A study of politeness strategies in request by the characters in the novel harry potter and the chamber of secrets

THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
----------  ----------

NGUYEN THI THUY LINH

A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN REQUEST
BY THE CHARACTERS IN THE NOVEL
“HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS”

M.A THESIS
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8220201

THAI NGUYEN-2021


THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
----------  ----------

NGUYEN THI THUY LINH

A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN REQUEST
BY THE CHARACTERS IN THE NOVEL
“HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS”

M.A THESIS
(APPLICATION ORIENTATION)

Field: English Linguistics

Code: 8220201
Supervisor: Dr. Nguyen Thu Hanh

THAI NGUYEN-2021


ĐẠI HỌC THÁI NGUYÊN
TRƯỜNG NGOẠI NGỮ
----------  ----------

NGUYỄN THỊ THÙY LINH

NGHIÊN CỨU CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ TRONG LỜI
THỈNH CẦU CỦA CÁC NHÂN VẬT TRONG
PHẦN TRUYỆN
“HARRY POTTER VÀ PHỊNG CHỨA BÍ MẬT”

LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ
(Định hướng ứng dụng)

Ngành: Ngôn ngữ Anh
Mã số: 8220201
Cán bộ hướng dẫn: TS. Nguyễn Thu Hạnh

THÁI NGUYÊN-2021


DECLARATION
I hereby certify that my thesis entitled A study of Politeness strategies in
requests by the characters in the novel “Harry Potter and the Chamber of

Secrets” is the result of my own work and the substance of this research has not
been submitted for a degree to any other universities or institutions.
Thai Nguyen, June 2021
Approved by Supervisor

Student

Dr. Nguyen Thu Hanh

Nguyen Thi Thuy Linh

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study cannot be completed without the help of many people. Therefore,
I would like to show my great thanks to those who have given guidance, support,
and encouragement to me during the whole period of this thesis.
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratefulness to my supervisor,
Dr. Nguyen Thu Hanh for her valuable assistance, sincere advice and great
encouragement that she provided to me during the time this research conducted.
Besides, I would like to express my gratitude to all my lecturers and staff at School
of Foreign Languages, Thai Nguyen University. Thanks to their support and
consideration, I can pursue and finish the course.
Furthermore, I would also like to express my sincere thanks to all classmates
in class K3A for their support and encouragement.
Last but not least, I owe a big thank to my parents and close friends who
have always encouraged me to complete this study and taken care of me all the
time.

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ........................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... iii
ABBREVIATION .......................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ......................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................1
1.1. Rationale ...........................................................................................................1
1.2. Aims of the study..............................................................................................3
1.3. Objectives of the study .....................................................................................3
1.4. Research questions ...........................................................................................3
1.5. Scope of the study ............................................................................................3
1.6. Significance of the study ..................................................................................3
1.7. Methods of the study ........................................................................................4
1.8. Design of the study ...........................................................................................4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................5
2.1. The speech act theory .......................................................................................5
2.2. The speech act of requests ................................................................................7
2.2.1. Definitions of requests ...............................................................................7
2.2.2. A request sequence ....................................................................................8
2.2.1.1. The head act ........................................................................................8
2.2.1.2. The alerter ...........................................................................................8
2.2.1.3. Supportive moves ................................................................................8
2.2.3. Types of requests .......................................................................................9
2.2.3.1. Direct Requests ...................................................................................9
2.2.3.2. Indirect Requests .................................................................................9

