A Cross-Cultural Study on Politeness and Facework among Russian, American and Russian-American Cultural Groups

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ellen Bunker Graduate Program in Slavic and East European Languages and Cultures

The Ohio State University 2014

Dissertation Committee: Daniel E. Collins, Advisor Brian D. Joseph Donald C. Winford

                               

Copyright by Ellen Bunker 2014

   

       

Abstract

Politeness and facework are important aspects of communication that vary from culture to culture. They are influenced by factors such as the degree of social distance, the relative power of the participants, and the type of imposition or face-threatening act present in any given situation. Due to variation in the implementation of politeness and facework across cultures, locutions that may be interpreted as polite in one culture may be taken as rude in another, or they may simply fail to communicate the desired illocutionary force. This study investigates how differences in power, distance, and weight of imposition influence the choice of facework strategies across three participants groups: speakers of American English, Russian speakers residing in Russia, and Russian émigrés in the U.S. It evaluates their use of politeness by having them envision 12 social situations and write an email, text message, or dialogue as if they were actual participants in the situations presented. These responses were evaluated and categorized for each cultural group using Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory. Then the data for the three cultural groups were compared against each other to determine similarities or differences in the use of politeness and, in particular, to evaluate how differential power, distance and weight of imposition affected each group’s production of facework. The responses of the Russian-American participant group were also specially evaluated to ii

assess whether there was any effect of L2 influence on their production of politeness and facework in their L1. The results of this study indicate that the use of positive politeness across the participant groups was relatively similar, while the use of negative politeness had more noticeable differences. In addition, the Russian-American groups did demonstrate clear L2 influence on their use of politeness and facework in the L1, but also diverged from both the American and Russian groups in some aspects of certain situations, which suggests that a politeness interlanguage may have formed.

iii

Dedication To my little girl Katya, who was patient with mommy while she wrote. Also, to my little girl who was on the way, and waited to enter the world till mommy was done.

iv

Acknowledgments Above all, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Collins, who has accompanied my postgraduate educational journey from its beginning to end. I have been thankful for his time, knowledge and patience, as I have grown as a student. I have also been grateful for his kindness and care as an advisor and department chair. I would also like to thank Dr. Joseph, who has willingly given encouragement and insight along the way as a committee member, and for his insight and intelligence as an educator. I has been appreciated as a student in the classroom, at forms and in the process of writing this dissertation. I would like to extend a special thanks to Dr. Winford, who was willing to help with this dissertation on short notice, and who I have also had the chance to learn from as a student. I have appreciated his kindness and insight as an educator and linguist. I am again very grateful for his willingness to serve on my committee. Lastly, I would like to thank my family, and in particular my parents – my mother, for her constant encouragement, and my father. Although my father passed away before my graduate studies, his influence and teachings have kept me working on when I wanted to give up.

v

Vita August 2002 ...................................................B.A. Russian /Spanish, Brigham Young University Spring 2007....................................................M.A. Russian, The Ohio State University September 2005-2011 ...................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Department Slavic and East European Languages and Cultures, The Ohio State University

Fields of Study Major Field: Slavic and East European Languages and Cultures Specialization: Slavic Linguistics

vi

Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii Dedication ......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ v Vita .................................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables .................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................. 7 Chapter 3: Methodology .................................................................................................. 37 Chapter 4: American English Reponses and Data Analysis ............................................ 69 Chapter 5: Russian Responses and Data Analysis ......................................................... 120 Chapter 6: Russian-American Responses and Data Analysis ........................................ 171 Chapter 7: Comparison Across the AE, RR and RA Cultural Groups .......................... 221 Chapter 8: Conclusion ................................................................................................... 288 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 314 vii

Appendices: Participant Surveys ................................................................................... 318

viii

 

List of Tables

Table

Page

3.1 Distribution of participants by gender ........................................................................ 45 3.2 Distribution of participants by age.............................................................................. 46 3.3 Gender and age of participants by participant group .................................................. 47 4.1 Situation 1: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings ................................. 70 4.2 Situation 1: Positive politeness strategies used........................................................... 71 4.3 Breakdown of positive politeness strategy 15 for Situation 1 .................................... 71 4.4 Situation 1: Negative politeness strategies used ......................................................... 73 4.5 Situation 7: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings ................................. 74 4.6 Situation 7: Positive politeness strategies used........................................................... 74 4.7 Situation 7: Negative politeness strategies used ........................................................ 76 4.8 Situation 9: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings ................................. 77 4.9 Situation 9: Positive politeness strategies used........................................................... 78 4.10 Situation 9: Negative politeness strategies used ...................................................... 79 4.11 Situation 13: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings ............................ 81 4.12 Situation 13: Positive politeness strategies used ...................................................... 81 4.13 Situation 13: Negative politeness strategies used ..................................................... 82 4.14 Situation 3: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 83 4.15 Situation 3: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 84 4.16 Situation 3: Negative politeness strategies used ...................................................... 85 4.17 Situation 4: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 87 4.18 Situation 4: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 87 4.19 Situation 4: Negative politeness strategies used ...................................................... 88 4.20 Situation 5: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 91 4.21 Situation 5: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 91 4.22 Situation 5: Negative politeness strategies used ...................................................... 92 4.23 Situation 6: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 95 4.24 Situation 6: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 96 4.25 Situation 6: Negative politeness strategies used ...................................................... 97 4.26 Situation 8: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 99 4.27 Situation 8: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 99 ix

4.28 Situation 8: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................... 101 4.29 Situation 10: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings .......................... 103 4.30 Situation 10: Positive politeness strategies used .................................................... 103 4.31 Situation 10: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................. 105 4.32 Situation 11: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings .......................... 107 4.33 Situation 11: Positive politeness strategies used .................................................... 108 4.34 Situation 11: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................. 109 4.35 Situation 12: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings .......................... 110 4.36 Situation 12: Positive politeness strategies used .................................................... 110 4.37 Situation 12: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................. 111 4.38 Situations where a request was made of the hearer ............................................... 116 4.39 Situations where negative information or response was given to hearer................ 117 4.40 Situation where positive information was conveyed to the hearer ......................... 117 4.41 Usage totals of positive politeness strategies for AE.............................................. 118 4.42 Usage totals of negative politeness strategies for AE............................................. 119 5.1 Situation 1: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 121 5.2 Situation 1: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 122 5.3 Situation 1: Breakdown of positive politeness strategy 15 ...................................... 122 5.4 Situation 7: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 125 5.5 Situation 7: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 125 5.6 Situation 9: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 128 5.7 Situation 9: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 129 5.8 Situation 9: Negative politeness strategies used ...................................................... 131 5.9 Situation 13: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings ............................ 131 5.10 Situation 13: Positive politeness strategies used .................................................... 132 5.11 Situation 13: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................. 134 5.12 Situation 3: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings ............................ 135 5.13 Situation 3: Positive politeness strategies used ...................................................... 135 5.14 Situation 3: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................... 136 5.15 Situation 4: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings ............................ 138 5.16 Situation 4: Positive politeness strategies used ...................................................... 138 5.17 Situation 4: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................... 139 5.18 Situation 5: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings ............................ 142 5.19 Situation 5: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................... 142 5.20 Situation 6: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings ............................ 147 5.21 Situation 6: Positive politeness strategies used ...................................................... 147 5.22 Situation 6: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................... 148 5.23 Situation 8: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings ............................ 150 5.24 Situation 8: Positive politeness strategies used ...................................................... 150 5.25 Situation 8: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................... 152 5.26 Situation 10: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings .......................... 153 5.27 Situation 10: Positive politeness strategies used .................................................... 154 5.28 Situation 10: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................. 157 x

5.29 Situation 11: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings .......................... 158 5.30 Situation 11: Positive politeness strategies used .................................................... 159 5.31 Situation 11: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................. 160 5.32 Situation 12: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings .......................... 161 5.33 Situation 12: Positive politeness strategies used .................................................... 162 5.34 Situation 12: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................. 162 5.35 Situations where a request was made of the hearer ............................................... 167 5.36 Situations where negative information was conveyed to hearer ............................ 168 5.37 Situation where positive information was conveyed to the hearer ........................ 168 5.38 Usage totals of positive politeness strategies for RR ............................................. 169 5.39 Usage totals of negative politeness strategies for RR ............................................ 170 6.1 Situation 1: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 172 6.2 Situation 1: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 173 6.3 Breakdown of positive politeness strategy 15 for Situation 1 ................................. 173 6.4 Situation 7: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 175 6.5 Situation 7: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 176 6.6 Situation 7: Negative politeness strategies used ...................................................... 177 6.7 Situation 9: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 179 6.8 Situation 9: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 179 6.9 Situation 9: Negative politeness strategies used ...................................................... 181 6.10 Situation 13: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings .......................... 182 6.11 Situation 13: Positive politeness strategies used .................................................... 182 6.12 Situation 13: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................. 184 6.13 Situation 3: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings ............................ 185 6.14 Situation 3: Positive politeness strategies used ...................................................... 186 6.15 Situation 3: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................... 187 6.16 Situation 4: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings ............................ 189 6.17 Situation 4: Positive politeness strategies used ...................................................... 189 6.18 Situation 4: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................... 190 6.19 Situation 5: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings ............................ 193 6.20 Situation 5: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................... 193 6.21 Situation 6: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings ............................ 197 6.22 Situation 6: Positive politeness strategies used ...................................................... 197 6.23 Situation 6: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................... 199 6.24 Situation 8: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings ............................ 200 6.25 Situation 8: Positive face strategies used ............................................................... 201 6.26 Situation 8: Negative face strategies used ............................................................. 203 6.27 Situation 10: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings .......................... 204 6.28 Situation 10: Positive politeness strategies used .................................................... 204 6.29 Situation 10: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................. 206 6.30 Situation 11: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings .......................... 209 6.31 Situation 11: Positive politeness strategies used .................................................... 209 6.32 Situation 11: Negative politeness strategies used .................................................. 210 xi

6.33 Situation 12: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings .......................... 212 6.34 Situation 12: Positive face strategies used ............................................................. 212 6.35 Situation 12: Negative face strategies used ........................................................... 213 6.36 Situations where a request was made of the hearer ............................................... 217 6.37 Situations where negative information or response was given to hearer ............... 218 6.38 Situations where positive information was conveyed to the hearer ....................... 218 6.39 Usage totals of positive politeness strategies for RA ............................................ 219 6.40 Usage totals of negative politeness strategies for RA ............................................ 220 7.1 Situation 1:Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR ................................ 223 7.2 Situation 1: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR .............................. 226 7.3 Situation 1: Positive politeness strategies for RA responses ................................... 227 7.4 Situation 7: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR ............................... 229 7.5 Situation 7: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR .............................. 232 7.6 Situation 7: Positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants .................. 233 7.7 Situation 9: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR ............................... 235 7.8 Situation 9: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants ................. 237 7.9 Situation 9: Positive politeness strategies for the RA participants .......................... 238 7.10 Situation 9: Negative politeness strategies for the RA participants ....................... 238 7.11 Situation 13: Positive politeness strategies for AE and RR ................................... 241 7.12 Situation 13: Negative politeness strategies for AE and RR ................................. 243 7.13 Situation 13: Positive politeness strategies used by RA ........................................ 244 7.14 Situation 13: Negative politeness strategies used by RA ..................................... 244 7.15 Situation 3: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR ............................. 247 7.16 Situation 3: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR ............................ 248 7.17 Situation 3: Positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants ................ 250 7.18 Situation 3: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants ............... 250 7.19 Situation 4: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR ............................. 253 7.20 Situation 4: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR ............................ 254 7.21 Situation 4: Positive politeness strategies used by RA participants ...................... 256 7.22 Situation 4: Negative politeness strategies used by RA participants ..................... 256 7.23 Situation 5: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR ............................. 258 7.24 Situation 5: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR ............................ 259 7.25 Situation 5: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants ............... 261 7.26 Situation 6: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR ............................. 262 7.27 Situation 6: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR ............................ 263 7.28 Situation 6: Positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants ................ 264 7.29 Situation 6: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants ............... 264 7.30 Situation 8: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR ............................. 266 7.31 Situation 8: Negative politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR ................ 268 7.32 Situation 8: Positive politeness strategies used by RA participants ...................... 269 7.33 Situation 8: Negative politeness strategies used by RA participants ..................... 269 7.34 Situation 10: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR ........................... 272 7.35 Situation 10: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR .......................... 274 xii

7.36 Situation 10: Positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants .............. 275 7.37 Situation 10: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants ............. 275 7.38 Situation 11: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR ........................... 278 7.39 Situation 11: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR .......................... 279 7.40 Situation 11: Positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants .............. 281 7.41 Situation 11: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants ............. 281 7.42 Situation 12: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR ........................... 283 7.43 Situation 12: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR .......................... 284 7.44 Situation 12: Positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants .............. 286 7.45 Situation 12: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants ............. 286 8.1: Uses of Strategy 15 by the AE, RR and RA participants ....................................... 290

xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1. Purpose of the study According to the sociolinguists Brown and Levinson, people have two main needs or ‘face wants’ when communicating with others: positive face, the need of an individual to have their wants and desires validated by at least some other participant in the interaction; and negative face, an individual’s need to not have their rights impeded by others. Anything that a participant in an interaction may do that would not meet these needs is then termed a ‘face-threatening act’. Brown and Levinson claim that, when people communicate within any given culture, they generally do so with the intention of preserving the positive and negative face of all participants in the interaction. This occurs because, by upholding another’s face, ones own face is in turn preserved, as the other participant is expected to act in kind, by not committing a face-threatening act (Brown and Levinson 1987: 61). Brown and Levinson also argue that these aspects of social interaction are universal in nature (ibid.: 62), although their expression may be different among various cultures. Therefore, cultures may use different strategies to perform the same facework or tend to favor a certain facework over another.

1

Due to the differences in how each culture meets the positive and negative face needs of individuals, misperceptions and stereotypes often emerge. In a social interaction where the interactants are from two separate cultures, each will filter the utterances of the other through the lens of their own cultural values and norms of politeness. For instance, Americans often perceive Russians as being cold and more direct, while Russians view Americans as insincere (Simone 2014, Bohm 2011). As mentioned, the sources of these perceptions are often rooted in the differing ways in which each cultural group performs facework. However, an objective evaluation of how each group performs facework can elucidate these differences and aid in cultural understanding. Consequently, this study explores the cultural differences in the performance of positive and negative facework in Russian, native English-speaking American, and Russian-American participant groups, by analyzing their responses to a set of social situations presented in survey form to each group and then comparing them against each other. Thus, the purpose of this research is twofold: to evaluate the differences in how Russians and Americans residing in their respective countries utilize and implement facework; and second, to see to what extent the influence of American politeness practices affects the performance of facework among the Russian-American immigrant participants. Each participant in the study responded to 13 social situations presented in the survey, by writing either a text message, an email, or a dialogue from the perspective of being an actual participant in the interaction described. In analyzing these data, the first step was to determine whether facework was indeed used in a given situational response. 2

If so, the type of facework used (i.e. positive or negative) and the various strategies employed to perform it were identified, in accordance to Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. Additionally, participants were asked to rate the degree to which they felt the situations could potentially offend, hurt or be embarrassing for the other participant in the interaction. This information was used to determine if there were cultural variations in how each group perceived the situations and to evaluate whether or not there was a correlation between the perceived severity of the possible face-threatening act and the type of facework done and politeness strategies used. Thus, this study offers an objective look at facework among these three cultural groups, by providing a qualitative analysis based on participants’ responses and weight of imposition ratings. I fully acknowledge that surveys have limitations in regards to providing samples of authentic communication. Yet, under the premise that participants rely on real-world experience with politeness in their own culture to create imagined dialogues and other forms of communication, I believe that the results will provide insights into how Russian, native English-speaking American, and Russian-American populations approach different social situations in regards to politeness and what mechanisms they use to do so. Furthermore, I acknowledge that Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, which is used in the analysis of the data, is not perfect; however, it is used as it is currently the only true facework theory. As this study seeks to understand the more general phenomenon of facework in culture, which includes politeness, this theory was the most appropriate and widely accepted option. 3

1.2. Research questions The research done in this study was intended to answer the following questions:

1. How are positive and negative facework manifest in Russian responses to situations presented in the survey? 2. How do the results of Russian speakers (a) living in Russia and (b) living in the U.S. compare to the English responses of native American-English speakers residing in the U.S.? 3. To what extent does knowledge of American-English and residence in the U.S. affect positive and negative facework among Russians that reside in the U.S.? 4. Do the variables of power, distance, and weight of imposition (Brown and Levinson 1987: 74-81) have a differential effect on facework and the strategies used by each group?

