSARP which imply requests are a complex speech act to perform. In fact,

the opposite is true from a native English speaker perspective. Research reports NS

strategies (Aijmer, 1996). The complexities of coding schemes for requests in fact

arise as a result of research on multiple languages to capture the many L1/L2

variants of requests which exist. Unlike earlier studies which tend to dissect the

request to analyse one element such as head acts (Lee-Wong, 1994; Lin, 2009; Yu,

1999), or internal modification (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2013), this thesis takes a

holistic stance and investigates all the main components; head acts and internal/external modification strategies, as described in chapter two.

As the pilot data revealed no new emergent request strategies than those previously identified in earlier research, the request strategies chosen for the present study’s

coding scheme draw on several sources, using a top-down approach. First, a combination of the original CCSARP (Blum Kulka et al, 1989) and Trosborg’s (1995)

early work provides the majority of categories in the coding scheme. Second, the

CCSARP list is further enhanced by strategies identified as common to L1 Chinese speakers in their L2 production of requests, e.g., ‘want’ statements (Chen, 2006; Lin,

2009; Wang, 2011; Yu, 1999). No categories from previous research were rejected at

this stage in order to capture the largest possible range of strategies utilised,

particularly at the pretest stage. The coding scheme in Table 5.3 was devised based

on these considerations.

Table 5.3. Coding scheme for request strategies.

Strategy Definition Example

1 Direct

1a Imperative “directly signals that the utterance is an order” (Trosborg, 1995, p. 204)

Give me an extension for my assignment 1b Performative “a performative verb conveys the

requestive intent, explicitly marking the utterance as an order” (Trosborg, 1995, p. 203)

I ask (request) that you give me an extension

1c Obligation “the speaker exerts his/her own authority or refers to some authority

I should (have to) have an extension

outside the speaker” (Trosborg, 1995, p. 202)

1d Want statement

“the speaker expresses the desire that the event denoted in the proposition come about” (Zhang, 1995, p. 44)

I want (need) an extension

2 Conventionally indirect

2a Ability “questions the hearer's capacity to perform the desired act” (Trosborg, 1995, p. 198)

Can (could) you give me/ (I) have an extension 2b Willingness “questions the hearer's willingness to

carry out the desired act which serves as a compliance-gaining strategy” (Trosborg, 1995, p. 199)

Would you give me an extension?

2c Suggestory “the hearer's cooperativeness is tested by inquiring whether any conditions exist that might prevent the action from being carried out” (Trosborg, 1995, p. 201)

How about giving me an extension?

2d Possibility “the utterance contains reference to a preparatory condition for the feasibility of the request [such as] possibility” (Wang, 2011, p. 62)

Is it/would it be possible to have an extension?

3 Non-conventionally indirect

3a Hints “the requester can imply what he/she wants done. The desired action can be partially mentioned or left out

altogether” (Trosborg, 1995, p. 192)

I'm having trouble finding the book I need for my assignment…

4 Internal modification devices 4a Softeners

(downtoners)

“modifiers used by a speaker to modulate the impact his/her request might have on the speaker” (Blum- Kulka et al, 1989, p. 284)

Could you

possibly/perhaps give me an extension...

4b Intensifiers “adverbial intensifiers increase the impact of an utterance on the hearer” (Trosborg, 1995, p. 214)

I'm sure, really

4c Fillers (hesitators)

“the requester can convey he/she has certain qualms about asking” (Trosborg, 1995, p. 213)

Could you.. erm/I wonder…give me an extension?

4d Attention- getters/ Alerters

“to alert the hearer's attention to the ensuing speech act” (Zhang, 1995, p. 32)

Excuse me; Sir, madam/lady, teacher; Sorry to bother you

4e Politeness marker 'please'

“an optional element added to a request to bid for cooperative behaviour” (Blum- Kulka et al. 1989, p. 283)

please

5 External modification devices

5a Preparators “it is important in the first place that the requester prepares his/her request carefully” (Trosborg, 1995, p. 216)

I have a problem..?

5b Grounders “allows the speaker to give reasons, explanations or justifications for his/her request” (Trosborg, 1995, p. 218)

Could I have an extension? I've had computer problems

5c Disarmers “the speaker tries to remove any potential objections the hearer might raise upon being confronted with the request” (Blum-Kulka et al, 1989, p. 287)

I hate bothering you/ If it's not too much trouble

5d Self-criticism “the speaker takes the blame by denigrating him/herself so as to put the hearer in a position where compliance appears to be a

benevolent deed” (Zhang, 1995, p. 63)

It's my fault./I made a mistake.

5e Sweetners “paves the way for the request by establishing good feelings and cultivating an amiable atmosphere” (Zhang, 1995, p. 60)

If you give me an extension, I promise to….

5f Apologising “the speaker apologises for the trouble the request will cause to the hearer” (Zhang, 1995, p. 62)

I'm sorry

5g Thanking “expressions of gratitude offered for the anticipated compliance of the hearer” (Zhang, 1995, p.63)

Thank you/thanks

Note.

The examples provided are fictitious in order to suit the appropriate strategy.