2.2.4. Request strategies ....................................................................................11
2.2.4.1. Direct requests...................................................................................11
2.2.4.2. Conventionally indirect requests .......................................................12
2.2.4.3. Unconventionally indirect requests ...................................................12
2.2.5. Modification in performing a request ......................................................13
2.2.5.1. Internal modification .........................................................................13
2.2.5.2. External modification ........................................................................15

iii


2.3. Politeness ........................................................................................................16
2.3.1. Politeness theory ......................................................................................16
2.3.2. Politeness and indirectness ......................................................................20
2.3.3. Politeness and indirectness in performing requests .................................21
2.4. Previous studies on politeness strategies in requests .....................................22
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................24
3.1. Research Design .............................................................................................24
3.2. Analytical framework .....................................................................................24
3.3. Data source: “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” ..............................26
3.4. Data collection procedure..................................................................................27
3.5. Data analysis procedure ..................................................................................27
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS ...........................................................................28
4. 1. The utilization of request strategies by the characters in “HPCS” ................29
4.1.1. Differences in frequency of request strategies used in “HPCS” .............29
4.1.2. Analysing politeness strategies in requests used in “HPCS” ..................30
4.2. The utilization of modifications by the characters in “HPCS” ..........................33
4.2.1. The use of internal modifications ............................................................33
4.2.2. The use of external modifications or supportive moves ..........................36
4.3. Discussions on request strategies in “HPCS” from S-H relationships ...............37

4.3.1. On the choice of strategies .........................................................................37
4.3.2. On the use of internal and external modifications ........................................42
4.3.2.1. The use of internal modifications .........................................................42
4.3.2.2. The use of external modifications or supportive moves .......................44
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ..................................................................................47
5.1. Major findings and concluding remarks .........................................................47
5.2. Implications ....................................................................................................48
5.3. Suggestions for further research .....................................................................49
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................50
APPENDICES...........................................................................................................54

iv


ABBREVIATION
“HPCS”

“Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”

FTA

Face-Threatening Act

H

The Hearer

S

The Speaker

(…)

Omitted words, phrases, or sentences

n

Number of Appearance

DR

Direct (Strategy)

CI

Conventionally Indirect (Strategy)

UCI

Unconventionally Indirect (Strategy)

SD

Syntactic Downgrader

LPD

Lexical/Phrasal Downgrader

UD

Upgrader

D

Distance

P

Relative Power

R

Absolute ranking of imposition

v


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. The categories of Alerters .............................................................................8
Table 2. Types and strategies of requests .................................................................25
Table 3. The differences in the figures for request strategies in “HPCS” ................29
Table 4. Polite request strategies by types in “HPCS” .............................................30
Table 5. The use of DR, CI and UCI strategies in “HPCS” seen from S-H
relationship ................................................................................................................37
Table 6. The use of internal modifications in “HPCS” seen from S-H relationship 42
Table 7. The use of supportive moves in “HPCS” seen from S-H relationship .......44

Figure 1. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) five politeness strategies ...........................19
Figure 2. Directness level in the head acts of requests .............................................21

Figure 3. Internal modification in the head acts of requests .....................................26
Figure 4. External modification in the head acts of requests ....................................26
Figure 5. The use of internal modifications in “HPCS” ...........................................34
Figure 6. The use of external modifications in “HPCS” ...........................................36

vi


ABSTRACT
The speech act of request is a face-threatening act in human’s
communication because it threatens the face of both the speaker and the hearer. The
study was done to find out how politeness strategies in requests are employed by the
characters in the novel “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” by J. K. Rowling.
All the requests carrying the illocutionary force of getting somebody to do an act
were collected for analysis. The coding system was based on Blum-Kulka et al.
(1989)’s coding manual. The results indicate that the characters in “Harry Potter and
the Chamber of Secrets” primarily chose the Direct Strategies to form their requests,
in which the Mood Derivable was the most well-liked strategy. In terms of Internal
Modifications, the speakers in “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” used a
wide range of mitigating devices to reduce the requestive force, mostly the Modal
form, Interrogative form and Repetition of request. With respect to External
Modifications, the speakers overwhelmingly opted for Grounders to give reasons
for their requests. The findings also showed that the relationships between the
characters had an impact on the choice of request strategies and mitigating devices
used in the novel.
Keywords: Politeness strategies, Request, Modification, Speech Act

vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
Acquiring a second language, as stated by Yates (2010), demands more than
learning new words and another system of grammar. It is true that it is difficult to
have a command of a foreign language because it is not only about enormous
vocabulary and profound understanding in grammar but also about “unwritten
rules” (Yates, 2010). In fact, one of the major goals of learning a language is to be
able to carry out effective communication, so it is necessary for language learners to
have communicative competence. In other words, both the speaker and the hearer
have a perception of what they are talking about. It is apparent that having
communicative competence will be useful for speakers or anyone involved to avoid
lots of misunderstandings and embarrassments when interacting with people in the
native country where their target language is widely spoken. The communicative goal
may definitely fail to achieve if this element is ignored.
According to Mey (2001), communicative competence refers to a language
user’s knowledge of linguistic forms as well as social knowledge of when, how and
when to use utterances appropriately. In other words, linguistic competence, i.e.
grammar and vocabulary is not enough for a language learner to avoid cultural
shock, and misunderstandings. Therefore, it is vital for language users to acquire
pragmatic competence, the ability to use language appropriately in a social context.
In addition, it deals with the use of appropriate grammatical forms for different
communicative functions in different sociolinguistic contexts.
In recent years, there have been remarkable changes in the course of teaching
and learning English in Vietnam, especially when the communicative approach
became a hot topic among people in the fields of language education. As a result,
the English curriculum has been geared more toward communication and
communicative competence is also paid more intention. However, the development
of linguistic competence still plays a remarkable role in teaching and learning
English. Consequently, Vietnamese learners are likely to have difficulty
communicating with English native speakers and leaners of English as well. It is the

1


fact that a large number of Vietnamese learners are said to be able to master
linguistic forms, yet a few can produce natural and appropriate English speech
which makes themselves understood because they do not have a perception of
sociocultural rules of use, i.e. knowing how to use and respond to language
appropriately. The appropriateness depends on the setting of the communication,
the topic, and the relationships among the people communicating. It also relies on
knowing what the taboos of the other culture are, what kind of politeness indices are
used in each situation.
A request is “illocutionary whereby the speaker (requester) conveys to the
hearer (requestee) that he or she wants the requestee to perform an act which is for
the benefit of the requester” (Trosborg, 1995:187). The act may be a request for an
object, an action or some kind of service or it can be a request for information.
Basically, request is a face threatening act (FTA) which commonly put threats on
requestee' s negative face. Because of this, many problems will certainly appear if
culture and politeness factors are not taken into account. The cultures have their
own politeness standards, so an utterance in general and a request in particular may
be interpreted differently across cultures. Moreover, some utterances which are
considered right and acceptable, or wrong and unacceptable in one country may be
just the opposite in the other. The speech act of request has been widely discussed
in pragmatic research by a number of researchers such as Wichmann (2004),
Martinez-Flor (2009), Mohammed (2012). Although previous studies have
investigated requests in numerous aspects, the use of politeness in request has been
seldom examined, especially in literature which is considered as a reflection of
society and culture (Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao, 2010). Therefore, the researcher
chooses the minor thesis, namely “A study of Politeness strategies in requests by the
characters in the novel “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” by J. K. Rowling

with the hope of supporting the aforementioned studies and filling the gap in the
area.

2


1.2. Aims of the study
First of all, the research aims at studying the performance of politeness
strategies in the requests by the characters in the novel "Harry Potter and the
Chamber of Secrets". In addition, modification devices in requests employed by the
characters in the novel will be explored.
1.3. Objectives of the study
The objectives of the study are:
- To discover the choices of politeness strategies in requests employed by the
characters in the novel “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”
- To discover the choices of modification devices in requests employed by
the characters in the novel “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”
1.4. Research questions
The following two main research questions will be addressed:
- What polite strategies are employed by the characters in “Harry Potter and
the Chamber of Secrets” in their requests?
- What modification devices in requests are employed by the characters in
“Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”?
1.5. Scope of the study
The study focuses entirely on the verbal aspect communication. Other
important factors such as non-verbal aspects (facial expressions, eye contact, etc.),
paralinguistic factors (intonation, pause, speed of speech, etc.) are not taken into
consideration in this study. Theories of speech acts and politeness are applied.
Moreover, the study uses the theoretical framework which is based on Blum-Kulka
et al. (1989). All the requests made by the characters in “Harry Potter and the