1.3. Structure of the dissertation This study investigates the use of facework by Russian speakers living in Russia, native American-English speakers living in the U.S, and Russian speakers residing in the U.S. by analyzing participant responses to 13 social situations presented in survey form. The data for each individual cultural groups is analyzed using the positive and negative politeness strategies set forth in Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, and ten compared against the other groups. The structure of the dissertation is outlined below. 4

Chapter 2 contains a brief summary of the literature that is pertinent to this study. In particular, it addresses the notion of face and its origin, speech acts, the universality of politeness and Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. Lastly, it addresses some of the major works on politeness in the Russian language and states how the current study builds on that work. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology of the study. First, it gives an overview of how the participants were recruited and information about their age and gender. Second, it explains the criterion used to analyze the data and gives an overview of Brown and Levinson’s positive and negative politeness strategies. The last section, for purpose of clarity, gives further explanation of those categories that are vague in nature and states the modifications, if any, made to them for the purpose of this study. Chapters 4 though 6 provide a breakdown of the data for each individual cultural group by situation and their weight of imposition ratings, which is followed by a summary of the data at the end of the chapter. Chapter 4 gives the results of the native American-English speakers, Chapter 5 gives the results of the Russian participants residing in Russia, and Chapter 6 gives the results of the Russian-American participants living in the U.S. Chapter 7 is a cross-cultural analysis of the individual participant groups’ data. First, for each situation, American-English and the Russian data for those residing in Russia are compared against each other. Secondly, the Russian-American data from Chapter 6 is compared against those findings, to determine if their performance of

5

facework favored one cultural group over another. Lastly, a summary of the overall tendencies and findings of the cross-cultural analysis are discussed. Chapter 8 contains a summary of the research findings in this study and the answers to the questions posed in section 1.2. It focuses on the implications of the research and suggests possible modifications to Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. In conclusion, it suggests potential areas for future research based on the tendencies and findings of this study.

6

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.0. The linguistic study of politeness In American culture, we often refer to someone that meets the highest ideals and norms of society in a competent and appropriate way as ‘polite’. This lay term, of course, has multiple facets: the physical way in which we interact (e.g. opening doors, shaking hands, etc.), as well as linguistic behavior. In linguistic politeness the speaker aims to disarm any potential threat that an interaction may have, and seeks to communicate to the other participant in the interaction that his or her wants are valued and that he or she (i.e. the speaker) also desires for them to be fulfilled (Brown and Levinson 1987: 69-70). This aspect of politeness has been a major area of research in sociolinguistics since the 1960s, when Roger Brown and Albert Gilman published their pioneering work of the use of pronouns to convey solidarity or power (1960) and when Brown and Marguerite Ford produced their study of address forms in American English (1964). Some of the extensive literature on politeness has attempted to examine, categorize and systematize politeness in an effort to arrive at some universal model (e.g., Leech 1983, Brown and Levinson 1987). Other works have evaluated these theories of politeness, often critically (Watts, Ide, and Ehlich 1992; Watts 2003). A third strand in 7

the literature focuses on minute sections of culture and their specific politeness tendencies (Byon 2006, McLaren 2001, Ohashi 2003),while a fourth—to which the present study belongs—offers cross-cultural studies that compare and contrast politeness among various cultures (Traverso 2006, Schnurr and Chan 2009, Kasanga and LwangeMumu 2007). Nevertheless, laced throughout all of these works are responses to concepts like cooperation and face, which go back to the early sociolinguists and philosophers of language who pioneered the study of politeness. Thus, in the sections that follow, I will briefly review the most important foundational works; then I will discuss the research that is most relevant for the specific areas of this study—first, Brown and Levinson’s theory of facework; and second, works on politeness in Russian. I will also briefly touch on the area of language contact and politeness, in preparation for discussing the Russian-American data.

2.1. The notion of face in linguistic politeness The notion of face in linguistic politeness was first introduced into scholarship by the sociologist Erving Goffman, who takes the term from expressions like saving face and losing face. In his ground-breaking work Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Interaction (1967). Goffman defines face as a social construct of the self, which is manifest as a person interacts with others and to which the person has emotional attachment (ibid.: 7, 12). This self is thus an image of sorts, that is presented in interactions and has to be maintained by proper conduct.

8

According to Goffman, when individuals interact, they have a certain set of possibilities to choose from, which are predetermined by their setting, the customs of their culture and the previous face they may have set forth for themselves (Goffman 1967: 9, 13). If a person does something contrary to what is expected of him or her in an interaction, then face will be lost, because it is “on loan to him from society” and contingent on proper conduct (ibid.: 9). However, face can also be lost due to the actions of the other participants in the interaction. For instance, if participant A in the interaction does not sustain the face of participant B, then participant B may “‘feel hurt”’ and lose face regardless of whether or not his or her own conduct was appropriate to the situation (ibid.: 6). Due to the delicate nature of face, Goffman posits that special care must be taken in order to not do anything that would damage one’s own face or the face of another participant in the interaction: “In trying to save the face of others, the person must choose a tack that will not lead to loss of his own; in trying to save his own face, he must consider the loss of face that his action may entail for others” (Goffman 1967: 14). To avoid damaging one’s own or another’s face and to “handle himself and others well in all contingencies”, a person will need “to have a repertoire of face-saving practices,” (ibid.: 15). These practices will have either a “defensive orientation” aimed at saving the interactant’s own face, or a “protective orientation” that strives to preserve the other person’s face in the interaction (ibid.: 14). The performance of these practices constitute facework (ibid.: 13).

9

The first and most basic face-saving strategy that Goffman suggests is avoidance. Here a person attempts to avoid any possible face-threat by physically removing himself or taking measures to avoid any confrontation in the interaction. Examples of avoidance include changing the topic, hedging contributions, or leaving out facts about a topic which might embarrass the other person (Goffman, 1967: 15). However, according to Goffman, avoidance is not always possible. In such an event, when a person is not able to prevent a face-threatening act, the participants in the interaction can choose several other strategies: either party may pretend that the event never happened; one or the other may acknowledge that the event took place but deny that it was threatening; or the person who commits the face-threatening act may try to hide or conceal it, while the other participant who saw it may turn away from the interaction for a minute, so as to give the one responsible party a moment to regain his or her composure (Goffman 1967: 18). When an incident cannot be avoided or overlooked, assuming the participants do not wish to be at odds, then corrective measures must be taken to “re-establish” equilibrium; Goffman terms this process interchange (Goffman, 1967: 19). Goffman also believes that it is necessary and important to employ tact in interactions, in an effort to preserve one’s own and another’s face:

One common type of tact cooperation in face-saving is the tact exerted in regard to face-work itself. The person not only defends his own face and protects the face of the others, but also acts as to make it possible and even easy for the others to employ face-work for themselves and him. He helps them to help themselves and him. Social etiquette, for example, warns men against asking for New Year’s Eve dates too early in the season, lest 10

the girl find it difficult to provide a gentle excuse for refusing (Goffman 1967: 29). Thus, tact acts not only as a defensive and protective measure in an interaction but also opens the door for future facework to be performed with greater ease. Goffman believes these principles of face and facework are universal in nature and that, although there are “differences in culture, people everywhere are the same” in their need to protect face (Goffman, 1967: 44):

One must look…to the fact that societies everywhere, if they are to be societies, must mobilize their members as self-regulating participants in social encounters. One way of mobilizing the individual for this purpose is through ritual; he is taught to be perceptive, to have feelings attached to self and a self expressed through face, to have pride, honor, and dignity… These are some of the elements of behavior which must be built into the person if particular use is to be made of him as an interactant, and it is these elements that are referred to in part when one speaks of universal human nature (ibid.: 44-45). These values and practices form an organized system of rituals1 within a culture, which are to be employed in interactions, while any variation in the system must be contained within certain parameters. These parameters or bounds are established by the moral values and rules of the society in which one lives. (Goffman 1967: 45). Nevertheless, although face and facework are an integral part of any society, Goffman states that, “maintenance of face is a condition of interaction, not its objective” (ibid.: 12). 1

Goffman uses the term ritual in a much broader sense than the dictionary definition. Because Goffman

views face as a sacred thing, any acts that are performed to maintain it are therefore rituals (Goffman 1967: 19).

11

Since its first publication, Goffman’s concept of face has served as the basis of theories of politeness and as a fundamental assumption in most analyses of politeness in particular languages. Moreover, Goffman’s concept of face is so elastic that it has been interpreted to mean quite different things by different scholars; for example, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) interpretation of face has been strongly challenged by Watts (2003). Goffman’s approach has met with criticism from some scholars for being too focused on the ‘ritual’ aspects of the interaction and too oriented toward Western society (see Gouldner 1970, Psathas 1980, and Schegloff 1988). It is not surprising then, that the politeness theory of Brown and Levinson (1987), which relies heavily on Goffman’s face theory, has met with much of the same criticism (see, e.g., Watts, Ido, and Ehrich 1992; Watts 2003). As this study utilizes Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory in the categorization of facework, Goffman’s notice of face is also foundation for this study. I believe that it is the notion of face and face needs that cause speakers to violate the rules of cooperative conversation (see section 2.2), which are widely accepted in politeness research. The specific issue of the universality of politeness will be further addressed in section 2.4.

2.2. Grice and the Cooperative Principle When the conversation on politeness was in its infancy, it was profoundly influenced by the work of H. Paul Grice, a natural-language philosopher, and his idea of conversational cooperation. Since Grice articulated the idea in 1968, the majority of 12

politeness studies have taken his theory as a starting point to explore why and how people diverge from these basic principles of conversation. 2 Grice theorizes that the participants in a conversational interaction have a “mutually accepted” purpose and direction, and that people in general try to make their “conversational contributions such as required,” in order to meet the perceived mutual goals of the interaction (Grice 1989: 26)3. Grice calls this idea the Cooperative Principle. He further argues that, in an effort to be cooperative, people generally adhere to four basic “maxims of conversation” (ibid.: 26–27):

Maxim of Quantity: 1. Make your contributions as informative as required (for the current purposes of the exchange). 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Maxim of Quality: Supermaxim: “Try to make your contribution one that is true.” 1. Do not say what you believe to be false. 2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Maxim of Relation: 2

On the meaning of Grice’s cooperative principle for politeness studies, see the seminal works by Searle 1969, 1979; Leech 1983; and Brown and Levinson 1987. 3 Grice, in contrast to Goffman, doesn’t include face needs in his explanation of efficient and cooperative conversation.

13

1. Be relevant

Maxim of Manner: Supermaxim: “Be perspicuous” 1. Avoid obscurity of expression. 2. Avoid ambiguity. 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). 4. Be orderly.

In articulating the Cooperative Principle, Grice recognizes that many utterances seem to not obey it; in particular, many utterances have meanings that are greater than the sum meaning of the individual words. For example, someone may choose to be ambiguous when answering a question, or omit certain elements of the requested information, or give information that at first may seem irrelevant. For instance, if a mother asked her teenage soon whether he had done his chores, his response might be, ‘I got home late from practice tonight,’ which would violate the Maxim of Quantity. However, even though the literal meaning of the utterance does not answer the question and offers information that was not requested, the inferable meaning of the utterance – the speaker’s meaning – would be clear to the mother (‘I haven’t done my chores, but I have a good excuse, so don’t be angry’). To account for utterances of this kind, Grice introduces the notion of implicatures. An implicature is an utterance that appears to violate a maxim with the specific intention of communicating a meaning that is not 14

directly stated in the utterance. Thus, in order to understand the speaker’s intention, the other conversational partner must be able to deduce the correct meaning of the implicature by connecting the literal meaning with the intended one (Grice 1989: 24–25, 32). In other words, the conversational partner must assume that the speaker is following the Cooperative Principle, despite appearances, and look for an interpretation that preserves this assumption of cooperation. Grice makes a distinction between two main types of implicatures—conventional and conversational. Conventional implicatures are utterances whose meaning can be derived solely from the semantics of the words used. Thus, to use Grice’s example, in He is an Englishman; he is, therefore, brave, the meaning of the utterance is easily interpreted because conventional meaning of therefore indicates a causal connection with the preceding context; if Englishmen are brave, and if this man is an Englishman, it follows logically that he must be brave (Grice 1989: 25). By contrast, conversational implicatures require the other conversational partner to have background knowledge in regards to the topic or situation, in order to be able to infer the intended meaning of the implicature. For instance, the hearer must rightly reason that the speaker’s seeming violation of a maxim was not due to conversational incompetence4 or an uncooperative attitude, but instead had the intent of conveying a specific meaning outside the literal one. According to Grice, implicatures occur in conversation in three situations. The first is when a speaker implicates what he/she would like to convey to the hearer so

4

Linguistic competence, as defined, e.g., by Green and Morgan (1981:178-79) includes not only grammatical knowledge of a language, but a knowledge about how language can be used in various contexts. Thus, it implies knowledge of a language at the pragmatic level.

15

clearly that it is hard to argue that a maxim is violated. Using Grice’s example, if person A states, ‘I am out of petrol,’ and person B relies, ‘There is a garage round the corner,’ the connection is so obvious that “there seems to be no case for regarding that supermaxim [of Relavance] as infringed,” (Grice 1989: 32). The second situation in which implicatures tend to occur is when a speaker is faced with competing maxims, such as in situations when a speaker has to violate one maxim in order to fulfill another. For instance, if someone on the street asked another pedestrian where the nearest post office was and the person could not remember the exact address but only the street, their response, “There is one somewhere on Broad Street,” would out of necessity be vague or lacking (a violation of Maxim of Quantity) in order to keep the Maxim of Quality (ibid.). The third situation is when a speaker flouts a maxim with the purpose of creating a conversational implicature. In this case, a speaker purposefully opts not to comply with a maxim to convey a certain message to the hearer. For example, if a prospective boss calls the prospective employee’s former boss and inquires how he/she was as an employee, the former employer may choose to be meager in the information they provide. Thus he/she may merely state that the prospective employee was indeed employed there, give the time period of the employment, and state a minor fact about him/her as an employee, e.g., that he/she arrived on time every day to work. The prospective employer would be aware that the former employer must know more about the prospective employee’s service and hence must have chosen not to provide that information. As the former employer was clearly willing to be cooperative and answer 16

the prospective employee’s question, he/se can then infer that there must be a reason for the lack of information provided, which in this case would most likely be that the prospective employee was incompetence (Grice 1989: 32-33). Grice also notes that there may be additional maxims of conversation, e.g., Be polite (Grice 1989: 28)5. Although he does not explain why he believes this particular maxim might be added, it follows that many of the violations of maxims on the part of conversational participants are the result their efforts to be polite. Following this suggestion, Leech (1983) utilizes Grice-like maxims to form his own politeness theory. There has been criticism of the Cooperative Principle by a few scholars who have found it contradictory and anglocentric nature (e.g., Wierzbicka 1991; Watts 2003). Nevertheless, most scholars of politeness (and of pragmatics in general) have accepted Grice’s Cooperative Principle with no reservations or with only minor adjustments. Taking Grice’s principles of cooperative conversation at face value and as separate from culture, would explain the need to violate them to meet the face needs of individuals in an interaction. However, I personally believe that Grice’s principles would work best in the context of culture. For example, under the Maxim of Quantity, the speaker is cooperative when he or she does not make his or her contribution more informative than is required for the interaction to successfully transpire. If the element of culture were added to the explanation of what is required (i.e. make one’s contributions as informative as required within any given culture), it would naturally incorporate elements of politeness, such as giving a reason for making a request, but would also leave

17

room for cultures that did not require additional information to make to make a culturally sensitive request. I believe these cultural elements of conversation are not at odds with cooperative talk but essential and even required in cooperative talk. A further discussion of Grice’s theories, as they relate to this study, will be discussed in Chapter 8.

