Differences in the core of a request between Italian native speakers and B1/B2 level learners. An analysis according to Blum-Kulka’s model on politeness.

Author: Simge Kandemir

Picture: Pixabay

1. Introduction

This small research analyzes the differences between the core of a request between Italian native speakers and Germanophone learners (level B1/B2). The methodology is based on Blum-Kulka’s research on politeness between native Hebrew and English speakers, which she conducted in 1987. My aim in the following is to examine the core of requests between Italian learners and native speakers and to see if there are any noticeable differences in how they use directness and politeness.

To investigate this, the Italian class “SE Sprachen lehren/lernen: Insegnare la pragmatica in italiano L2” has compiled 69 e-mails total, both from native speakers and from Italian learners. These e-mails are the basis of the analysis. The participants have been asked to write an e-mail for two different scenarios. In the first scenario, the participants must message their professor to postpone a presentation while the second scenario asks the participants to send an email to their professor because he hasn’t submitted their grade online which is needed to apply for a scholarship.

The results will be compared within the research to see if there the participants are more polite while writing one e-mail or the other. While conducting the research, I phrased two hypothesizes that I wanted to investigate further:

1. The Italian native speakers are more indirect in their approach of phrasing requests than Italian learners as they have more linguistic capabilities to nuance their requests.
2. The requests for the missing grade will be more direct than the requests for postponing the presentation as the latter has a greater risk of damaging the participants’ reputation.

To finish the research, the results will be used to draw conclusions and interpretations as to why the participants used language the way that they have.

2. State of research

The research is mainly based upon researches done by Shoshana Blum-Kulka on indirectness and politeness in requests (Blum-Kulka 1987). His collaborations with Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper are also taken into considerations and are used during the research (1981). To analyze the e-mails, it is also necessary to know about the system of indirect speech acts as described by John Searle (1975).

Shoshana Blum-Kulka’s analysis focuses on the perception of indirectness in English and Hebrew native speakers. She researches the theory that indirectness implies politeness as it increases the possibilities of interpretation and as it implicates less force to adhere to the request. Blum-Kulka adds that one must differentiate between conventional and unconventional indirectness whereby the former seems to be associated with politeness while the latter is not. This is for example observable within mild hints (see chapter 3). The study itself was set up in two types of experiments: The perception of indirectness and the perception of politeness.[1]

The results showed that native Hebrew speakers used more direct methods like Hedged Performatives and Performatives while native English speakers tend to rely more on hints for their requests. Both parties rarely used direct methods like Mood Derivables, Want Statements, and Obligation Statements. Some differences can be explained by linguistic factors. For example, Hebrew speakers find Want Statements to be more direct than English speakers do. This difference is most likely due to the different ways one would formulate a Want Statement in the respective languages. While in English they are usually phrased as “I would like you to do something”, Hebrew tends to phrase them as “I want you to do something” which thus automatically results in a more direct request.[2]

It is also crucial to differentiate between positive and negative politeness when it comes to cultural differences. Positive politeness is when a person indicates in one way or another solidarity with the listener. Negative politeness on the other hand is when a speaker uses methods that leave the hearer the possibility to deny the request which permits him or her to not feel forced to follow through with the request. The researches by Blum-Kulka show that the Israeli speaker prefers to use positive politeness while English and Japanese speakers prefer to use negative politeness.[3]

3. The methodology of the analysis

The analysis uses the nine request categories of Blum-Kulka. The categories are as followed:

Mood derivable	Move your car.
Performative	I’m asking you to move your car.
Hedged performative	I would like to ask you to move your car.
Obligation statements	You’ll have to move your car.
Want statement	I want you to move the car.
Suggestory Formulae	How about moving the car?
Query Preparatory	Would you mind moving the car?
Strong Hints	You have left the car in front of my driveway.
Mild hints	We don’t want anything blocking the driveway.

The typology of request patterns listed in the table are based on previous classifications of request strategies, with each category getting increasingly indirect, by Searle (1975)[4], House and Kasper (1981)[5] and Blum-Kulka (1982)[6]. The divisions are based on postulating degrees of illocutionary transparency. In other words, the more “indirect” the request is, the higher will be the necessity of interpretation by the hearer. With that, the likelihood of misinterpretation increases as well.