Chamber of Secrets” are the data source.
1.6. Significance of the study
This study is carried out in order to contribute to a better understanding of
speech acts, especially the speech act of requests in English. Moreover, speakers
from different cultures have different perceptions and norms of the cultures in
communication, which can lead to miscommunication, confusion and cultural conflicts,

3


so the findings of the study can help to raise Vietnamese learners and teachers’
awareness of the use of request strategies in English. Consequently, Vietnamese
learners could know how to adopt politeness strategies in requests which is considered
one of the most face threatening. Aside from that, the results of the research could be
useful for those who are interested in politeness strategies in requests.
1.7. Methods of the study
The method used in this research is mainly the quantitative method that
emphasizes more on the collection and analysis of numerical data and statistic. The
study makes use of utterances in “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” as the
major data source, so counting and measuring are commonly used. The results of
the studies are generally presented in tables and charts or figures.
1.8. Design of the study
The thesis consists of five chapters:
Chapter 1 Introduction mentions the rationale of the study, aims of the
study, objectives of the study, research questions, scope of the study, significance of
the study, methods of the study, overview of the novel and design of the study.
Chapter 2 Literature review reviews the literature on speech acts, the
speech act of request and politeness theory.
Chapter 3 Methodology outlines the data collection, data analysis, and
analytical framework.

Chapter 4 Data analysis gives an overview on “Harry Potter and the
Chamber of Secrets”, an investigation of polite request strategies which provides a
collection of examples and detailed to uncover how the characters in the book
manage their requests politely on their choice of modifications.
Chapter 5 Conclusion presents the conclusion of the study, implication, and
suggestions for further research.

4


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter which is divided into three sections provides an overview of the
theoretical background of the research. First, it discusses the theory of speech act
and the speech act of requests. Then it mentions the main issues of politeness theory
and indirectness in requests. Finally, the chapter reviews some of previous studies
conducted on the speech act of request.
2.1. The speech act theory
The theory of speech acts has been studied for ages by numerous researchers
such as Austin (1962), Grice (1957, 1975), Hymes (1964), Searle (1969, 1975,
1976, 1979), Levinson (1983), Brown and Yule (1983), Yule (1996), etc.
Austin’s book How to Do Things with Words (1962) condenses the basic
idea of the speech act theory: saying something means doing, or is part of doing,
something, i.e. words are (part of) deeds - hence the term speech act. In addition,
Austin distinguishes a speech act into three levels. First, the speaker performs a
locutionary act which “is roughly equivalent to uttering a certain sentence with a
certain sense and reference, which again is roughly equivalent to ‘meaning’ in the
traditional sense” (Austin, 1962:105). The second act we perform is illocutionary,
these are “utterances which have a certain (conventional) force” and finally there is
“perlocutionary act: what we bring about or achieve by saying something” (Austin,
1962:109). Furthermore, Austin suggested that speech acts are classified into five

categories: verdictives, exercitives, commissives, behabitives and expositives.
Cohen (1996) agrees on Austin’s (1962) theory of speech acts: In attempting to
express themselves, people do not only produce utterances containing grammatical
structures and words, they perform actions via those utterances. He states that
speech acts are actions performed via utterances. They may be given some
particular labels such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise or
request and apply to the speaker’s communicative. In fact, the speaker performs a
locutionary act which “is roughly equivalent to uttering a certain sentence with a
certain sense and reference, which again is roughly equivalent to ‘meaning’ in the
traditional sense” (Austin, 1962:105). The second act we perform is illocutionary,

5


these are “utterances which have a certain (conventional) force” and finally there is
“perlocutionary act: what we bring about or achieve by saying something” (Austin,
1962:109).Therefore, speech acts have to be seen from interactions in real life. For
example, in a conference, when the host says “Ladies and gentlemen, may I have
your attention, please?”, it is a request more than a question. It is obvious that there
is difference between what is said and what is meant; besides, the multiple layers of
meaning between the literal meaning of utterance and the act which it performs in
context are very distinct. Some utterances are neither statements nor questions about
some piece of information, but are actions. In this case, it is really a request which
asks the audience to be quiet.
The classification of speech acts is developed by Searle (1976), who presents
typology of speech acts which are divided based on the following four dimensions:
illocutionary point (force), direction of fit between words and world, expressed
psychological

state

and

propositional

content

(Searle,

1979:12-20).