2.3. Searle and speech acts The philosopher John Searle’s landmark work on speech acts has also had a profound impact on politeness research and literature. Much like Grice, Searle believes that conversation follows certain rules and follows cooperatives principles; however, he further added that it can actually be used to perform actions (Searle 1967: 22). Following J. L. Austin, he refers to these actions as speech acts. In any given utterance, the speaker is simultaneously performing three acts: (a) an utterance act: uttering words (morphemes, sentences); (b) a propositional act: referring and predication; and (c) an illocutionary act: stating, questioning, commanding, promising, etc. (ibid.: 24). While utterance acts are the mere words strung together, “illocutionary and propositional acts consist characteristically in uttering words in sentences in certain contexts, under certain conditions and with certain intentions” (ibid.: 25). Within the category of illocutionary acts, Searle (1979: 12–17) identifies five subcategories, based on the speaker’s illocutionary intent (what s/he wishes to accomplish): First, assertives are illocutionary acts which “commit the speaker to something’s being the case” or, in other words, to “the truth of the expressed proposition.” Second, directives are illocutionary acts in which the speaker attempts to 18

“get the hearer to do something.” Third, commisives are illocutionary acts that seek to “commit the speaker to some future course of action.” Fourth, expressive are illocutionary acts that “express the psychological state specified in the sincerity condition about a state of affairs specified in the propositional content.” Fifth, declaratives are illocutionary acts that “bring about some alteration in the status or condition of the referred to object or objects solely in virtue of the fact that the declaration has been successfully performed.” According to Searle (1979: 29), although there may appear to be an infinite number of things that can be done with language, there are not; individuals are constrained to the five categories listed above when performing illocutionary acts. Perhaps the most influential aspect of Searle’s work for research on politeness, is his identification of the category of indirect speech acts, “in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another,” (Searle 1979: 31). For instance, if someone were to ask, “Can you pass me the salt?,” the hearer would rightly infer that the speaker is not just inquiring about his/her ability to pass the salt but actually requesting that he/she pass it as well. Searle refers to the literal meaning of an utterance conveying an indirect speech act as the secondary illocutionary act, and the inferred meaning as the primary illocutionary act (ibid.: 33). According to Searle (ibid.: 32), in order to correctly understand (“uptake”) the appropriate meaning of an indirect speech act, a combination of things is needed: a knowledge of speech act theory, various general principles of cooperation in conversation, and background knowledge shared by both the hearer and the speaker (ibid.: 32). These things allow for proper inference about the speaker’s meaning without 19

when what is directly said would seem disconnected or out of place. Additionally, certain felicity conditions must be met in order for the speech act to be successful (ibid.: 44). Like the other scholars so far mentioned, Searle’s work has also been criticized for being oriented toward Western society (Wierzbicka 1991). It is hard to disagree completely with this criticism, as Searle only brings forth examples from English. Furthermore, being indirect in some cultures is perceived as being impolite in many situations (Larina 2009). Thus, indirectness does not innately have a universal element of politeness attached to it. Nevertheless, indirect is a strategy that is often employed in the data of this study to avoid offence to another, especially within the English data. Therefore, although this study is not solely concerned with indirect speech acts, Searle’s work does have great relevance in understanding why some utterances are perceived as politeness. In the context of Brown and Levinson’s theory, where indirect speech acts serve to respect the hearer’s need to be unimpeded and the boundary of personal will not overstepped without permission and caution.

2.4. The universality of politeness There has been much debate about whether politeness is a universal phenomenon and about whether it is possible to analyze it in ways that are translatable across cultures. Some scholars argue that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to create a politeness theory that could adequately address the social constructs of both East Asian and Western cultures (Wierzbicka 1991, Mao 1994). The premise for this position is that Western cultures are focused on the particular wants and needs of individuals in society, while 20

Eastern cultures are focused on maintaining the face and rituals of the group. These differences, it is argued, are so profound that they rule out any model of “politeness” that would be valid for the social needs of both types of cultures. For example, a model that focused on the individual and his/her experience in interactions would inevitably exclude cultures where the concept of an individual and his/her own identity was tied up with his/her place in the group; conversely, a model that fit the needs of collective or group cultures would not be able to account for or predict how someone from an individualfocused society would perform in terms of politeness. According to Wierzbicka (1991: 72), one partial solution to this dilemma would be to evaluate politeness across cultures using a metalanguage of “near-universal concepts such as want, say, know, think, good and bad.” By that means, one could simply indicate that you can say x, y and z in language A, but not in language B. The use of such metalanguage, Wierzbicka believes, would be more straightforward and better able to describe the differences between cultures than other politeness models (ibid.: 72). Despite objections of this kind, many scholars continue to uphold the idea that there are enough cross-cultural similarities in politeness behavior to justify some type of model for categorizing and explaining the phenomena. At the very least, they argue, it should be possible to devise terminology that would provide a basis for comparing and understanding politeness within and across cultures (Brown and Levinson 1987, Watts 2003, Leech 2007). Some of these scholars further argue that, although politeness may manifest itself differently across cultures, it is rooted in similar underlying principles; politeness in some form does exist in each culture and functions on a set of principals that 21

are not completely unlike one another (Brown & Levinson 1987, Leech 2007, Mills 1992). Indeed, according to Brown and Levinson (1987: 55), it is necessary to account for “a most remarkable phenomenon”:

This is the extraordinary parallelism in the linguistic minutiae of the utterances with which persons choose to express themselves in quite unrelated languages and cultures… The convergence is remarkable because, on the face of it, the usages are irrational: the convergence is in the particular divergences from some highly rational maximally efficient mode of communication.

In this school of thought, there is no absolute barrier between the politeness in East and Western cultures. For example, according to Leech (2007: 170), individual- and group-centered cultures form a continuum rather than two unconnectable worlds of politeness:

There is no absolute divide between East and West in politeness. Consider the concept of “collective group culture” (East) and “individualist, egalitarian culture” (West). These are not absolutes: they are positions on a scale. All polite communication implies that the speaker is taking account of both individual and group values. In the East, the group values are more powerful, whereas in the West, individual values are.

This issue of the universality of politeness and the ability to correctly categorize it in a way that explains cultural variations is an important by-product of this study and will be addressed in chapter 8.

22

2.4. Brown and Levinson’s positive and negative face The most widely used theory of politeness is that of Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson (1987; first published 1978). As I have adopted it as the evaluation tool for the data in this study, I will offer a thorough review of their theory here; I will also propose certain modifications in section 3.3. Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory has, at its foundation, Goffman’s concept of face, which is reviewed in section 2.2 and ultimately derives from the folk term face in English and other languages. According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 61), the concept of face is connected to the “notion of being embarrassed or humiliated, or ‘losing face’”; because face is something that can be “lost, maintained, or enhanced,” it must be “constantly attended to in interaction.” In a given interaction, the face status of any given participant A is dependant upon that of everyone else in the interaction; for example, threats to A’s face can motivate him/her to threaten the face of another participant in an attempt to save his/her own. Thus, generally speaking, it is advantageous for each party in the interaction to maintain the other’s face. Brown and Levinson (ibid.: 61) claim that cross-culturally people are generally cooperative in doing. For Brown and Levinson, there are two universal categories of polite behavior, positive and negative politeness, which involve the strategies speakers employ to maintain or enhance positive and negative face in the interaction. Thus, positive politeness is addressed to one’s need to be valued, to have one’s wants and desires appreciated and acknowledged by others, and have others want them for him or her as well. Negative politeness, on the other hand, addresses one’s need to feel unimpeded, or, 23

I would add, have their right to have their acts unimpeded recognized and respected (ibid.: 101, 129). According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 69), if speakers choose to commit a face-threatening act, they have several options for how to do it. First, they may choose to remain off record; in other words, they may opt for an ambiguous expression so that they cannot be “held to have committed [themselves] to one particular intent.” Thus, in saying “Damn, I am out of cash, I forgot to go to the bank today,” the speaker A’s intention may be to signal to the hearer B that s/he needs to borrow some money (a threat to A’s positive face and B’s negative face). However, the ambiguity leaves it up to B to infer that that is A’s intention; B can either offer A a loan or ignore the hint, which saves B from having to refuse explicitly (a threat to A’s and B’s positive face) (ibid.: 69). Second, speakers may choose to perform the face-threatening act on record, so that there is no ambiguity about their intentions. They can do this baldly, i.e., in a direct and unambiguous way, without any redress to their interlocutors’ face. Alternatively, they can choose to include redress to lessen the impact of the face-threatening act. In that case, they employ positive and/or negative facework (ibid.). Brown and Levinson delineate a number of specific strategies that may be used to do positive and negative facework; these will be discussed in Chapter 3. Brown and Levinson’s theory sets out to be predictive. In their view, it is possible, on the basis of three important social factors present in the interaction, to predict whether pragmatically competent interactants will stay off record or go on record and, if the latter, whether they will gravitate towards positive politeness or negative politeness to 24

commit a face-threatening act (ibid.: 250). The three factors are distance, the social distance between the speaker and the hearer; power, the relative power of the hearer over the speaker in the given situation; and weight of imposition, the ranking of the imposition involved in doing the face-threatening act, from the point of view of the values of the given society (ibid.: 15). In Brown and Levinson’s view, the notion of face and its positive and negative aspects are universal and that face wants are inherent in every individual. Nevertheless, there may be differences from culture to culture in “what the exact limits are to personal territories, and what the publicly relevant content of personality consists in” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 61–62). Face wants may also be overshadowed by other important cultural wants. For instance, if a society has a strong appreciation for sincerity, “sincere disapproval is less of a face-threatening act” than in a society that does not have such a focus (ibid.: 249). In such a way, these cultural norms help shape the perceived threat that an act can have within a specific culture (ibid.: 242, 249). Thus, while one culture may view a face-threatening act as highly likely to give offense in a specific situation, another culture may view the same act as posing only a moderate or low risk. As mentioned in Section 2.1, Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory has met with a significant amount of criticism from other scholars (e.g., Wiezbicki 1991, Watts 2003). Generally, this criticism has been aimed at perceived Western biases toward the individual in the theory or else the lack of clarity in the terms that they use to discuss politeness. Although I agree on the whole with Brown and Levinson’s view of face and its delineation into positive and negative, while researching and writing this work I have 25

found some elements of their theory to be cumbersome and problematic—in particular, their delineation of specific facework strategies, which often overlap (see the discussion in Section 3.4). I will discuss these more at length, along with other scholars’ criticism, in Chapter 8, where I will also suggest some modifications to the theory.

2.5. Positive and negative face in Russian politeness literature Brown and Levinson’s theory has been the basis for many subsequent works on politeness in a wide variety of cultures. There have been several major studies of Russian politeness that have utilized Brown and Levinson’s theory, with the majority of the work focusing on negative politeness. In this section, I review the major works in the area of Russian politeness that utilize Brown and Levinson’s theory. Then in Section 2.6, I briefly touch on this the influence of language contact on L1 pragmatics,. In Section 2.7, I state how this work fills in current gaps in the research.

2.5.2. Mills on indirect requests in Russian The first major studies in which Russian politeness was investigated in the Brown and Levinson framework were by Margaret Mills (1991, 1992), whose work focuses primarily on the nature of politeness in indirect requests. In her 1991 article, Mills observes that Russian culture is attentive to politeness: “the [Russian] speaker intuitively feels the polite register of the negative conventions” that are used “where the situation favors the hearer” (ibid.: 556, 561). In general, Mills’ work requests supports the universality of Brown and Levinson’s theory. The preferences for particular structures 26

may vary from language to language; for example, the negative constructions preferred in Russian (see below) are less favored in English. However, the basic principle of using in indirectness for FTAs is shared. In her 1992 study, Mills compares the politeness constraints that Brown and Levinson put on indirect requests in English with those determined to be conventionalized in Russian (ibid.: 65–66). Although both the structure for English and Russian function as indirect ways of performing a speech act, and thus address the negative face of the hearer, Mills notes that there is a lack of correspondence between the English and Russian polite structures of indirect requests. In English, according to Brown and Levinson, there is a constraint [felicity condition + question + subjunctive + possibility operator + “please”] (ibid.: 67); in Russian, by contrast, the polite indirect request structure is [felicity condition + question + negation + finite future verb]. Mills also notes that there is a hyper-polite formula in Russian: [felicity condition + negation + question + conditional + interrogative particle + operator] (ibid.: 68). To illustrate the Russian politeness scale in performing an indirect speech act, Mills (ibid.: 70) sets forth the following sentences (the translations are hers):

a. Не могли бы вы разменять мне пять рублей? ‘You couldn’t change 5 rubbles for me?’ b. Не можете ли вы разменять мне пять рублей? ‘You can’t change 5 rubbles for me?’ c. Могли бы вы разменять мне пять рублей? ‘Could you change 5 rubbles for me?’ d. Можете ли вы разменять мне пять рублей? 27

‘Can you change 5 rubbles for me?’ e. Вы можете разменять мне пять рублей? ‘Can you change 5 rubbles for me?’ As can be surmised from these sentences and from the polite and hyper-polite formulas mentioned above, Russian has conventionalized the questioning of H’s ability to do something as the preferred way of making an indirect request (Mills 1992: 68). According to Russian perceptions, sentences (a) and (b) are the most polite forms; (d) is viewed as less polite than (c), and (e) is least likely to be used as a speech act. The types of requests cited above appeal to the negative face of the addressee, by acknowledging the impeding nature of the request; this presupposes the assumption that the addressee has a right not to be impeded. As Comrie (1981: 20) has noted, the use of the interrogative particle li ‘whether’, which is present in Mills’ sentences (b) and (d), “always adds an element of doubt.” The use of negation and conditional in the three requests that were ranked to be the most polite reflect the strategy Brown and Levinson term ‘being pessimistic’ (negative politeness strategy 3). Mills’ earlier study (1991: 558) provides additional examples of the use of negation in interrogatives, e.g., the construction “Нет у вас Х?” (‘You don’t have X?’), which was widely used in shopping interactions in Russia at the time of Mills research. As Mills (1992) notes, the politeness continuum for requests in Russian ranges from imperatives to negated conditional interrogatives. To evaluate the relative politeness of these strategies, she presented 20 Muscovite Russians with 14 different ways of asking someone to shut a door. Each participant was asked to rank the request 28

relative to the others, to provide detail about their “perceived politeness” of them, and to indicate contexts in which they would be appropriate (ibid.: 72). As a result of this survey, Mills found that the “most neutral polite request” that was appropriate for use among acquaintances, colleagues or strangers was Вы не закроете окно? (‘You will not close the door?’). Her participants felt that negation alone made the request polite; although one could add further pragmatic elements, they were not necessary (ibid.). While negation was the favored strategy for neutralizing FTAs, Mills’ participants also used hedges directed to the addressee’s ability and willingness to perform the action, i.e. Может (Maybe) + positive perfective verb: Может вы закроете окно? (Maybe you will close the window?). While positive requests could also be used, Mills found that their use was more restricted and “context-specific” (ibid.: 74). On the basis of this research, Mills (ibid.: 76) concludes that Russian has richer “combinatory” options for making indirect requests than English. Nevertheless, among the various indirect request types, the negative construction was found to be the most frequent strategy for abating FTAs. Many of the situations that Mills presented to the participants in her study included requests. Thus her research is very pertinent to the present study and will be discussed further in later chapters.

2.5.3. Benacchio on positive and negative politeness in imperatives Another scholar, Rosanna Benacchio, has also published work on Russian politeness that implements Brown and Levinson’s positive and negative face theory. Her 29

focus has been on distinguishing between the levels of politeness of perfective and imperfective imperatives in contexts where both aspects are possible. It is Benacchio’s contention that the perfective imperative is always neutral and correct and cannot be rude; thus it is representative of negative politeness and serves to maintain social distance (2002: 11). Perfective imperatives are often seen in situations where social distance is indeed maintained, such as at the doctor’s office, where Сядьте! ‘Sit!’ would be more appropriate than imperfective Садитесь! (ibid.: 14). On the other hand, according to Benacchio, the imperfective, though potentially rude, can also reflect positive politeness due to its use to create closer ties between the speaker and the addressee (ibid.: 11).6 This is illustrated by the use of imperfective with guests in such phrases as Входите, раздевайтесь, садитесь!, Снимайте пальто! Располагайтесь! (‘Come in, take off your things, sit down! Take off your coat! Get comfortable!’; ibid.: 13). Where both verbal aspects are possible, social distance is the prime factor that determines which will be used. For instance, in response to the question ‘Can I put my suitcase here?” both perfective Поставьте, конечно! and imperfecive Ставьте, конечно! (literally, ‘Place, of course!’) are equally polite and acceptable. According to Benacchio, the difference lies in the fact that the first one appeals to the negative face of an individual, their right for social distance, while the second appeals to the positive face and strengthens solidarity (ibid.: 16).

6

Here it must be noted that Benacchio also claims that the imperfective can be used to be rude to someone you are closer with as well, depending on the context.