For the analysis, I first identified the core of the request. Once that step was finished, I assigned the equivalent type of request by using the table developed by Blum-Kulka. Then I organized all the results by dividing the e-mails into two different groups: Italian learners and native speakers. Furthermore, I divided the Italian learners into their respective proficiency levels to analyze if there are any noticeable differences between requests. I counted how often the type of request was used and added them into a table for comparison.

4. Analysis

Examples of e-mails:

Gentilissimo Sig. Brocca, Le scrivo per informarLa che sfortunatamente non avevo il tempo per preparare la presentazione per il corso domani perché dovevo prepararmi ad un importante esame di inglese. Se possibile vorrei spostare la presentazione (→ Want statement) per la settimana prossima cosicché posso anche preparare la presentazione per il suo corso in un modo proprio. Cordiali saluti, S.K.

Egr. Dottor Brocca, come ben saprà, dovrei fare domani la mia presentazione sull’articolo scelto all’inizio del semestre. Ho dovuto dare un esame importante in inglese ieri, è purtroppo mi sono accorta solo adesso che non ce la faccio in tempo a preparare la presentazione per il Suo corso. Mi dispiace tanto e Le assicuro che non mi sento per niente a mio agio quando Le chiedo cortesemente se potessimo spostare la presentazione alla lezione della settimana prossima (→Performative). Ho parlato pure con l’altra ragazza che dovrebbe fare la presentazione lunedì prossimo e lei sarebbe disposta a presentare il suo articolo già questa settimana. In attesa della Sua risposta rimango con cordiali saluti! F.D.

Gentile Dr. Brocca, Le scrivo perché ho una domanda per quanto riguarda la mia presentazione che dovrei fare domani nel Suo corso “Sprachen lernen und lehren: insegnare la pragmatica in italiano”: avendo avuto delle difficoltà a gestire bene il tempo non ce l’ho fatta a finirla in tempo, sarebbe possibile spostarla per una settimana? (→ Query prepartory) Spero che Lei lo possa comprendere. La ringrazio molto per La Sua risposta. Cordiali saluti, H.N.

The first step of the analysis is to identify the core of the request and then to categorize them accordingly.

5. Presentation of the results and discussion

5.1. Postponement of presentation:

Requests: 34 (Italian learners = 17, native speakers = 16)

Distribution of proficiency levels: B1 = 4, B2 = 13

Type of request according to Blum-Kulka	Learners	Native Speakers
Mood derivable	0	0
Performative	1	3
Hedged Performative	3	3
Obligation Statements	0	0
Want Statement	1	0
Suggestory Formulae	0	0
Query Preparatory	12	10
Hints	0	0

Graphical visualization:

Distribution by proficiency level:

Type of request according to Blum-Kulka	B1	B2	Native speakers
Mood derivable	0	0	0
Performative	0	1	3
Hedged performative	0	3	3
Obligation Statements	0	0	0
Want Statement	0	1	0
Suggestory Formulae	0	0	0
Query Preparatory	4	8	10
Hints	0	0	0

Graphical visualization:

Results:

The results show a preference for the use of the query preparatory in all levels of proficiency thus resulting in a preference for a more indirect approach of requesting. We can also observe that the more proficient the person is in Italian, the more likely they are to use a more direct method of requesting. For example, B1 learners only use questions (query preparatory) while native speakers use both types of Performatives as well.

5.2. Richiesta voto:

Requests: 35 (Italian learners = 18, native speakers = 16)

Distribution of proficiency levels: B1 = 5, B2 = 13

Type of request according to Blum-Kulka	Learners	Native Speakers
Mood derivable	0	0
Performative	1	0
Hedged Performative	4	6
Obligation Statements	0	0
Want Statement	1	0
Suggestory Formulae	0	0
Query Preparatory	9	6
Hints	2	4

Distribution by proficiency level:

Type of request according to Blum-Kulka	B1	B2	Native speakers
Mood derivable	0	0	0
Performative	1	0	0
Hedged performative	1	3	6
Obligation Statements	0	0	0
Want Statement	0	1	0
Suggestory Formulae	0	0	0
Query Preparatory	2	7	6
Hints	0	2	4

Results:

One of the most surprising results is that native speakers prefer to use even more indirect methods of requesting than when they were asked to change the date of the presentation even though asking for a grade is less damaging to their “positive face” than the previous example. Meanwhile, Italian learners more likely to use more direct ways of requesting.