His

classification of speech acts according to their illocutionary point includes five
types of general functions:
(i) Representatives (statements of facts, claims, conclusions)
(ii) Directives (requests, orders, commands, questions, advice)
(iii) Commissives (offers, pledges, promises, refusals, threats)
(iv) Expressives (apologies, blames, congratulations, praises, thanks)
(v) Declarations (institutionalized performatives)
In speech act theory, a distinction between direct and indirect speech acts is
also made. Huang (2007) states that an utterance is seen as a speech act whenever
there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function. For instance, when
someone says “Close the door”, it has a literal meaning that he/she wants you to
close the door. On the contrary, an indirect speech is one that is “performed by
means of another”. That means that there is an indirect relationship between the
form and the function of the utterance. For example, an interrogative is used to
make a request: “Could you pass the salt?”.

6

2.2. The speech act of requests
2.2.1. Definitions of requests
Requests are one of the most important speech acts because they occur very
frequently in everyday situations. Hence, out of the speech acts, the speech act of
request has continuously drawn much attention in the study of pragmatics.
A request is defined as a directive speech act which counts as an attempt to
get H (the hearer) to do an act which S (the speaker) wants H to do, and which S
believes that H is able to do; and which it is not obvious that H will do in the
normal course of events or of H’s own accord (Blum-Kulka et al., 1984, 1989). To
be more precise, Konakahara (2011) and Chang (2009) define request as an
utterance or segment(s) that may include (a) address terms (Alerter), (b) head act,
(c) and adjunct(s) to head act. The head act is the core part of a request sequence
which realizes a request independently of other elements (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989).
In other words, the head act is the core element and refers to the request itself or to
the main strategy employed to make the request. For example, in “Hi, excuse me,
can I borrow your newspaper to read?”, the head act is the underlined section. The
Alerter is an opening element preceding the actual request, used primarily to draw
the hearer’s attention (e.g. Pardon me, Mrs. Smith,...). Supportive moves are
modifications preceding or following the head act and serving the purpose of
modifying the intensity of requests.
Request, according to Trosborg (1995) and Jalilifar (2009), is a speech act
expressed in order to enable the respondent to react in a way that benefits the
individual making the request. Therefore, this speech act has been considered one
of the most threatening speech acts in communication since it fundamentally
threatens the face of the hearer (Brown & Levinson, 1987), and that they involve a
variety of interlocutors (ranging from equal status individuals, e.g. friends or
colleagues to higher status individuals, e.g. professor or manager), requests call for
redressive action and require mitigation to compensate for this impositive effect on

the hearer (Fukushima, 1996). The speaker can mitigate the imposition by choosing
an indirect strategy to a direct one, i.e. by activating choice on the scale of

7


indirectness. In addition, there is also a range of verbal means available within a
given technique to manipulate the degree of imposition involved (Blum-Kulka,
1987).
In conclusion, a request has three outcomes. First, the speaker says his/her
request and wants the hearer to do the desired act. Second, the hearer may perform
the desired act. Third, it is unsure that that the hearer will perform the desired act.
2.2.2. A request sequence
2.2.1.1. The head act
The head act is the core part of a request sequence which realizes a request
independently of other elements (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). In other words, the head
act is the core element and refers to the request itself or to the main strategy
employed to make the request. For example, in “Hi, excuse me, can I borrow your
newspaper to read?”, the head act is the underlined section.
2.2.1.2. The alerter
The alerter is an opening element preceding the actual request, used
primarily to draw the hearer’s attention (e.g. Pardon me, Mrs. Smith, ...)
Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) categorize the alerters into the following categorization:
Category