30

Although my research does not focus on imperatives, they do account for a large number of the negative politeness occurrences in my Russian data. As Benacchio does not mention any objective proof for her claims, the data found in this study can be used to evaluate the strength of her position. For example, this study provides insight on whether the perfective is indeed the neutral aspect for requests.

2.5.4. Positive and negative face and Rathmayr Renate Rathmayr (2003) utilizes the positive and negative face theory of Brown and Levinson beyond the realm of requests. Thus, her observations are interesting in that they offer a more general view of Russian politeness. Rathmayr notes stark differences in the Western and Russian notions of politeness. In her view, cultures that have less emphasis on the individual employ negative politeness to a lesser degree; Russian is one such culture where positive politeness is of greater importance. Ratmayr gives several anecdotes from her personal experiences in Russia to support her claim. Although Russians were very helpful if they ever saw her with a heavy bag or if she needed assistance in some way, they seemed to show a certain lack of propriety by Western standards. For instance, once when she was wearing something a stranger deemed inappropriate on the subway, the stranger told her so directly. On another occasion, when it was winter and she was without a hat, another stranger said to

31

her, “‘Девушка7, ещё не лето, как Вы без шапки можете выходить?’” ‘Girl, it’s not yet summer; how can you go out without a hat?’ (Rathmayr 2003: 25). On the basis of her observations, Rathmayr concludes that positive face is more important than negative face in Russian and that more effort is given to maintaining solidarity in interactions than in Western cultures (ibid.: 27). This claim begs the question of why Russian has such a rich system of options for performing negative politeness indirect requests, as shown by Mills (1991, 1992) if negative politeness is less used? Although Rathmayr intends her anecdotes to show the lack of attention toward an individual’s negative face among strangers, they support her claim that Russians perform more positive facework than negative—a position that is not confirmed by the present study. Thus the comment about Rathmayr’s apparel illustrates Brown and Levinson’s positive politeness Strategy 1: “when H makes an FTA against himself (a breakdown of body control, or any faux pas), S should ‘notice’ it,” and may offer some type of help to fix it (Brown and Levinson 1987: 104). In a later article (2008), Rathmayr analyzes the results of a 2006–7 study on politeness behavior in shops that she conducted by administering questionnaires to 299 Russian participants living in major Russian cities. From this survey, she observes that more conventional politeness strategies are being employed in public settings, such as shops and food services, than at the time of her first study (ibid.: 3-4). For instance, interactions that were once initiated by the customer are now being initiated by the shopkeeper. Furthermore, the shopkeepers are also using more Westernized politeness 7

In Russian, девушка ‘girl’ is a standard appellative used to get the attention of a female stranger; it is not considered rude.

32

strategies than previously, e.g., polite greetings and the Russian equivalents of “Can I help you?” “Thank you for shopping with us,” and “Come visit us again” (ibid.: 4). According to Rathmayr, the emergence of this phenomenon, which she calls the “New Russian Politeness,” was a result of commercialization and the entrance of Western firms into the Russian market in the 1990’s. The high-ranking European and American managers of these firms insisted on the use of more Western-style politeness in their stores (ibid.: 3, 6). Rathmayr’s (2008) findings on the use of politeness in public spaces and her observation that Russian society in general is more oriented towards positive politeness are a step forward in the area of Russian politeness. Where most of the other studies investigate negative politeness and requests, her work offers a more balanced view of politeness in Russia. As this study likewise attempts to provide a more panoramic view of Russian politeness, I will return to Rathmayr’s studies in the conclusion. Her specific observations about politeness in food services are particularly important for the discussion of the data of situation 13 in section 7.4.

2.5.5. Tatjana Larina on the comparison of politeness in Russian and American cultures The most comprehensive work in the field of Russian politeness is Tatjana Larina’s monograph The categories of politeness and style of communication (2009). Larina gives a theoretical overview of linguistic politeness and then compares politeness in Russian and English cultures. In addition to drawing on past research, she also cites 33

empirical data to arrive at her claims. Many of the issues she addresses are pertinent to this study, especially her work on the performance of requests and the expression of emotion in Russian and English. On the basis of empirical studies, Larina concludes that Russians are more likely to employ imperatives in making a request, giving directives and extending invitations, while the English are more likely to use indirect requests (Larina 2009: 3.5.1.2, 5.3.4.2). Furthermore, while the use of please is not sufficient to make any type of request polite in English, in Russian the addition of ‘please’ has greater pragmatic strength and is sufficient to make an imperative a polite request (ibid.: 3.5.1.2.). Larina also claims that Russians feel freer to express their emotions and do so without reservation; while this is a negative character trait in English culture, it is viewed as a positive one in Russian (ibid.: 1.5.2.). Many of the insights in Larina’s work shed light on possible cultural reasons for the differences revealed by the data of this study, I revisit them in greater detail in my comparison of the AE, RR, and RA participant data in Chapter 7.

2.6. Language contact and pragmatics There is a considerable body of research showing that a first language (L1) almost inevitably experiences influence from a second language (L2) in intense language-contact situations (Pavlenko 2000, Sicola 2005). This is affirmed not only by scholarship but by everyday observation of immigrants speaking their native tongues after living in a dominant L2 environment for some time. However, the extent to which this influence 34

occurs and the areas of language that are most susceptible are still heavily debated, with many unanswered questions (Schmid and Kopke 2008). The existing research has paid virtually no attention to the influence of L2 on L1 pragmatics and, in particular, on politeness. Accordingly, one of the goals of this study is to compare the use of politeness strategies by Russians in Russian-dominated and English-dominant contexts. Thus the study may shed light on the extent and nature of possible L2 influence on L1 linguistic politeness and facework in high-contact situations, which will hopefully serve a stepping-stone for further research.

2.7. The current study The research discussed in Sections 2.5 has insightfully identified the general parameters of politeness in Russian culture and has demonstrated some of the differences between the Russian and Western notions of it. From the past research, for example, it is evident that the negative construction for indirect requests has become conventionalized in Russian and that there have been changes in the frequency and manner in which politeness is performed in public places in major Russian cities. The present dissertation builds on these findings and tries to fill in some gaps in the previous research. In particular, it provides a more in-depth exploration of politeness in public places; the factor of distance in determining positive and negative facework, on the continuum from close relations to strangers; and the use of imperatives in facework. Unlike previous studies, it includes assessments of Brown and Levinson’s three main factors—power, distance and weight of imposition—that influence the performance of 35

facework. The participants’ written dialogues, emails and texts provide instances of more natural speech/communication in interactions; thus they shed greater light on how politeness is used in daily interactions. Lastly, little research has been done in the area of L2 influence on politeness in L1 in intense contact situations; thus, by comparing Russian and Russian-American participants, this study offers some insight into whether politeness is a vulnerable pragmatic feature of the L1.

36

Chapter 3 Methodology

3.1. Overview of the survey The participant survey used in this study had two parts; additionally, Part I was broken down into two sections. In Part IA of the survey, participants were presented with 13 different social situations in which they would be asked to solicit information, make a request, and give information. For each situation there was one task that participants were instructed to carry out by writing a text message, email or dialogue between themselves and the other participant in the interaction. Part IB asked the respondents to rate the degree to which they felt each of the situations in Part IA could potentially offend, hurt, or be embarrassing for the other person in the situation. They were to use a scale of 1-5, with 1 being little to no potential for offence, hurt or embarrassment, and 5 being great potential for offence, hurt or embarrassment. Part II of the survey was a participant questionnaire, which asked the respondents’ name, age, gender, place of residence, native language, language spoken at home, level of education and whether they had lived outside of their respective countries for more than 2 years. For the RA participants, additional questions about contact with those living in 37

Russia and use of Russian on a daily basis were also included, while the question regarding residence outside of the U.S. or Russia was omitted. There were four versions of the survey: English for the AE participants, Russian for the RR participants, Russian for the RA participants, and Russian for the RA participants who had been offered a gift card. The Russian surveys for the RA participants included the requirements for their participation in the study (see section 3.2), while for those being offered a gift card, it had yet an additional explanation of the compensation being offered. The Russian versions of the survey were first written in English by myself and then translated into Russian8. Each of the three versions can be found in full in the appendix. For reasons of privacy, each participant survey received a number, which is used in this study in place of participant names. A master list of names and their corresponding numbers was kept by myself, in case it became necessary to pinpoint the demographic information or responses of particular participants.

3.1.1. Questionnaire situations The situations in the survey were designed to vary in social distance, situational power, and potential for involving a face-threatening act. They were also designed to provide the respondents with opportunities for positive or negative facework. The variable of social distance (D) was rated for each situation by myself on a three-point scale, with low for interactions between close friends or significant others, 8

The majority of the translation was verified and completed with the help of a paid tutor, however, special thanks to Oxana Skorniakova, who also made corrections to the translation.

38

moderate for interactions between acquaintances, and high for interactions between strangers. The variable of situational power (P) was rated for each situation9 independent from the distance indicated between the participants in the interaction. The power differential was determined by the social roles that the participants played in the situation or the social freedom that a participant had to commit a face-threatening act. For instance, it is much more socially acceptable in general, to refuse to lend your new car to a friend than to not lend your pen to a stranger that asks to borrow it at the post office. Thus, an individual has more social freedom to refuse to lend their car than to refuse to lend their pen. Again, a three-point scale was used: low indicated that there was little or no difference in the relative power10 of the participants in the situation; moderate, that there was some difference in their relative power for the situation; and high, that there was a significant difference in their relative power for the situation. Although, as already stated, situations were designed to have a variety of combinations of distance and power, some of the situations had the same level of power and distance but provided different opportunities for facework (i.e. positive or negative). The weight of imposition rating (W) for each situation was obtained by finding the mean of the individual participant ratings from Part B for each situation within a cultural group; thus, each cultural group’s rating for situations may vary. It should be noted that, 9

The relative power is judged for the situation as a whole, as I found it was not so important who had the power but that one having more then the other seemed to heighted the use of politeness by both interactants in this study. 10 Relative power in this study is evaluated on the hierarchal roles the individuals may take in the interactions and/or the freedom that an individual may have to refuse the request. For instance, an individual may feel more freedom to refuse a request to borrow their car than one to borrow their pen because of the value of the item requested.

39

although not every situation in the survey includes an actual request or other traditional type of imposition, each has the possibility for a face-threatening act or a ‘virtual offence’ that people can orient to in interactions, as noted in section 2.1. In the interests of brevity, not all the possible combinations of D, P, and W were represented in the survey. To some extent, this was naturalistic, as situations involving high distance and high power are rarely encountered in day-to-day interactions. In addition, there may not be enough examples of certain combinations of variables to draw more than tentative conclusions. Nevertheless, as the participant responses to them are representative of the behaviors of their cultural groups, I feel that the situations serve as vital starting points for future investigations. The tasks for each situation are summarized below, with the power and distance ratings that I assigned to them. The mean ratings of the weight of imposition for each cultural group will be given in the respective sections in the response analysis.

1. You are on vacation and respond to an email from a friend, who asks how your vacation is going. D: Low

P: Low

2. You are at a friend’s house and their 4 year-old shows you a picture he or she drew. You write a dialogue of your conversation with him or her. D: Low

P: Low

3. You forgot to feed the dog today. You send a text message to a family member or roommate that is at home asking him or her to feed the dog. 40

D: Low

P: Low

4. You arrived late for an appointment with your friend and they are not there. You forgot your cell phone and ask a stranger to use theirs to call him or her. You write a dialogue between you and the stranger. D: High

P: Moderate

5. You want to apply for an academic program and ask a professor you do not know well but in whose class you got your highest grade. It is Monday; you write him an email asking for a letter of recommendation for the following Tuesday. D: Moderate P: Moderate 6. You were supposed to go to the movies with a friend but something comes up an hour before it starts. You write your friend a text message saying you cannot go. D: Low

P: Low

7. Your close friend or significant other cut their hair and thinks it looks good. You think it looks awful. He or she asks your opinion. You write a dialogue in which you respond to him or her. D: Low

P: Low

8. Your good friend asks to borrow your brand new car for an upcoming event. You do not feel comfortable with this. Write a dialogue in which your friend asks to borrow the car and you respond. D: Low

P: Moderate

9. You like the shoes your friend has on. You write a dialogue asking him or her where he or she got them. 41

D: Low

P: Low

10. You are the manager at a company and the company owner said that you have to let one of the employees who has become your close friend go. You write a dialogue between you and him, in which you let him know he has lost his job. D: Low

P: High

11. You are a tourist and need directions to the bus stop. You ask a passerby for directions. Create a dialogue between you and him or her, in which you ask for directions. D: High

P: Low

12. You are mailing a letter and forgot to put the return address on it and ask someone in line at the post office if you can borrow his or her pen. You write a dialogue between you and the stranger in which you ask to borrow the pen. D: High

P: Low

13. You are on your lunch break and go to get lunch at your regular place where the usual person is working. You write a dialogue between you and the worker in which you order food. D: Moderate P: Low Ultimately, the results for situation 2 were excluded from the data, because having a child in the interaction introduced another, unneeded variable into the study. However, my informal reading of the responses suggests that it may be very interesting to explore the cultural differences in adult/child interactions in future studies. Additionally, for those situations that required the participants to imagine that they were using technology (i.e. 42

sending a text message or writing an email: Situations 1, 3, 5, and 6) in their response, it is recognized that many changes are taking place in regards to language use in this area and are still in flux. Nevertheless, within each of my cultural groups, there was a high degree of uniformity in how the participants framed their answers in these scenarios.

3.2. Participants After the research project received approval from the Institutional Review Board at The Ohio State University (IRB approval # 2011E0634), 64 participants were recruited from the 3 cultural groups to complete the survey: 21 Americans, 22 Russians, and 19 Russian immigrants residing in the United States. For the Russian and American participants, the only requirement was that they be 18 years of age or older. The Russian immigrants had to have lived in the U.S. for 2 or more years, been 18 years of age or older when they immigrated to the U.S., and could not have completed any part of their high school education in the U.S. They also had to be able to write their responses using the Cyrillic alphabet or in transliteration using the Latin alphabet. The participants were recruited initially from among my friends and acquaintances and later by using the snowball method. That is, emails or facebook messages were sent to possible participants, asking if they or anyone they knew might be willing to take the survey. Emails were also sent to the heads of academic departments at Russian universities, acquainting them with the research project and asking them to pass along my email to any students or faculty that might be willing to help.

43

The surveys were sent as email attachments to those who were willing to participate, and they were returned to me in like manner.11

There were no time

restrictions for the completion of the surveys. One person gave me a hard copy of their survey, and two participants took the survey on my laptop. Some of the Russian-American participants who were not my personal acquaintances were offered $10.00 gift cards, with IRB approval, as they were considered harder to recruit. The gift cards were mailed to the addresses they provided within 2 weeks of my receipt of their surveys. It should be noted that one of the American surveys had to be discarded, as the respondent turned out to live abroad. In addition, the last two Russian surveys received were also not included in the study, in order to keep the number of participants approximately equal (20 ± 1) for each of the cultural groups.

3.2.1. Sociolinguistic variables of participants As I was not able to offer an attractive compensation for completing the survey, I was unable to attract a large number of participants or be very selective in regards to the gender, age or other sociolinguistic factors of potential participants. As a result, I am fully aware that the sociolinguistic factors were not evenly distributed. However, every effort was made to make the distributions as even as possible. The distribution of gender among the participants had a male/female ratio that greatly favored females. Although this is not ideal, I endeavored to assure that there was 11

In a few instances, I had to contact individuals to verify or ask for missed information or answers for sections 2 or 3.

44

the same number of males that took the survey in each cultural group. There were a total of 4 males and 16 females that took the survey for both the AE and the RR cultural groups, and 3 males and 16 females that took the survey for the RA cultural group. There was no special effect detectable due to gender. Table 3.1 below summarizes this information.

Table 3.1: Distribution of participants by gender Gender AE RR RA Female 16 16 16 Male 4 4 3 Total 20 20 19

The majority of the participants fell between the ages of 18 and 29 years old in each of the three cultural groups. There was, however, significant variation in the range of ages among the three groups. The American English-speaking participants were in general, older on average than the participants in the other two cultural groups. Although it would have been ideal to have the ages more evenly distributed, the overall tendencies, I believe, are still transparent for the various populations. Furthermore, there was no special effect noted in the data due to age.