6. Interpretation of the data

Before beginning to analyze the results, it is important to mention that this research had a very small sample size of only 35 participants. It is thus not possible to draw general conclusions by analyzing a small group of people. Furthermore, the interpretations can be very inaccurate, especially because a person’s individual use of language can differ a lot from the general census.

While comparing the results, I had asked my student colleagues about what they thought could be reasons that the native speakers preferred to use more indirect ways of phrasing their e-mail while requesting their grade. One possible interpretation could be that the native speakers use more indirect ways of requesting as they are linguistically capable of doing so, to begin with. They know how to apply nuances of the Italian language and know what is polite. They are also able to distinguish between different levels of indirectness and what level is acceptable and understandable by the hearer while keeping the chance of misinterpretation low.

Another reason as to why they prefer to stay indirect even when they aren’t responsible for the professor’s mistake of not having submitted the grade yet could be that they fear to inconvenience the professor as he could be going through a stressful period himself. Hence, they want to avoid coming off impolite, which could be the case by using more direct ways of requesting and prefer to hint at what they need.

These interpretations would explain the first hypothesis that Italian native speakers are more indirect in their approach of requesting as they possess the ability to do so. But as mentioned before, the sample size of this research is very small, and we cannot conclude that the results are universally applicable.

The second hypothesis has very interesting results. From what we can observe, the Italian native speaker ended up being more indirect than expected. An explanation as to why this could be the reason has been provided in the former paragraphs. What we can observe is that the B1 learners tended to choose to be more direct in their approach when it came to requesting their grade. The B2 learners on the other hand barely changed their approach at all compared to their first request for the postponement of the presentation. In the case of B2 learners, the differences are too small to jump to any conclusions.

7. Summary

In this research, we analyze how indirectness and politeness are used in two different scenarios: The postponement of a presentation and the request for a grade. In both cases, the participants send an e-mail to a professor to phrase their need.

The results show that both native speakers and Italian learners have a similar approach to phrasing their requests. One noticeable difference is that the native speakers are more indirect when forming their request for their grade than for the postponement for the presentation even though the latter is considered to be more damaging to their reputation as it is their fault that they couldn’t finish a presentation on time. But what we observe instead is that the native speakers prefer to be more indirect while asking for their grade. This could be because they don’t want to come off as impolite or to be pressuring the professor to fulfill their needs. This would also align with the form of negative politeness where they hand the responsibility and the freedom of choice over to the professor.

But as mentioned in the other chapters, the sample size of this small research is too small to draw any meaningful conclusions and would need more people participating to have any significant value.

8. Bibliography

Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of Hebrew second language learners. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.

Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B., Gerson, R. (1985): The language of requesting in Israeli society. In Joseph Forgas (ed), Language and social situation (p.113-141). New York, Berlin: Springer.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and Politeness in Requests. Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Advances in discourse processes, 31, 267-274.

House, J., Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In Coulmas, Florian (ed.), Conversational routine (157-185). The Hague: Mouton.

Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P., Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, Volume 3: Speech acts (p. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.

---

[1] Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and Politeness in Requests. Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.

[2] Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and Politeness in Requests. Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.

[3] Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B., Gerson, R. (1985): The language of requesting in Israeli society. In Joseph Forgas (ed.), Language and social situation (p.113-141). New York, Berlin: Springer.

[4] Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P., Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, Volume 3: Speech acts (p. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.

[5] House, J., Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In Coulmas, Florian (ed.), Conversational routine (157-185). The Hague: Mouton.

[6] Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of Hebrew second language learners. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.

Author: Simge Kandemir

---

---