Example

Title/ Role
Surname
First name

Nickname
Endearment term
Offensive term
Pronoun
Attention getter

Professor, waiter
Johnson
Nick, Judith
Judy
Honey
Stupid cow
You
Hey, excuse me, listen

Table 1. The categories of Alerters
2.2.1.3. Supportive moves
Supportive moves are modifications preceding or following the head act and
serving the purpose of modifying the intensity of requests. Færch and Kasper (1989)
examined request head acts in terms of their external and internal modifications.
8


Internal modifications are lexical and syntactic modifications that are made into the
request head acts themselves (e.g. Could you possibly lend me your notes?).
External modifications, on the other hand, are optional supportive moves that
precede or follow request-carrying sentence to modify them (e.g. Look, I was sick a
few days and missed some class sessions. Can I borrow your class notes?)
2.2.3. Types of requests
Request can be divided into several types which can be either Direct

Requests or Indirect Requests (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; Fukushima, 1996;
Matrtinez-Flor, 2009; Trosborg, 1995; Wichmann, 2004).
2.2.3.1. Direct Requests
Direct request is often perceived as being aggressive and demanding and it is
often preceded by the use of personal pronouns such as “I..” or “You …” followed
by verbs that express the speaker’s wish or desire such as “like”, “want”, and other
verbs of action like “give”, “take” and “make.” For example, “I want my pen back.”
In this example, the speaker declares that he/she asks the hearer to get his/her pen.
The type of direct request is applied in the strategy of statement of obligation and
necessity, the strategy of performatives and the strategy of imperatives, for
example, “Get me the car!” In the sentence, the speaker says his/her request in a
clear and direct instead of saying it unclearly so that the request can be conveyed
successfully.
2.2.3.2. Indirect Requests
The person is making a request to others in implicit way. A person who
makes a request indirectly is perceived more highly than one who makes a direct
request. Indirectness displays respect, courtesy and good breeding, for example,
“This place is quite hot.” By saying so, S implicitly wants H to turn the air
conditioner on. In this research, the researcher wants to identify the types of request.
According to Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), Fukushima (1996) and Trosborg,
1995, there are two sub- types of requests based on the direction levels. They are
Unconventionally Indirect Requests and Conventionally Indirect Requests.
* Unconventionally Indirect Requests

9


When employing an unconventionally indirect request, S indirectly implies a
discrepancy between what he/she said as well as their true intentions because the
request itself is not explicitly stated. As a result, S and H are supposed to pay more

attention on the situation which the utterance produced or usually called as speech
event in order to get the point of request. The type of unconventionally indirect
request itself can only be applied by using hints, for example, “This place is so hot.”
By telling the situation, S wants to indirectly tell H to turn the air conditioner on
since the weather is hot.
* Conventionally Indirect Requests
Requests which are hearer-oriented simply that H is in a position of control
to decide whether or not to comply with the request. Hence, “hearer-oriented”
requests are generally more polite than requests formulated on “speaker-based
conditions” (Trosborg, 1995:197). However, by employing this strategy, the
requester has already shown that he/she does not take compliance for granted. H is
allowed the option of politely refusing by stating that the condition in question, or
some other condition, is not fulfilled. In the example “Could you tidy up the
bathroom soon?”, S asks H’s willingness to clean the bathroom. In this case, H is in
the position whether the request should be complied or not.
Requests which are formulated as speaker-based convey that S puts his/her
own desires in order to make H do the desired act. By placing S’s interests above
H’s, the request becomes more direct in its demand. S’s statement of his/her intent
may be expressed politely as a wish or more bluntly as a demand. On behalf of the
requester, H who responds in a non cooperative way is bound to act in disagreement
with S’s wishes and desires. This makes it more difficult for H to refuse. The type
of indirect request is applied with the strategy of statements of S’s wishes and
desires and the strategy of statements of S’s need and demands, for example, “I
want you to clean the bathroom.” In this type of request, S’s desire is the focal point
of the interaction. Therefore, the request sounds more direct and blunt.