45

Table 3.2: Distribution of participants by age Age Range AE RR RA 18-29 8 14 13 30-39 6 4 3 40-49 3 2 0 50-59 1 0 3 60-69 2 0 0 Total 20 20 19

In regards to location, which also plays a role in sociolinguistic variation, the participants from both the RR and the RA groups resided in various cities and/or states. However, it should be noted that all most all of the AE participants resided in New York State, although they were not necessarily born nor raised there. Below are tables detailing the age and gender of each participant, listed by the number that their survey was assigned upon receipt (see above). The American English-speaking participants’ numbers are each preceded by the abbreviation AE, the Russian participants residing in Russia by the abbreviation RR, and the Russian participants that reside in the U.S. by RA. Participants will be referred to by these numbers and abbreviations throughout the study and the analysis that follows.

46

Table 3.3: Gender and age of participants by participant group G Age G Age G AE 2 M 65 RR 1 F 29 RA 1 F AE 3 F 38 RR2 F 27 RA 2 F AE 4 F 34 RR3 M 40 RA 3 F AE 5 F 26 RR 4 F 29 RA 4 F AE 6 F 30 RR5 F 21 RA 5 F AE 7 F 32 RR6 M 24 RA 6 F AE 8 M 38 RR 7 F 30 RA 7 F AE 9 M 27 RR 8 M 22 RA 8 F AE 10 F 26 RR 9 F 27 RA 9 F AE 11 F 58 RR 10 F 32 RA 10 M AE 12 F 40 RR 11 F 27 RA 11 F AE 13 F 28 RR 12 F 31 RA 12 M AE 14 F 33 RR 13 F 45 RA 13 F AE 15 F 26 RR 14 F 34 RA 14 F AE 16 F 49 RR 15 F 20 RA 15 F AE 17 F 63 RR 16 F 21 RA 16 F AE 18 F 29 RR 17 F 21 RA 17 M AE 19 F 24 RR 18 F 25 RA 18 F AE 20 F 47 RR 19 M 28 RA 19 F AE 21 M 19 RR 20 F 19

Age 29 28 22 27 27 30 34 33 38 29 26 28 27 50 23 53 25 55 26

Finally, each of the participants were judged to be linguistically competent. I did not notice egregious mistakes in grammar or spelling. The majority in each cultural group had completed at least some postsecondary education, and they generally held responsible jobs in their community that required skillful communication. Additionally, they demonstrated that they were aware of how language could be used by correctly interpreting the task and carrying it out with normal patterns of behavior (see footnote 4 in Section 2.2).

47

3.3. Method of data analysis The responses to the survey were compiled and analyzed by cultural group. For each cultural group, the responses to the situations in Part IA (see above) were categorized using Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness. First, for each situation, the utterances of the speaker (i.e. the study participant) were evaluated for the type of facework exemplified (i.e. positive or negative), if any, and the strategies used to implement it.12 The only utterances analyzed were the statements that the participants ascribed to themselves, as speakers in their invented dialogues. This was done on the assumption that the participant would provide the most natural response when he/she was the represented speaker; therefore, that part of the interaction is the most authentic and reliable for evaluation. This information was tallied to determine the total number of participants that employed a strategy for each situation within the given cultural group.13 Then a tally and analysis of the total number of occurrences of each politeness strategy used for a situation was made; this was necessary because some participants used the same strategy several times in a response, and because most strategies have subcategories in Brown and Levinson’s classifications. Lastly, using the ratings of the situations in Part IB of the surveys, the average weight of imposition that each cultural group assigned each situation was determined, as well as the mode, or in other words, the most frequently given rating for the situation.

12

Punctuation was not included in the analysis of data due to the inconsistencies throughout the responses. When a participant put two different responses for the same situation, only the first response was categorized and included in the data.

13

48

Below is an outline of the Brown and Levinson taxonomy of strategies that was used in the categorization of positive and negative politeness in this study. As I feel several of the strategies are problematic or of a less transparent nature, I included more details in section 3.4, in order to present a clearer rationale for my classification.

3.3.1. Strategies addressed to positive face Strategies that are oriented to the positive face needs of an individual are what Brown and Levinson term positive politeness. They aim at creating solidarity with the hearer and expressing that the speaker wants the hear’s wishes and wants to be fulfilled as well (Brown and Levinson1987: 70). There are 13 strategies that that they outline, which are paraphrased below. In their classification they often use the abbreviation S for the speaker, or person doing the addressing, and H for the hear.

3.3.1.1. Claim common ground Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods). Here the goal of the speaker is to take notice of the hearer’s condition, which can include physical changes or states, as well as physical items the person has in his or her possession. If these changes are perceived as negative, the speaker offers some type of assistance instead of ignoring them (the strategy that would be chosen in the case of negative politeness). Strategy 1 can apply to anything that the speaker thinks the hearer would want to be noticed and/or approved of. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 103-104) Examples: 49

Notice of physical items a person has in their possession: 1. “That’s a nice pair of shoes you’re wearing.” – AE 2, Situation 9 Negative change for which the speaker offers some type of assistance instead of ignoring it: 1. “ну, надо было чуть подлин[н]ее оставить.” (“You needed to leave it a little bit longer.”) – RA 6, Situation 7 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with the hearer).

This

exaggeration often manifests itself in intonation, stress, and other prosodic features14 and with intensifying modifiers such as fantastic, absolutely, amazingly, etc. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 104-106) Examples: 1. “…they are way cute…” – AE 20, Situation 9 2. “…мне очень нравятся!” (“…I really like them!”) – RR 5, Situation 9 Strategy 3: Intensify interest to the hearer. In this case, the speaker adds intensity to his or her contributions to the interaction to make them more interesting to the hearer. This can be done by using the present tense (“historical present”) or by switching between present and past tense; by using direct speech; by using tag questions, which bring the hearer into the conversation, such as you know? or isn’t it?; or by exaggerating facts. It can also be done by the use of intonation. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 106-107) Example: 1. “I could spend the rest of my life on the beach.” – AE 18, Situation 1 14

These elements were obviously unobservable in this study.

50

Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers. The use of in-group identifiers can be used as forms of address, such as buddy, dear, sister, cutie, etc., as well as the informal form of you found in many languages, which is indicative of a closer relationship between the S and the H (ты [‘you’], in Russian). The use of a certain language or dialect can also be an in-group identifier, with the use of the more domestic-use language marking an in-group identity. The use of in-group jargon or slang also has this effect. Lastly, ellipsis or contraction can be an in-group identifier, as it points to a shared knowledge of something or some situation. By using in-group membership markers, the speaker stresses his or her common ground with the hearer. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 107-112) Examples: The use of an in-group greeting and address form: 1. “Hi friend!” – AE 5, Situation 1 2. “Привет, дружище!” “ Hi buddy!” RR 11, Situation1 Strategy 5: Seek agreement. This is done by choosing a safe topic or by finding aspects of a topic that can be agreed upon. For instance, if the speaker does not agree or approve of some aspect of an action, or the action as a whole, he/she finds something in it to agree upon. Another way that a speaker may seek agreement is by repeating part or all of what the other person has said. In that way, the speaker may show that he or she heard the utterance. Additionally, this may express interest or emotional agreement. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 112-113) Examples: 51

Finding something in the interaction to agree upon: 1. “I am glad you are happy with the cut…” – AE 12, Situation 7 Choosing a safe topic: 1. “Как ты сама чувствуешь об этом?” (“How do you yourself feel about it?”) – RR 3, Situation 7 Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement. One way in which this is done is by “token agreement,” i.e., pretending to agree. In this way, the speaker may first agree but then add a proviso. To use Brown and Levinson’s example, “Yes, I have a car. Well, I had a car; it just got totaled in a crash.” The speaker may also displace an answer to a question to soften it. This is done by not immediately giving an answer but instead adding utterances before it, which are meant to prepare the hearer for the answer, such as, ‘I’m not sure’. Pseudo-agreement can also be employed by using words such as the English ‘then’ or ‘so’ in utterances when there has been no prior agreement. Once again, to use Brown and Levinson’s example, “We’ll talk to you tomorrow, then.” Another way in which a speaker may avoid disagreement is by using white lies and hedging opinions with phrases such as ‘kind of’, ‘in a way’, ‘sort of’, etc. to soften them. In this case, hedging is a positive politeness strategy because it is used to avoid damaging another's positive face. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 113-117) Examples: Hedging opinion: 1. “I kind of liked your old look better.” –AE 11, Situation 7 Token Agreement: 52

1. “Здорово. Но мне больше нравилась твоя обычная стручка." “Great. But I liked your usual haircut better.” RR 1, Situation 7 Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground. In this case, the speaker engages in gossip or small talk as a way to spend time and effort on the hearer, to let them know that they have not engaged in conversation with them simply to request something or to commit a face-threatening act. The speaker can also implement point-ofview operations, where instead of making him or herself the center of time and space or the central person, there is a switch to the hearer. For instance, the Brown and Levinson note that in a native Mexican language one says, “I am there, you are here,” instead of the normal, “I am here, you are there,” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 118). The strategy of asserting common ground can also be used in the area of knowledge. For instance, in English the tag phrase ‘you know’ is often used as a signal to the hearer of shared knowledge of general happenings15. Lastly, the speaker may use presupposition manipulations. This may include the presupposition of knowledge of the hearer’s wants and attitudes (e.g., “Wouldn’t you like another cookie?”); the presupposition of shared values between the speaker and hearer; and the presupposition of familiarity with the hearer (e.g., the use of dear, mate, etc. with a stranger). (Brown and Levinson 1987: 117-124) Examples: Pointing to a shared knowledge:

15

All instances of the speaker pointing to a common knowledge (minus those that implanted ellipsis – see positive politeness Strategy 4) in the interaction were categorized as Strategy 7, as they assert a common ground.

53

1. “You know how I feel about my wheels – they’re still brand new.” – AE 2, Situation 8 2. “Ты знаешь, что я только её купила..." “You know that I just bought it…” – RR 14, Situation 8

Presupposition of familiarity: 1. “Hey...” (to address a stranger) – AE 21, Situation 12 Strategy 8: Joke. As jokes are generally based on shared background knowledge and values, they are a positive politeness strategy. Humor can be used to stress the shared background or values of the participants, to put the hearer at ease or to soften the facethreatening act. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 124-125) Examples: 1. “He wants to go in your car? Has he seen your car?” – AE 17, Situation 8 2. “...я конечно тебя люблю, но не настолько сильно, чтобы отдать тебе моё новенькое авто на целый день!" (“…I, of course, love you but not enough to loan you my new car for the whole day!”) – RA 13, Situation 8

3.3.1.2. Convey that S and H are cooperators Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose knowledge of and concern for the hearer’s wants. The speaker indicates that he or she is aware of the wants and concerns of the

54

hearer and tries to show that their own wants and desires are in line with them16. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 125) Examples: 1. “I wish I could change it.” – AE 9, Situation 10 2. “...я всё, что в моих силах делал, чтобы это был не ты...” (“I did everything I could, so they wouldn’t pick you…”) – RA 5, Situation 10 Strategy 10: Offer, promise. In this case, the speaker claims to want what the hearer wants for him or herself and consequently makes offers or promises to help the hearer attain it. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 125) Examples: 1. “Let’s catch up and do lunch when I get back!” – AE 16, Situation 1 2. “Обязательно позвоню, когда вернусь домой!” (“I will definitely call when I get home!”) – RR 2, Situation 1 Strategy 11: Be optimistic. In this case, the speaker assumes that the hearer wants the speaker’s wants and that the hearer will be cooperative and help him/her obtain them. This can be seen in Brown and Levinson’s example of the request, “You’ll let me use your new bike, won’t you?” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 126-127) Example: 1. “Вы не против если я позвоню с вашего телефона?” (“You’re not against me calling from your phone?”) – RA 15, Situation 4 16

Brown and Levinson offer a very brief explanation that hints to the main purpose for showing concern for the hearer’s wants to be so the hearer will in turn cooperate with the speaker. However, two of the three examples they offer do not indicate this purpose. Therefore, I included occurrences that show no ulterior motive in the assertion or presupposition of the knowledge of the hearer’s wants.

55

Strategy 12: Include both speaker and hearer in the activity. The speaker uses the form we when he or she really means you or I. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 127-128) Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons. The speaker lets the hearer know why he wants what he wants, so that the hearer can see that the potentially face-threatening act is actually reasonable. Accordingly, the speaker assumes that the hearer has no good reason not to cooperate. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 128-129) Examples: 1. “I’d like to see if there are any that would fit me.” – AE 1, Situation 9 2. “Не могу найти себе нормальную обувь, может там смогу.” (“I can’t find normal shoes for myself, maybe there I will be able to.”) – RR 9, Situation 9 3. “I forgot to feed the dog before I left…” – AE 21, Situation 3 Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity.17

The speaker and hearer give

acknowledgement of each other’s rights and obligations. For instance, the speaker reminds the hearer of something they did for them in the past and then requests that they do X for them now. In this way, the hearer can negate the debt that would be incurred or soften face-threatening speech acts such as criticisms or complaints. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 129)

3.3.1.3. Fulfill H’s want for some X Strategy 15: Give gifts to hearer (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation). By giving gifts, the speaker satisfies the hearer’s positive face wants. These gifts meet the

17

Positive politeness strategy 14 was not used by participants in this study.

56

basic needs humans have, such as to be admired, loved, liked, and cared about. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 129) Examples: Good wishes: 1. “…hop[e] you have a great day.” – AE 5, Situation 13 Compliments: 1. “Ах, да у вас всё свежее...” (“Ah, yes, everything is fresher here…”) –RR 12, Situation 13 Reassurance: 1. “The nice thing about hair is that it will always grow back.” –AE 17, Situation 7 Expressing interest/care through questions: 1. “Как [В]ы отдыхали в выходные?” (“How did you rest over the weekend?”) – RR 1, Situation 13 2. “How are the kids?” – AE 16, Situation 13

3.3.2. Strategies addressed to negative face Strategies that are oriented towards an individual’s negative face, i.e. one’s need to have their personal possessions, be them time, material items, attention or will, unimpeded or un-infringed upon, are referred to as negative politeness by Brown and Levinson. Below is an outline of the ten negative politeness strategies that fall within the category of negative politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987: 129).

57

3.3.2.1. Be direct Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect18. This is a compromise between the speaker’s want to give the hearer an “out” and the desire to go on record by using conventionalized indirect phrases and sentences. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 132-145) Examples: 1. “Can you tell me how to get there?” –AE 16, Situation 11 2. “...ты можешь накормить Бобика?" (“…can you feed the Doggy?”) – RA 14, Situation 3

3.3.2.2. Don’t presume/assume Strategy 2: Question, hedge.

Hedges are used to avoid commitment to an

assumption and to disarm a threat that the interaction may have. In the case of a request, the speaker, by use of a hedge, which signals that he or she is not presuming that the hearer is willing or able to fulfill the directive. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 145-172) Example: 1. “...Вы случайно не знаете где тут автобусная остановка...” (“…by chance you don’t know where the bus stop is around here…” – RR 10, Situation 11

3.3.2.3. Don’t coerce H Strategy 3: Be pessimistic. The speaker directly expresses doubt that the hearer will fulfill the speech act condition of the speaker. 18

The name of this category is very misleading, as other strategies contain forms that are also conventionally indirect (see 3.3.2.3 in particular).

