this sub-strategy. By contrast, he uses the QP modal request type (the most
common sub-strategy of learners) on only one occasion. This suggests the
use W ant statements in preference to QP modal requests. This is consistent with Scarcella and Brunak’s (1981) impression o f the W ant statem ent sub-strategy. They compare learners’ W ant statements with children’s simple "need" statements in early LI acquisition, and suggest that this strategy may be one of the first directive types to emerge in second language acquisition.
4.2.6 Range of direct sub-strategies by learners
This section discusses the finding that the learners in this study use a narrower range of direct sub-strategies than BI native speaker subjects, virtually never producing performatives, hedged performatives, or Goal statements (see 4.1.2.1).
This finding can best be attributed to the factor of pragmalinguistic knowledge. The learners are likely to lack native-like representations of knowledge of the formulas used for these three Indonesian request types and of their frequency in the L2. This is only to be expected, considering the following points. Firstly, the learners are not exposed to or given practice in any of these three request types as part of their formal instruction (none of these request types occur in their textbooks). Secondly, the learners have had little or no authentic exposure to L2 requesting in naturalistic settings, which would allow them to gain the requisite knowledge in that way. Lastly, these three sub-strategies (unlike the other request strategies that learners use in the data) do not have a L I pragmalinguistic equivalent which is used with comparable frequency.
This lack o f a readily available English equivalent is clearest in regard to Goal statements (cf.*“I borrow a pen”). While the explicit perform ative and hedged performative strategy do have possible English realisations (e.g. “I’m asking you to move over” and “I’d like to ask for a lift”, respectively), these request types are not frequently used in English. In requests by Australian English speakers, neither X. Nguyen (1 9 9 0 ) or Tanaka (1 9 8 6 , 1988) find any instances of either of these sub strategies, while in British English requests, Aijmer (1996: 150table) andTrosborg
(19 95 : 225table) find no instances of either, and House and Kasper (1 9 8 7 :1 2 5 8 - 1260tables) find very few. This suggests that to a large extent learners are unable to gain the requisite pragmatic knowledge from the L I, leaving no source from which
learners can gain the knowledge required to integrate these request sub-strategies into their L2 repertoire.
This absence of certain BI NS request strategies from the learner repertoire can be regarded as part of the broader trend for these learners to have a smaller repertoire of linguistic resources at their disposal than BI NSs to realise requests (seen also in their internal and external modification: cf. Chapters 5 and 6). This feature o f a sm aller range of linguistic resources has been observed frequently in studies of learner requesting and speech act performance in general (see 1.6.3.3).
One contrasting finding about learners’ range of request strategies is w orth mentioning. House and Kasper (1987) find that Danish and German learners of English actually used a greater range of direct sub-strategies than L2 native speakers. Instead of concentrating on a single level of directness (conventional indirectness), as English native subjects did, these learners used a variety of direct sub-strategies (although often at small frequencies). Trosborg (1995), however, who did not find this kind of "overvariety" in her own study of Danish learners of English, argues that House and Kasper’s (1987) finding may be attributable to the CCSARP method of data elicitation. She points out that as subjects in the CCS ARP were presented with a written questionnaire containing a list of five different request situations, they are likely to feel that they are expected to vary their responses in the different situations (and as it was a written questionnaire, subjects were able to visually compare their choices of strategy across situations). Native speaker subjects, however, are unlikely to be affected by this elicitation method in the same way; they will have a strong intuitive knowledge of what strategy is appropriate and therefore will feel more secure about m aintaining the same directness level across request situations (Trosborg 1995: 292-93).
4.2.7 Frequency of statement hints by learners
This section discusses the finding that the learners in this study use statement hints much more frequently than BI NS subjects (see 4.1.2.3).
Trosborg’s (1995) interpretation of hints by learners in her study is very helpful in understanding the present finding. Trosborg (1995) suggests that some of the hints produced by her Danish learners of English should not be regarded as hints proper, for the reason that they were probably not uttered with strategic intent; that is, with
the intention of “blurring the illocutionary force” (Trosborg 1995: 229).23 An example of such a 'hint' from her data is below:
(asking to be released from a baby-sitting arrangement).
Learner: Eh it’s about tonight — mv boyfriend called me this morning
NS: Ehem.
Learner: and eh asked me if I want to go with him to a concert.
NS: Oh yes.
Learner: This night.
NS: This night, and you were going to babysit this night, weren’t you?
(Trosborg 1995: 229, emphasis added)
Trosborg (1995) suggests that in instances like the one above, learners get no further than making a preliminary to a request because they are doubtful about how to phrase the actual request. The addressee, however, interprets the preliminary move as a hint, eliminating the need for the learner to make a 'real' request at all. Trosborg (1995) compares this phenomenon to L I requests by children, who just state a problem (e.g. “Mummy, I ’m cold”), and leave it to the addressee to solve it. One reason Trosborg (1995) suspects this phenomenon of 'hints' to be at work in her study is that her three groups of learners use hints in inverse proportion to the linguistic proficiency of the group. The greater number of hints by low er level learners is probably because these learners have greater difficulty in phrasing requests appropriately, and thus, more often leave it to the interlocutor to anticipate their need.
It seems highly likely that the Australian learners in the present study, too, are often performing 'hints' rather than hints. They tend to formulate prelim inary moves slowly and haltingly. This gives the interloctor ample time to realise what the learner wants, so that he or she can cut in and pre-empt a more explicit request by the learner — whether to save the learner the trouble of formulating a request, or to save time, or from impatience. And as most of the learners in the present study are o f lower proficiency even than Trosborg’s (1995) lowest proficiency group, they are likely to pause more often, and hesitate longer, and thus to have their requests pre-em pted more often. It is also suggestive that (although Low and Middle learners use statement hints with similar frequency) the High learners in the