10


2.2.4. Request strategies

According to Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), head acts refer to the request proper
or the main strategy employed to make the request. To better account for the
structure of requests, request head acts are classified according to increasing
indirectness. Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989) lists nine sub-levels of request strategy
types.
2.2.4.1. Direct requests
The direct strategy refers to utterances in which the illocutionary act is
explicitly stated. There are five sub-strategies, ordered on a scale of directness from
the most direct to the most indirect: (1) mood derivable, (2) explicit performative,
(3) hedge performative, (4) obligation statement, and (5) want statement strategies.
- Strategy 1: Mood derivable:
Mood derivable strategies are utterances in which the grammatical mood of the verb
signals illocutionary force. Among all request strategies, mood derivable is regarded
as the most direct strategy.
For example: Leave me alone.
Clean up the kitchen.
- Strategy 2: Explicit Performative
Performative strategies refer to utterances in which the illocutionary force is
explicitly named.
For example: I am asking you to move your car.
- Strategy 3: Hedge Performative
The illocutionary verb denoting the requestive intent is modified, such as by using
modal verbs or verbs expressing intention.
For example: I must/have to ask you to clean the kitchen right now.
- Strategy 4: Obligation statement
Through this strategy, the illocutionary intent is directly derivabe from the semantic
meaning of the locution. It seems from the use of modal “have to”, “should” in the
sentence. The function is to create politeness and derive the semantic meaning of
request.

11


For example: You will have to/ should/must move your car
- Strategy 5: Want statement
The speaker can make a request using utterances which state the speaker’s desire
that the hearer carries out the act. In this strategy, the speaker uses the modal verb
“want, like, wish” after the main verb to express his/her desire for the requested
action to be undertaken by the hearer.
For example: I would like you to clean the kitchen.
I really wish you’d stop bothering me.
2.2.4.2. Conventionally indirect requests
A conventionally indirect strategy refers to utterances in which the
illocutionary act is indirectly stated. There are three sub-strategies: (1) suggestory
formulae, and (2) query preparatory sub-strategies.
- Strategy 6: Suggestory formulae
The speaker may request someone to do something indirectly by giving suggestion.
It has a minimal power of request, so the hearer does not do it forcedly.
For example: How about cleaning up?
Why don’t you come and clean up the mess?
- Strategy 7: Query preparatory
The strategy refers to utterances containing reference to preparatory conditions
(e.g., ability, willingness) as conventionalized in any specific language.
For example: Could you clean up the kitchen, please?
Would you mind moving your car, please?
2.2.4.3. Unconventionally indirect requests
An unconventionally indirect strategy features an utterance in which the
illocutionary act is implicit. The speaker may mention only a part of the act. In other
words, an unconventionally indirect request gives a hint to the hearer. With hints,
the speakers do not make their requests known explicitly; they only refer to

something related to the requested act. The context helps with the interpretation of
the request.
- Strategy 8: Strong hints

12


Giving a strong hint provides a strong clue for the hearer to do the requested action,
but the intention of the request is not overt.
For example: You have left the kitchen in a right mess. (Intent: getting the hearer to
clean the kitchen)
- Strategy 9: Mild hints
Giving a mild hint provides fewer clues for the hearer to do the requested action.
The speaker may refer to only one related component, and the interpretation is left
to the hearer.
For example: We don’t want any crowding (Intent: getting hearer to move the car)
2.2.5. Modification in performing a request
2.2.5.1. Internal modification
Internal modifications refer to the linguistic elements which occur within the
same head act. Specifically, they are linguistic or syntactic devices that are used by
speakers to modulate the illocutionary force of their request. In the CCSARP coding
manual (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989), internal modifications are subcategorized as
downgraders and upgraders. Furthermore, downgraders fall into two classes:
syntactic and lexical/phrasal downgraders.
- Syntactic downgraders: are the devices that function as downgraders which
mitigate the imposition of request utterances. The classification of syntactic
downgraders as follows:
+ Interrogative Form: an actual request but its impact is decreased: Will you
help me?
+ Modal Form: Some modal verbs can be used to reduce the speaker’s

authority on the hearer: Could you help?
+ Negation Preparatory: negation can be a mitigation device which is used to
provide the hearer with more optionality: You couldn’t give me lift, could you?
+ Subjunctive: Might be better if you were to leave now.
+ Aspect: I was wondering if I could audit the class.