58

This is often done by using the negative, subjunctive or remote-possibility markers such as could or might. By using the negative, subjunctive or a remote-possibility marker, the speaker signals to the hearer an increased level of doubt that the hearer will be able or willing to comply with the request. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 173-176) Examples: Use of negation: 1. "Вы мне не поможете?” “Won’t you help me?” – RR 17, Situation 4 2. "...не могли бы Вы дать мне позвонить со своего мобильного телефона?" “…you wouldn’t allow me to call from your cell phone?” – RA 17, Situation 4 Remote-possibility markers: 1. “Could I borrow your phone…?” – AE 14, Situation 4 Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition, Rx. In this case, the speaker implies that the imposition is not great by using a culturally acceptable word or expression to do so. In English, this can often be seen in the use of just to minimize a request as in, “Could I just squeeze by you?” The Rx represents the rate an imposition has within a culture. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 176-178) Examples: 1. “It will only take a minute…” – AE 15, Situation 4 2. "...на секундочку…" (“…for a second,”[the diminutive is used for second in the original Russian]) –RA 13, Situation 4

59

Strategy 5: Give deference. The speaker expresses self-abasement and/or elevates the hearer to indicate that the speaker is in no position to expect the hearer’s compliance. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 178-187) Examples: 1. “Thank you for your consideration.” – AE 2, Situation 5 2. “С огромным уважением," (“With great respect,”) – RA 16, Situation 5

3.3.2.4. Communicate S’s want to not impinge on H Strategy 6: Apologize. By apologizing, the speaker indicates his/her reluctance to commit the face-threatening act while actually committing it; this to some extent redresses the imposition. This can be done by admitting frankly what kind of impingement is expected, by indicating reluctance, by asking for forgiveness, or by giving an overwhelming reason for why the hearer has to commit the face-threatening act. Brown and Levinson view the latter as different from positive politeness Strategy 13 because its purpose it to show that the speaker would not normally infringe upon the hearer if he or she could possibly avoid it. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 187-190) Examples: Give overwhelming reason: 1. “I am new to the area, and need help finding this street.” – AE 15, Situation 11 Apologize: 1. “Я прошу прощения, …” (“I ask forgiveness,”)– RA 6, Situation 12 Indicate reluctance: 60

1. “И мне очень тяжело говорить об этом с тобой.” (“And it is very hard for me to talk to you about this.”) – RR 1, Situation 10 2. “Andrew, this is not something a good friend enjoys doing.” – AE 2, Situation 10 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H. In this case, the speaker acts as if the agent of the face-threatening act is someone else or as if the addressee were someone other than the hearer, or as if there are more addressees than just the hearer. This can be done by avoiding I or you in performatives; by using imperatives without a personal pronoun19, or impersonal verbs, passive or circumstantial20 voices; by replacing I and you by indefinites; by pluralizing pronouns referring to the speech-act participants; by avoiding you in address, and I in reference; or by point-of-view distancing in which the speaker uses past tense to express the directive or request in order to soften it, e.g., “I was wondering if...”. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 190-206) Examples: Avoiding I and you: 1.

“...наша встреча отпадает.” (“…our meeting won’t happen.”) – RA 5, Situation 6

Imperative: 1. "Подскажите пожалуйста, как попасть на остановку автобуса?" (“Tell me please, how to get to the bus stop?”) – RR 2, Situation 11 19

By not using the personal pronoun in the imperative, Brown and Levinson believe that it impersonalizes it. Nevertheless, this cannot override the inherent markings in the imperative that are found in many languages, such as formal or informal and number. 20 Circumstantial voice removes the subject from its subject position and uses the verb as the subject. This is commonly seen in some languages when an action performed is seen as undesirable. For example, in Spanish one can say, ‘Se me regó la leche,’ (‘The milk spilt itself to me,’) instead of the usual, ‘I spilt the milk.”

61

Impersonal verb construction: 1. “…можно вашу ручку одолжить?” (“…is it possible to borrow your pen?”) – RR 16, Situation 12 Point-of-view distancing: 1. “…

я

хотела

спросить

у

Вас

о

возможности

дать

мне

такое

рекомендательное письмо.” (“…I wanted to ask you about the possibility of giving me such a letter of recommendation.”) – RR 1, Situation 5 2. “I was hoping you would be able to write a quick recommendation for me.” – AE 7, Situation 5 Act as if accent were someone else: 1. “Так что банк не позволит мне это сделать.” (“So, the bank will not allow me to do that.”) – RR 3, Situation 8 Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule. This is done to detach the S and H from the situation and present the FTA as something that the speaker is obliged to do by circumstances. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 206-207) Examples: 1. “I have a rule about lending my car.” – AE 13, Situation 8 2. “I…have this policy that I’m not going to lend it out for a little while.” –AE 6, Situation 8

62

Strategy 9: Nominalize.21 By nominalizing, the speaker becomes more removed from the FTA and the utterance becomes more formal. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 207-209)

3.3.2.5. Redress other wants of H’s: Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H. By directly claiming indebtedness to the hearer, the speaker can accomplish the function of redress. This can also be done in expressing thanks. (Brown and Levinson 1987: 210-211) Examples: 1. "Я заплачу Вам..." (“I will pay you…”) – RR 12, Situation 4 2. “Thank you again, you have no idea how much you’ve helped me!” – AE 10, Situation 4

3.4. Adjustments made to Brown and Levinson’s strategies As noted in Chapter 2, although Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory is widely accepted and utilized in politeness research, it has met with a fair amount of criticism as well. Likewise, although I agree with the general premise of their theory (i.e. that individual have positive and negative face needs) and that the use of positive and negative politeness can in many ways be broken down and categorized into specific strategies, I find many of their specific strategies in need of revision or clarification. For instance, one major difficulty that I encountered while using Brown and Levinson’s

21

Negative politeness strategy 9 was not used by participants in this study.

63

politeness strategies for categorizing facework were the broad, highly general titles of the strategies, which were often followed by narrow explanations and applications. The very specific examples that Brown and Levinson gave of how a strategy might be performed in English, Tamil, or Tzetzal seemed to exclude other ways—often even more straightforward ones—that it could be used; this, in particular seemed to be the case for the strategies that I list below (see section 3.4.1). In order to give explicit rationales for why I included certain politeness tactics in specific strategies, I have provided a general description of what I included or, in one case, excluded, for each strategy. These additions were used to guide the categorization of facework in the survey responses. Additionally problematic is the title of the first subcategory under positive politeness, Claim Common Group (see 3.3.1.1 above), which I believe should be more appropriately titled, Strategies aimed at building or establishing solidarity.

3.4.1. Adjustments and clarifications of strategies addressed to positive face Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer. In this strategy, I include any type of modifier (i.e. emphatic particle or adverb) that the speaker uses to make his or her contribution more exciting or interesting to the hearer. Like strategy 2, (See section 3.3.1.1.), this can also be done by using adverbs to intensify and make the speakers contributions more interesting to the hearer. Examples: 1. “…and I absolutely love the beach.” – AE 5, Situation 1 64

2. “Как же классно всё-таки на море летом.” (Nevertheless, how [emphatic particle inserted here] cool it is on the sea in the summer.”) – RA 6, Situation 1 Strategy 4: In-group Identity Markers. I do not include diminutive names due to the general ambiguity of whether or not that was intended as the actual given name of the person or truly a diminutive. For instance, Katie is often a given name in the United States, but can also be used as the shortened, more intimate form of Katherine. Also, because English does not have the distinction of informal vs. formal in the second person as Russian does, I do not include them in the categorization. Nevertheless, among the RR and RA participants it can be assumed that Вы (‘you’-second person singular, formal) was used with strangers or persons of moderate distance and ты (‘you’-second person singular, informal) with anyone of low distance. Any exceptions to this are noted in the individual sections where they occur. Nevertheless, informal and formal options exist in both languages for greetings; thus, I have included in-group greetings in the categorization. Strategy 10: Offer/Promise. Brown and Levinson actually do not mention simple offers or promises except in the title of this category, though they do not directly exclude them22. Consequently, I also included them here. Judging from my data, offers and promises seem to be a vital part of positive facework and serve to create solidarity and reenforce the relationship between the speaker and hearer. Example: 22

The one example they include in the short description of this strategy tends to imply a simple, nonredressive promise, ‘I’ll drop by sometime next week’ (Brown and Levinson 1987: 125).

65

1. “Let’s catch up and do lunch when I get back!” – AE 16, Situation 16 2. “Я напишу тебе хорошее рекомендательное письмо,” (“I will write you a good letter of recommendation,”) – RR 14, Situation 10 Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement. In the case of avoiding disagreement, at times the speakers could delay their answers not only within the bounds of a single utterance but also through several exchanges. Moreover, at times this strategy seems to overlap with Strategy 5 (Seek agreement) where Brown and Levinson place attempts to stick to safe topics. However, when the sole purpose of a tactic is to avoid answering a direct question, I count it as avoiding disagreement, as the utterances seemed to have little other purpose. Also, along with hedged opinions, I included statements, or in particular, refusals that were hedged to soften them and make them less juxtaposed to the hearer’s wishes. Examples of hedged refusals: 1. “I kind of have this policy that I’m not going to lend it out for a little while.” AE 6, Situation 8 2. “…I just don’t feel comfortable.” AE 11, Situation 8 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer. Thanking or expressing appreciation could be categorized as either positive or negative politeness, depending on the context in which it occurs and how it is expressed. In this study, for clarity, I treat the expression of appreciation or gratitude as positive politeness Strategy 15, if the thanking occurred between friends or in a situation that was rated as having a low rate of imposition. However, if the thanks were expressed to strangers and had a higher rating for the weight 66

of the imposition, then I categorized the expression of appreciation or gratitude as negative-face Strategy 10 (Go on record as incurring debt). There were, however, some exceptions where participants expressed excessive thanks or some type of indebtedness in low-ranking situations, even among family or friends; these cases were also categorized as negative politeness Strategy 10 and are noted in the individual sections where they occur. Exceptions also existed between strangers, for instance, when the participant asked to borrow the cell phone of the hearer but did not end up doing so. In this case, the thank you was worded in a more casual manner and categorized as positive politeness Strategy 15.

3.4.2. Adjustments and clarifications of strategies addressed to negative face Strategy 2: Question, Hedge. In this category I included any particle, adverb, phrase or if clause (including embedded if clauses) that weakened the interlocutionary force of the request or added any contextual aspect that weakened the speakers commitment to it (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984: 203-204). Examples: 1. “If possible, could you please write a letter of recommendation to go with my application?” AE 5 2. “Если вас не затруднит напишите пожалуйста ваше личное письмо и отправьте его мне...” (“If it doesn’t complicate things for you, please write your own personal letter and send it to me…”) RA 1, Situation 5 3. “Could I possibly borrow yours?” AE 9, Situation 4 67

4. “Would you mind if I use your cell phone…?” AE 2, Situation 4

3.4.3. Further adjustments and clarification Several of the situations contained the strategy of preparing the hearer for the negative opinion or refusal by the use of an adverb or if clause. In almost all cases across the three cultural groups this was done by preceding the face-threatening act with ‘honestly’, ‘honestly speaking’, and ‘if I am being honest’, in their respective language. As these occurrences did not fit into any of Brown and Levinson’s strategies, I noted them at the end of those sections in which they occurred (see sections 4.2, 4.9, 5.2, 6.2, and 6.9). A further complication that I found with Brown and Levinson’s theory was that in categorizing an utterance or part of an utterance, there was often more than one strategy being employed. In such instances, I counted the utterance only once under the dominant strategy in the utterance. There were some exceptions to this, where an utterance did not have any clear dominance. Such cases are noted in the individual sections. However, one exception that was carried throughout the data analysis was in regards to positive politeness Strategy 4, Use of in-group language. When a word or abbreviation was part of an utterance that was counted in another strategy, it was still counted as a token within Strategy 4. For example, in, “Love ya” (AE 4), the ya counted as a token of Strategy 4, while the entire utterance counted as a token of positive politeness Strategy 15.

68

Chapter 4 American English Responses and Data Analysis

4.0. Overview of the chapter Chapter 4 contains an analysis of the data obtained from 20 native American English speaking (hereafter AE) participant surveys that were recruited through friends and family23. The participants ranged in age from 19-65 years of age, with the majority of the participants falling in the 18-29 year-old range. To analyze the data, the responses to Part IA of the survey were tallied according to type of facework performed (i.e. negative or positive), and within that type, the strategies employed to perform it. The criterion used for the categorization of each strategy was in accordance with Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, outlined in section 3.3, along with the further modifications in 3.3.1. In the discussion of the data that follows, the situations that lent themselves more readily to the use of positive politeness were analyzed first (i.e. sections 4.1-4.4), then those that lent themselves more easily to the use of negative politeness were discussed last (i.e. sections 4.5-4.12). Although this required discussing the situations out of the

23

There were a total 21 surveys, however, 1 survey was not included in the study due to residence overseas.

69

order in which they appeared in the actual participant survey, it provides for easier comparison of similar social situations for the reader.

4.1. Situation 1: Emailing a friend In Situation 1, the participants were asked to imagine that they were on vacation and received an email from a close friend inquiring about how their vacation was going. They were then asked to write an email in which they responded to their friend’s question. As this situation takes place between close friends, there is a low power differential and low distance involved. The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.3, and the mode 1. Table 4.1 provides the breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 4.1 Situation 1: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 16 2—Some potential 2 3—Moderate potential 2 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great potential 0

Table 4.2 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the AE participants, while Table 4.3 provides a breakdown of the use of positive politeness Strategy 15.

70

Table 4.2 Situation 1: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 1 Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 16 Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 10 Strategy 8: Joke 7 Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 7 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 13

# of tokens 1 29 13 8 7 22

Table 4.3 Breakdown of positive politeness strategy 15 for Situation 1 # of tokens 22 % using strategy Show that the Hearer is wanted and loved 8 36.4% Show interest in Hearer, asking questions 4 18.2% Express good wishes to the Hearer 6 27.3% Give gifts to the Hearer 1 4.5% Express gratitude for hearer’s outreach 3 13.6%

Six positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 1 by the AE participants. The most common was Strategy 3 (Intensify interest to hearer), which was employed by 16 participants, for a total of 29 tokens. Twenty of the occurrences used an adverb to intensify interest, e.g., “Things are going really well.” AE 5; “We are just loving it here in Florida.” AE 2. Five occurrences exaggerated a statement, e.g., “I could spend the rest of my life on the beach,” AE 18. Four employed an adverb to intensify an adjective, e.g., “The weather is so perfect…” AE 10.

71

Strategy 15 (Give gifts to hearer) was used by 13 participants, for a total of 22 tokens, making it the most frequently occurring strategy. Eight of the occurrences communicated to the hearer that they were wanted or loved by expressing they missed them, e.g. “I wish you were here with me,” AE 1; wished they were there with them, e.g., “I wish you were here with us!” AE 10; or by finishing the email with the closing “love”, e.g., “Love,” AE 5. Six occurrences were good wishes for the hearer’s well being in general, e.g., “I hope you are doing well.” AE 16. Four occurrences showed interest in the hearer by asking about his or her well-being. Three occurrences expressed acceptance and gratitude to the hearer for his or her email, e.g., “It’s great to hear from you!” AE 16. One occurrence offered a gift to the hearer. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used by 10 participants, for a total of 13 tokens. Seven of the occurrences used the in-group greeting hi or hey. Two occurrences used an in-group address form, i.e., “friend” (AE 5), and “dear” (AE 9). Three occurrences used the slang word ya for you. One occurrence used the in-group acronym ttyl. Strategy 8 (Joke) was used by 7 participants, for a total of 8 tokens. Six of the jokes centered around the speaker’s return home, i.e. that they didn’t know if or when they would come home. One joked centered around the need to get off the beach and to the gym. One joked about going to try surfing. Strategy 10 (Offer, promise) was used once each by 7 participants, in each of which the participants offered or promised to talk, get together, see them soon or show them pictures upon their return from vacation. 72

Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H) had a single token, in which the speaker suggested that the hearer take a trip there because he/she would love it. Table 4.4 indicates the negative politeness strategy used by the AE participants in this situation.

Table 4.4 Situation 1: Negative politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 1 1

There was 1 token of negative politeness Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) by the AE participants. In this case the speaker invited the hearer to vacation with him or her but was pessimistic in the ability of the request to be fulfillment: “…is there any chance you can come down for a few days?” AE 20.

4.2. Situation 7: Offering an opinion on a friend or significant other’s haircut In Situation 7, the participants were asked to imagine that a close friend or significant other had gotten a new haircut and thought it looked great, while they themselves thought that it looked awful. The participants were then asked to write a dialogue in which the close friend or significant other asks them if they like the haircut and they give their response. Given that this situation transpires between close friends or significant others, there is low distance and a low power differential. AE participants’

73

weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 3.7, and a mode of 5. Table 4.5 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 4.5 Situation 7: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 1 2—Some potential 3 3—Moderate potential 5 4—Considerable potential 4 5—Great potential 7

Table 4.6 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by AE participants in Situation 7.

Table 4.6 Situation 7: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to H 5 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (approval) 1 Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 2 Strategy 5: Seek Agreement 12 Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement 16 Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 1 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 11

# of tokens 8 1 2 24 23 1 14

Seven positive politeness strategies employed in Situation 7 by the AE participants. The most common was Strategy 6 (Avoid disagreement), which was used by 16 participants, for a total of 23 tokens. Fourteen of the occurrences hedged an opinion 74

using an adverb or phrase, such as just or I kind of, e.g., “I kind of liked your old look better.” AR 11. Five occurrences told a white lie, in which the speaker said he or she liked it or thought it looked okay. Three occurrences used token agreement by agreeing at first but then qualifying the agreement, e.g., “It looks okay but I like the other hair dresser better.” AE 7. One occurrence avoided answering the question by saying, “I’m still getting used to it,” (AE 5) instead of stating his or her opinion. Strategy 5 (Seek agreement) was used by 12 participants, for a total of 24 tokens. Sixteen of the occurrences were statements that found something to agree upon or a response that was safe, e.g., “…as long as you are happy with it that’s the most important thing.” AE 2; “Nothing like a new haircut to give you a little extra sparkle.” AE 6. Seven occurrences asked questions designed to lead the conversation to a safe topic, e.g., “Had you been thinking about it for long?” AE 6. One repeated the answer of his/her friend/significant other in question form. Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) was used by 11 participants, for a total of 14 tokens. Nine of the occurrences offered assurance; either that their hair would grow back or that they were still attractive; 2 were complements which did not pertain to the hearer’s hair; 2 occurrences aimed at making the hearer feel they had special ability to pull off such a haircut; and 1 occurrence was a wish for the hearer to enjoy his or her hair. Strategy 1 (Attend to H) was used by 5 participants, for a total of 8 occurrences. Four of the occurrences noticed the haircut, e.g., “You got a haircut.” AE 6. Two noticed how the hearer was happy with his or her haircut, e.g., “I sure can tell you like it a lot,”

75

AE 20. One occurrence noticed that the cut had been done by someone new. One occurrence offered to help fix the haircut. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used once each by 2 participants, in both of which the in-group greeting hi or hey was used. Strategies 2 (Exaggerate) and 10, (Offer, promise), each had a single token. In the case of Strategy 2, the participant exaggerated the approval of a past haircut by use of an adverb. For Strategy 10, the participant offered to perhaps like the haircut in a few days. Table 4.7 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the AE participants for situation 7.

Table 4.7 Situation 7: Negative politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 6: Apologize 1 1

There was 1 negative politeness strategy used in Situation 7 by an the AE participants, Strategy 6 (Apologize), which had a single token, in which the speaker apologized for not mentioning something about the hearer’s haircut. There were also 2 tokens of an adverb or if clause preceding the opinion that did not easily fit into any of Brown and Levinson’s strategies but served to prepare the hearer

76

for the negative opinion of the haircut, i.e. “Honestly,” AE 4 and “If I’m being honest,” AE 2124.

4.3. Situation 9: Asking a friend where he or she got their shoes In Situation 9, participants were instructed to imagine that they liked a friend’s pair of shoes and wanted to know where he or she bought them. They were then asked to create a dialogue between themselves and the friend, in which they asked him or her where he or she got them. The distance and power differential for this situation is low, due to the speaker-hearer relationship and the basic nature of the request. The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean weight of 1.4, and a mode of 1. Table 4.8 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 4.8 Situation 9: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 13 2—Some potential 7 3—Moderate potential 0 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great potential 0

Table 4.9 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the AE participants for Situation 9.

24

Also see section 5.2 and 6.2 for similar occurrences in the RR and RA data.

77

Table 4.9 Situation 9: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to H 20 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, etc.) 4 Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 4 Strategy 8: Joke 1 Strategy 12: Include Both H & S in Activity 1 Strategy 13: Give Reasons 3 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 2

# of tokens 20 5 4 1 1 3 2

Seven positive politeness strategies were used by the AE participants in Situation 9. The most common was Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H), which was used once by all 20 participants. In each case the speaker noticed and admired the hearer’s shoes. Strategy 2 (Exaggerate interest, approval, etc.) was used by 4 participants, for a total of 5 tokens. Each of the 5 occurrences exaggerated their approval of the shoes, after already taking notice of them, by using an adverb to intensify the utterance, e.g., “They are so cute!” AE 4. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used once each by 4 participants. Three of the occurrences used the in-group greeting ‘hey’, while 1 used the in-group address form ‘dude’. Strategy 13 (Give reasons) was used once each by 3 participants. In 2 of the occurrences the speaker gave a reason for asking the friend where he or she bought his or her shoes, i.e. that they had been looking for such a pair or would like to find a pair like

78

those. One occurrence gave a reason for why the speaker requested to take a picture of the friend’s shoes. Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) was used once each by 2 participants. In each occurrence the speaker thanked the hearer for the information. Strategy 8 (Joke) and Strategy 12 (Include both hearer and speaker in the activity) each had a single token. For Strategy 8, a joke was made about buying the same shoes. For Strategy 12, the speaker included the hearer in the activity of going to purchase the shoes. Table 4.10 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the AE participants.

Table 4.10 Situation 9: Negative politeness strategies used Negative politeness strategy # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 1 Strategy 2: Questions, Hedge 1 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 2 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 1

# of tokens 1 1 2 1

Four negative politeness strategies were used by the AE participants in Situation 9. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was used once each by 2 participants. Each of the occurrences used would to make the request, e.g., “Would you mind telling me where you got them.” AE 2.

79

Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect) had a single occurrence, in which the speaker requested the information using, “Do you mind if I ask where you bought them?” AE 5. Strategy 2 (Question, hedge) had a single token in which an embedded if clause was used in the request for information (see request in negative politeness Strategy 1 above). Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) also had a single token, in which an imperative was used to request that the hearer allow the speaker to take a picture of the shoes, which was accompanied by the politeness marker please.

4.4. Situation 13: Order meal at your regular place from the regular worker In Situation 13, participants were asked to imagine that they were on lunch break at work and stopped in to get a bite to eat at their regular place, where they found the usual worker doing his or her shift. They were then instructed to write a dialogue between themselves and the worker, in which they ordered lunch. The distance for this situation was moderate, while the power differential was low. AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.4, and a mode of 1. Table 4.11 below contains the breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

80

Table 4.11 Situation 13: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 14 2—Some potential 4 3—Moderate potential 2 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great potential 0

Table 4.12 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

Table 4.12 Situation 13: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 19 Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/Assert Common 3 Ground Strategy 8: Joke 6 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 18

# of tokens 26 3 8 28

There were 4 positive politeness strategies used in Situation 13 by the AE participants. The most common was Strategy 15 (Give gifts to hearer), which was employed by 18 participants, for a total of 28 tokens. Sixteen of the occurrences showed care or interest in the hearer by asking how the worker or worker’s family was doing. Eleven occurrences expressed thanks at the end of the interaction. One occurrence wished the worker a good day.

81

Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used by 19 participants, for a total of 26 tokens. Thirteen of the occurrences used the in-group greeting hi or hey. Eight occurrences used a slang version of yes or no, i.e. yep, yeah, or nope. Five used ellipsis in their request, e.g., “…the usual please.” AE 9. One used ellipsis to inquire about how business was going that day: “Been busy?” AE 15. Strategy 8 (Joke) was used once each by 8 participants. Four of the occurrences were jokes about how he or she (i.e. the speaker) always ordered the same thing. Two were jokes centered around the nature of life in general, e.g., how there’s never enough time. Two occurrences joked about how the participant and worker always meet there. Strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) was used once each by 3 participants. Two occurrences pointed to a shared knowledge the speaker and hearer had of what they generally ordered. One occurrence pointed to a shared knowledge that the speaker and hearer had about the general lack of time in life. Table 4.13 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

Table 4.13 Situation 13: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 1 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 4 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 1

82

# of tokens 1 4 1

Three negative face strategies were used in Situation 13 by the AE participants. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was used once each by 4 participants. Each occurrence used either could or would to order the food, e.g., “Could I please get…” AE 12, “I’d like hummus.” AE 6. Strategies 1 (Be conventionally indirect) and 7 (Impersonalize S and H) each had a single token. In the case of Strategy 1, the indirect request ‘can I’ was used to place the order. For Strategy 7 an imperative was used to make the order.

4.5. Situation 3: Ask a roommate or family member to feed your dog In Situation 3, participants were informed that they had left their home without feeding their dog. They were then asked to write a text message to a roommate or family member, who was still at home to see, if they could feed him or her. The distance and power for this situation are low due to the speaker-hearer relationship and type of request. The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.6, and a mode of 1. Table 4.14 shows the breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 4.14 Situation 3: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 10 2—Some potential 8 3—Moderate potential 2 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great Potential 0

83

Table 4.15 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

Table 4.15 Situation 3: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 9 Strategy 13: Give Reasons 18 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 13

# of tokens 9 18 13

Three positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 3 by the AE participants. The most common was Strategy 13 (Give reason), which was employed once each by 18 participants. In each of the 18 occurrences the reason was given for why the participant had to ask his/her roommate or family member to feed the dog. Strategy 15 (Give gifts to hearer) was employed once each by 13 participants. Eleven of the occurrences thanked the hearer at the end of the text message. Two occurrences complemented the hearer by saying, ‘you’re the best’ (AE 20 and AE 21). Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used once each by 9 participants. Each of the occurrences used the in-group greeting hi or hey. Table 4.16 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

84

Table 4.16 Situation 3: Negative politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 12 Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 1 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 8 Strategy 4: Minimize Imposition, Rx 1 Strategy 6: Apologize 4 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 3 Strategy 10: Go On Record As Incurring A Debt 5

# of tokens 12 1 8 1 4 3 5

Seven negative politeness strategies were employed by the AE participants in Situation 3. The most common was Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect), which was employed once each by 12 participants. Eleven of the occurrences used ‘can you’ to request that the hearer feed the dog or check his water, while 1 occurrence used ‘will you’. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was used once each by 8 participants. In each occurrence a remote possibility marker (i.e. ‘could’ or ‘would’) was used to ask the hearer to feed the dog, e.g., “Could you throw some food in his bowl before you leave?” AE 4, “Would you please feed him for me?” AE 18. Strategy 10 (Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H) was used once each by 5 participants. In each occurrence the speaker expressed exaggerated appreciation or indebtedness to the hearer for feeding the dog. For example, AE 6 stated,

85

“Could you possibly feed him? So, so sorry and thank you, thank you,”25; “thanks a million” AE 9; “I’d really appreciate it.” AE 13. Strategy 6 (Apologize) was used once each by 4 participants. Two of the occurrences apologized for making the request, e.g., “Sorry,” AE 5. Another 2 occurrences frankly admitted the impingement, e.g., “…a huge favor,” AE 21. Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was employed once each by 3 participants. Two of the occurrences used an imperative in relation to the request to feed the dog (e.g. “Give her 2 cups,” AE participant 16), and 1 used an imperative to request help. One of the 3 occurrences was accompanied by the politeness marker please. Strategies 2 (Hedge, question) had a single token in which possibly was used to hedge the request to feed the dog, e.g., “Could you possibly feed him?” AE 6. Strategy 4 (Minimize Imposition, Rx) also had a single token, in which the adverb ‘just’ was used to minimize the food needed for the dog, e.g., “…he just needs one cup.” AE 5.

4.6. Situation 4: Borrowing a cell phone from a stranger In Situation 4, participants were asked to imagine that they were to meet a friend at a particular location but had arrived 30 minutes late due to traffic; their friend was not there and they had forgotten their cell phone. They were then instructed to write a dialogue between themselves and a stranger, in which they asked if they could borrow the stranger’s cell phone to call their friend. Since the situation occurs between strangers, it

25

The fuller quote is given because context is especially important for categorizing this response.

86

has high distance; however, the power differential is moderate, as the participant has an unusual request to borrow a valuable item from the hearer. The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 2.4, and a mode of 2. Table 4.17 indicates the breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings. It should be noted that AE participants 5 and 18 said that they would not ask a stranger if they could borrow his or her cell phone but wrote responses (one for borrowing a phone from a store not a stranger), which were included in the data.

Table 4.17 Situation 4: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 3 2—Some potential 10 3—Moderate potential 4 4—Considerable potential 3 5—Great Potential 0

Table 4.18 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

Table 4.18 Situation 4: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common 6 ground Strategy 8: Joke 1 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 4

87

# of tokens 6 1 4

Three positive politeness strategies were used by the AE participants in Situation 4. The most common was strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground), which was employed once each by 6 participants. Each of the 6 occurrences used the in-group greeting hi or hey with the stranger. Strategy 15 (Give gifts to hearer) was used once each by 4 participants. In 2 of the occurrences the speaker thanked the hearer even though the speaker did not end up borrowing the phone. Another 2 occurrences expressed good wishes for the hearer to have a good day. Lastly, Strategy 8 (Joke) had a single token, in which the participant joked flirtatiously with the hearer. Table 4.19 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

Table 4.19 Situation 4: Negative politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 7 Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 7 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 14 Strategy 4: Minimize Imposition, Rx 10 Strategy 6: Apologize 20 Strategy 10: Go On Record As Incurring A Debt 12

88

# of tokens 7 7 15 13 39 13

Six negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 3 by the AE participants. The most common was strategy 6 (Apologize), which was employed by all 20 participants, for a total of 39 tokens. Nineteen of the occurrences explained why the impingement was necessary, i.e. that they had forgotten their cell phone and/or needed to call a friend that they were to meet but had missed. Ten occurrences used the apology ‘Excuse me’ to initiate the interaction. Eight occurrences apologized after the initiation of the interaction or indicated reluctance in committing the impingement, e.g., “I’m sorry to bother you,” AE13; “I’m so sorry to ask…” AE 8. Two occurrences frankly admitted the kind of impingement done, e.g. “I know this is a strange request,” AE 1. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was used by 14 participants, for a total of 15 tokens. Thirteen of the occurrences used the remote possibility marker could or would to request use of the phone, e.g., “Could I borrow your phone to make a quick call?” AE 14. One used could to request help: “…could you help me please.” AE 11. One occurrence used could to request that the hearer call the friend for the speaker after the hearer had expressed concern about lending the phone: “…could you call her and ask her for me?” AE 17. Strategy 10 (Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H) was used by 12 participants, for a total of 13 tokens; each of which expressed thanks to the hearer for their assistance. Strategy 4 (Minimize imposition, Rx) was used by 10 participants, for a total of 13 tokens. Twelve of the occurrences served to minimize the imposition by indicating that

89

the use of the cell phone would be brief, e.g., “just a minute” AE 4, “quick call” AE 14. One indicated that it was a local call. Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect) was used once each by 7 participants. Five of the occurrences used, ‘can I’, to request the use of the cell phone. One occurrence used ‘may I’ to request use of the cell phone, while another used ‘do you mind’ to request it: “Do you mind if I borrow your phone for 2 minutes?” AE 5. Strategy 2 (Question, hedge) was used once each by 7 participants. Four occurrences used an embedded if clause in the request to use the phone (see the request above of AE 5). Two of the occurrences hedged the request to borrow the cell phone with the adverb possibly. One occurrence hedged the request with ‘think ’: “…think I could use it?” AE 21.

4.7. Situation 5: Asking for a letter of recommendation In Situation 5, participants were asked to imagine that they were applying for an academic program and needed a letter of recommendation to complete the application by the next week’s deadline. They were then instructed to write an email to a professor they had last semester, in whose class they had gotten their highest grade, and request a letter of recommendation. The distance and power differential for this situation are moderate, due to the context of the student-teacher relationship described in the instructions. AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 2.4, and a mode of 3. Table 4.20 contains a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

90

Table 4.20 Situation 5: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings Total Number of Responses 20 Little to no potential -1 4 Some potential - 2 6 Moderate potential - 3 9 Considerable potential -4 1 Great potential -5 0

Table 4.21 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

Table 4.21 Situation 5: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground 2 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer

4

# of tokens 1 2 4

Three positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 5 by the AE participants. The most common was strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), which was employed once each by 4 participants. Three of the occurrences expressed a wish to the professor that his or her classes were going well, while 1 expressed hope that the professor himself/herself was well. Strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) was used once each by 2 participants. Both occurrences used the in-group greeting hi. 91

Strategy 3 (intensify interest to hearer) had a single token, in which the adverb ‘quite’ was used to intensify the contribution: “This is going to be quite the academic change for me,” AE 526. Table 4.22 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

Table 4.22 Situation 5: Negative politeness strategies used Negative politeness strategy # of responses containing strategy Strategy 2: Hedge/Question 5 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 11 Strategy 4: Minimize the Imposition, Rx 1 Strategy 5: Give Deference 19 Strategy 6: Apologize 16 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 15 Strategy 10: Go on Record as Incurring a Debt 18

# of tokens 7 11 1 46 23 23 23

Seven negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 5 by the AE participants. The most common was Strategy 5 (Give deference), which was used by 19 participants, for a total of 46 tokens. Thirty-four occurrences either used a respectful address form to begin the email (e.g., Dear Professor) or elevated the hearer in the email, (e.g., “I enjoyed taking your classes and learning from you last semester.” AE 7, “I had such an enjoyable time in your class last semester… I truly learned such a great deal.” AE 10). In 12 occurrences the speaker humbled him or herself (e.g., “Thank you for your consideration” AE 2) or used a closing such as sincerely. 26

The use of the definite article, I believe, also serves to intensify interest to the hearer here as well.