13


+ Past tense: using the past form of a verb instead of the present one with out
changing the meaning of the utterance: I wanted to ask you to present your paper a
week earlier.
+ Conditional clause: the speakers to make themselves less involved in the
request by using conditional clauses: I wanted to know if…
- Lexical/Phrasal downgraders: Apart from syntactic downgraders, lexical
downgraders which are words and expressions are also employed by speakers to
decrease the illocutionary force of a request. Their classification according to BlumKulka et al. (1989) as follows:
+ Politeness marker: lexical items like ‘please’, ‘kindly’, etc. which can be
added to a request to bid for cooperative behavior: Could you close the window,
please?
+ Hedges: devices like “somehow”, “kind of”, “sort of”, “more or less”
used to show hesitancy, possibility and avoid a precise specification: It would really
help if you did something about the kitchen.
+ Downtoners: adverbials or modal particles such as ‘possibly’, ‘perhaps’,
etc., which are used by a speaker in order to modulate the impact of his or her
request on the hearer: Will you be able to perhaps drive me?
+ Understaters: elements such as ‘a bit’, ‘a little’, ‘sort of’, ‘kind’ which can
be used by the speaker to minimize parts of the imposition: Could you tidy up a
bit before I start?
+ Subjectivizers: elements such as ‘I wonder’, ‘I suppose’ in which the

speaker expresses his or her subjective opinion directly related to the state of affair,
thus lower the force of the request: I wonder if you would give me a lift.
+ Cajolers: devices such as ‘You know’, ‘you see’ which are employed to
make things clearer to the hearer and invite him or her to figuratively participate in
the speech act: You know, I’d like you to present your paper next week.
+ Appealers: devices such as ‘is that alright?’. ‘ok/right?’, ‘will you’ used
by the speaker to appeal to the hearer’s benevolent understanding: Clean up the
kitchen, dear, will you?

14


- Upgraders: are words and expressions are also employed by speakers to increase
the illocutionary force of a request. Typical upgraders consist of :
+ Intensifiers: The speaker over-represents the reality: The kitchen in a
terrible mess.
+ Expletives: The speaker directly expresses negative emotions: Why don’t
you clean that bloody mess up?
+ Repetition of request: Get lost! Leave me alone!
+ Time Intensifiers: You’d better move your car right now/ immediately!
2.2.5.2. External modification
External modifications or supportive moves are composed of elements that
are external the Head act and can either precede or follow it. They are also optional
statements whose function is to indirectly modify a request’s illocutionary force by
mitigating or aggravating it. Some categories are offered by Blum-Kulka et al.
(1989) are as follows:
- Preparator: short utterance that the speaker uses to prepare the hearer for the
request: “I’d like to ask you something…” “May I ask you something?”
- Getting precommitment: the speaker checks on a possible rejection before
performing the request by trying to get the hearer to commit: “Could you do me a

favor?”
- Grounder: a clause allows the speaker to gives reasons, explanations and
justifications for the request: “Could I borrow your notes? I missed class
yesterday”
- Disarmer: a phrase with which the speaker attempts to remove any potential
objection the hearer might raise: “I know you don’t like giving extensions, but…” “I
realize this is an unusual favor I am asking…”
- Promise of reward: the speaker offers a reward to enhance the hearer’s
enforcement: “Could you give me a lift? I’ll pitch in for gas”.
- Imposition minimizer: the speaker tries to reduce the imposition on the hearer by
the request offered: “Would you mind reading my paper, but only if you have the
time, of course.”

15