92

Strategy10 (Go on record as incurring debt, or as not indebting H) was used by 18 participants, for a total of 23 tokens. All 23 occurrences expressed how the speaker would be appreciative if the professor could help or expressed thanks in general, e.g., “I would really appreciate it if you can.” AE 3; “…thanks for all you have done for me.” AE 8; “Thank you so much for your help in this matter.” AE 4; “I would be forever grateful.” AE 13. Strategy 6 (Apologize) was used by 16 participants, for a total of 23 tokens. Eleven of the occurrences gave the specific reason for requesting the letter from that particular professor, or that he or she let them know in a timely manner, e.g., “…as I think my performance in your class demonstrates my academic ability” AE 3; “…so I can ask another professor.” AE 2. Nine occurrences apologized for or acknowledged the short notice, “I apologize for not giving you more notice,” AE 14; “ I know that this is very short notice,” AE 9. Three occurrences acknowledged the type of impingement done, e.g., “I know this is a lot of work” AE 11; “I know that you are very busy,” AE 6. Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was used by 15 participants, for a total of 23 tokens. Fourteen occurrences used an imperative to request that the professor let him or her know if he or she could write the letter, e.g., “Please let me know either way.” AE 9. Four used an imperative in connection to further instructions in regards to the letter, e.g., “Please address it to…” AE 16. Fourteen of the18 imperatives were accompanied by the politeness marker please. Five other occurrences used point-of-view distancing to request that the professor write the letter of recommendation by putting the verb in the past tense, e.g., “I was hoping you would be able to write a quick recommendation for me.” AE 9; “I 93

am currently applying to the Education Program and was wondering if you would be willing to write me a letter of recommendation?” AE 10. Strategy 3, (Be pessimistic) was employed once each by 11 participants. Nine of occurrences used the remote possibility marker could or would to make the request for the letter, e.g., “Would you be able to write a letter of recommendation for me?” AE 16; “If possible, could you please write a letter of recommendation to go with my application?” AE 5. Two occurrences employed it in a request for the professor let the speaker know if he or she would be able to write the letter. Strategy 2 (Hedge/question) was employed by 5 participants, for a total of 7 tokens. Each occurrence used a hedge/s as part of the request to have the professor write the letter of recommendation. Four used if clauses to hedge the request, one of them was embedded, e.g., “I…would like to inquire about if you would be willing to write a letter of recommendation for me to get into this program?” AE 15 (see example in proceeding paragraph under Strategy 3 for a regular if clause hedge). Two of the occurrences hedged the request with possibly/possible, while another hedged it with, ‘Do you think,’ e.g., “Do you think it would be possible for you to write one up for me by next Monday,” AE 21. Strategy 4 (Minimize the imposition, Rx) had a single token, in which an adjective was used to minimize the request (“a quick recommendation”, - AE 7).

94

4.8. Situation 6: Texting a friend to say you can’t go to movies In Situation 6, participants were informed that they had movie plans with a friend but that something came up an hour before the movie and they could no longer go. They were then instructed to write a text message to their friend to let them know. Due to the speaker-hearer relationship and the circumstances, both the power differential and distance are low for this situation. AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 3.4, and a mode of 4. Table 4.23 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 4.23 Situation 6: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 1—Little to no potential 2—Some potential 3—Moderate potential 4—Considerable potential 5—Great potential

20 2 3 3 10 2

Table 4.24 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

95

Table 4.24 Situation 6: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 1 Strategy 4: Use of In-Group Language 10 Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common 1 ground Strategy 8: Joke 1 Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 17

# of tokens 1 12 1 1 18

There were 5 positive politeness strategies used in Situation 6 by the AE participants. The most common was strategy 10 (Offer, promise), which was used by 17 participants, for a total of 18 tokens. Eleven of the occurrences were offers to watch the movie another time, while 7 of them were promises to call later and/or explain what had happened. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used by 10 participants, for a total of 12 tokens. Eight occurrences used the in-group greeting hi or hey. Three occurrences used an in-group acronyms or abbreviations, e.g., “TTYL” AE 17. One occurrence used the in-group address form ‘dude’. Strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) had a single token, in which the speaker asserted common knowledge by pointing to the shared knowledge she or he had with the hearer that he or she (i.e. the speaker) would never cancel unless something major had happen.

96

Strategy 8 (Joke) and Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H) also had a single token each. For Strategy 8, a speaker ended the text message teasing the hearer. For Strategy 1, the speaker took notice of the difficult situation the hearer was now in. Table 4.25 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the AE participants in this situation.

Table 4.25 Situation 6: Negative politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 2 Strategy 6: Apologize 20 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 4 Strategy 10: Go On Record As Incurring A Debt 1

# of tokens 2 35 4 1

Four negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 6 by the AE participants. The most common was Strategy 6 (Apologize), which was used by 20 participants, for a total of 35 tokens. Twenty-three of the occurrences were apologies for having to cancel. Nine occurrences gave a reason for having to cancel, e.g., “My daughter is sick and I can’t go.” AE 6; “ I got caught up in something,” AE 15. Three occurrences expressed reluctance or remorse for having to commit the face-threatening act, “I feel terrible.” AE 18; “I feel so bad, I had something come up…” AE 13. Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was used once each by 4 participants. Each occurrence used a verb that indicated that the participants were obligated to cancel, i.e. ‘I have to’ or ‘I am going to have to’. 97

Strategy 2 (Question, hedge) was used once each by 2 participants. In both cases a hedge was used in the speaker’s conveyance that he or she could not go to the movies, e.g., “It looks like I’m not going to be able to go tonight.” AE 5. Strategy 10, (Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H), had a single token in which the speaker acknowledged the debt by asking, “How can I make it up to you?” AE 13.

4.9. Situation 8: A friend asks to use your brand new car In Situation 8, participants were instructed to imagine that one of their close friends asked to borrow their brand new car for an event and that they did not feel comfortable lending it to him or her. They were then asked to write a dialogue between themselves and their friend, in which the friend asks to borrow their car and they give their response. The distance for this situation is low, as the speaker and the hearer are friends; however, as the speaker has something of value that the hearer wants to borrow, the power differential is moderate. The AE participants’ weight of the imposition ratings for this situation had a mean of 3.3, and a mode of 3. It should be noted that for this situation, due to the social dynamics, the positive and negative facework in the participants’ responses was often woven together in a way that was at times difficult to separate. Table 4.26 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

98

Table 4.26 Situation 8: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 1 2—Some potential 4 3—Moderate potential 7 4—Considerable potential 5 5—Great potential 3

Table 4.27 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

Table 4.27 Situation 8: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 2 Strategy 2: Exaggerate 2 Strategy 5: Seek Agreement 1 Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement 11 Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground 1 Strategy 8: Joke 3 Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 8 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 4

# of tokens 2 2 1 19 1 5 9 4

Eight positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 8 by the AE participants. The most common was Strategy 6 (Avoid disagreement), which was used by 11 participants, for a total of 19 occurrences. Fifteen of the occurrences were hedges – seven hedged how they felt about lending the car (e.g. “I just don't feel comfortable letting anyone else drive them [their wheels]” AE 1); 4 occurrences hedged the reason they did not want to lend it (e.g., “I just don’t trust anyone else on the road.” AE 10); 2 99

occurrences hedged an offer, one with an if clause and one with an adverb (e.g., “Maybe I could drive you to meet her parents.” AE 2); 1 occurrence hedged their refusal that they did on basis of a policy he or she had (i.e. “I kind of have this policy that I’m not going to lend it out for a little while.” AE 6); 1 occurrence hedged an imperative to be careful27. Three occurrences avoided/delayed answering the request, e.g., “I’m not sure.” AE 18. One occurrence used token agreement, i.e. seemingly agreed but then said he or she could not lend the car to the hearer: “…I normally would totally trust you with my car, but this time I’d rather not.” AE 14. Strategy 10 (Offer, promise) was used by 8 participants, for a total of 9 tokens, each of which was an offer to drive the hearer to the event. Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) was used once each by 4 participants. One of the occurrences expressed gratitude to the hearer for understanding the response to the request; 1 expressed care and hoped that the friend could find another way to go; 1 reassured them that they thought they were a good driver; and 1 expressed excitement for the participant and their good news of having an event to attend. Strategy 8 (Joke) was used by 3 participants for a total of 5 tokens. Each of the jokes was related to the hearer’s borrowing the car, e.g., “Does this mean you’ve become a way better driver than I remember?” AE 4. Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H) was used once each by 2 participants. In both occurrences the speaker noticed the situation the hearer was placed in and attempted to offer solutions (i.e. taking the bus or asking someone else).

27

The participant ended up letting the hearer borrow the car: “…just be really careful,” AE 10.

100

Strategy 2, (Exaggerate interest, approval, etc.) was also used once each by 2 participants. Both occurrences used ‘totally’ to exaggerate trust or approval of the hearer’s driving skills. Strategy 5 (Seek agreement) had a single token, in which the speaker found something in the utterances of the hearer that he/she could agree on (i.e. the good news that the hearer had an event). Strategy 7 (presuppose/raise/ assert common ground) also had a single token, in which the speaker pointed to a common/shared knowledge he or she had with the hearer about how he/she felt about his/her own car: “You know how I feel about my wheels,” AE 2. Table 4.28 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

Table 4.28 Situation 8: Negative politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 6: Apologize 10 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 2 Strategy 8: State the FTA as a General Rule 4

# of tokens 19 2 4

Three negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 8 by the AE participants. The most common was strategy 6 (Apologize), which was used by 10 participants, for a total of 19 occurrences. Nine of the 19 occurrences were apologies for not loaning the car, e.g., “I’m so sorry.” AE 6. Ten of the occurrences were explanations 101

as to why they could not loan the car, i.e. that it was new or in one case, that other drivers weren’t covered on the insurance28. Strategy 8 (State the FTA as a general rule) was used once each by 4 participants. In each of the 4 occurrences the speaker expressed that he/she had a general rule not to loan the car out, e.g., “I don’t let anyone drive my car.” AE 15. Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was used once each by 2 participants. In 1 occurrence the speaker explicitly expressed in the refusal the inability to loan the car due to circumstance: “I can’t let you borrow my car because of the insurance,” AE 20. In the other occurrence the speaker used the imperative ‘be careful’ to request that the hearer drive carefully in their car29. Additionally, as in section 4.2, there was 1 occurrence of an adverb preceding the an utterance that does not easily fit into any of Brown and Levinson’s strategies but served to prepare the hearer for the reason for the negative response to the request. In this case the speaker said, “No,” and then proceeded to say, “honestly, I am just not comfortable lending it out.” AE 12.

4.10. Situation 10: Let a friend know they were fired In Situation 10, participants were instructed to imagine that they were working for a company and that the owner asked them to fire one of the employees, Andrew, who had worked there a long time and become a close friend of theirs. They were then instructed to write a dialogue in which they were to inform him that he was let go. The distance for 28 29

This reason followed the refusal given under Strategy 8 by AE 15. This participant ended up lending their car to the hearer in the interaction.

102

this situation is low, as the speaker and hearer are close friends; however, the power differential is high, due to the nature of their work relationship. The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 4.6, and a mode of 5. In general, the facework in this situation was very complex, mirroring the complexity of the social dynamics the situation presented. Table 4.29 gives a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 4.29 Situation 10: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 2—Some potential 3—Moderate potential 4—Considerable potential 5—Great potential

1 0 0 5 14

Table 4.30 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation. Table 4.30 Situation 10: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 3 Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground 8 Strategy 9: Assert or Presuppose the Speaker’s 6 Knowledge of and Concern for the Hearer’s Wants Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 10 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 14

103

# of tokens 3 8 6 13 41

Five positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 10 by the AE participants. The most common was Strategy 15 (Give gift to the hearer), which was used by 14 participants, for a total of 41 tokens. Sixteen of the occurrences were expressions of sympathy, e.g., “I am so sorry.” AE 20; “…sorry to see you go.” AE 17. Eight occurrences were complements, e.g., “You have a lot of strengths.” AE 16. Seven expressed that the hearer was wanted or valued as an employee and/or friend, e.g., “I think you are really valuable as an employee.” AE 3; “I have really come to like and appreciate our friendship.” AE 7. Five were expressions of encouragement or comfort, “I’m sure you’ll find a job that is a better fit for you.” AE 16. Three were expressions of understanding, e.g., “I completely understand. I’ve been through it before myself.” AE 4. One occurrence wished the hearer good luck and 1 expressed a desire for continued friendship (i.e. “I hope we can still be friends.” AE 16). Strategy 10 (Offer, promise) was used by 10 participants, for a total of 13 tokens. Twelve of the occurrences offered some type of help in anyway they could or with finding a new job (i.e. a reference or to let the hearer know if they heard of another opening somewhere), e.g., “Please let me know if there is anything I can do” AE 13; “If you need a reference when job hunting I’d be more than happy to be one.” AE 3. One occurrence offered to talk by phone if needed: “Call me later if you want to talk about it.” AE 16. Strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) was used once each by 8 participants. Four of the occurrences pointed to a shared knowledge of problems at the company or with the individual’s work there, e.g., “Andrew, as you know, you’ve had 104

some difficulty in this job.” AE 16; “As you know, the company has been struggling with sales lately.” AE 6. Two pointed to a shared knowledge of how the speaker felt towards Andrew, e.g., “Andrew, you know that I have great respect for you…” AE 3. One pointed to the shared knowledge that the speaker trusted the hearer. One occurrence pointed to the shared knowledge that the speaker was there for the hear: “…you know I’m here for you.” AE 4. Strategy 9 (Assert or presuppose the speaker’s knowledge of and concern for hearer’s wants) was employed once each by 6 participants. In 4 of the occurrences the speaker expressed how they wished they could change the situation, e.g., “I wish I could change it.” AE 10. Two expressed that they already had tried to change the situation, “I really tried to find a way around this.” AE 17. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used once each by 3 participants. In each occurrence the speaker used the in-group greeting hi or hey. Table 4.31 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

Table 4.31 Situation 10: Negative politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 8 Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 1 Strategy 6: Apologize 19 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 19 Strategy 8: State the FTA as a General Rule 1

105

# of tokens 8 1 34 19 1

Five negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 10 by the AE participants. The most common was Strategy 6 (Apologize), which was used by 19 participants, for a total of 34 tokens. Twenty-three of the occurrences indicated reluctance in committing the face-threatening act, e.g., “Unfortunately,” AE 16; “I am sorry to have to say this.” AE 19. Eleven stated the reason for committing the face-threatening act, e.g., “the owner has asked that we cut back…” AE 7; “…it’s just hard times right now and we have to make cutbacks.” AE 18. Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was employed once each by 19 participants. Twelve of the occurrences mentioned the management as the source of the dismissal, e.g., “…the upper management has decided that you have to be let go.” AE 3; “I have been asked by the owner to talk with you, and we have to let you go.” AE 6. Five occurrences did not note the upper management specifically in their dismissal but used an obligatory verb (i.e. ‘I have to’, etc), e.g., “I’m going to have to let you go.” AE 14. One occurrence made the hearer the subject, thus removing the agent: “…you have been let go.” AE 13. One occurrence used an imperative to request that the hearer take a seat in the initial stages of the conversation: “Have a seat.” AE 17. Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect) was used once each by 8 participants. Seven of the occurrences used ‘can I’ to request that the hearer speak with him or her, e.g., “Andrew, can I talk to you?” AE 9. One occurrence used ‘do you mind’: “Do you mind if we talk this afternoon?” AE 5. Strategy 2 (Question, hedge) had a single token, in which an embedded if clause was used in the request that the hearer talk with the speaker (see AE 5 above). 106

Strategy 8 (State the FTA as a general rule) had a single token, in which the speaker pointed to a company policy as the reason for a request he/she made in relation to the firing process, i.e. that it was company policy for someone let go to gather his or her belongings and have a guard escort them out.

4.11. Situation 11: You ask a stranger for directions In Situation 11, participants were asked to imagine that they were tourists in another city and got lost while looking for a bus stop; however, they saw a stranger walking towards them and decided to ask him or her for directions. They were then asked to create a dialogue between themselves and the stranger, in which they asked for directions to the bus stop. The distance for this situation is high, as the speaker and hearer do not know each other; however, it has a low power differential, due to the circumstances and routine nature of the request. The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.4, and a mode of 1. Table 4.32 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 4.32 Situation 11: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 13 2—Some potential 6 3—Moderate potential 1 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great potential 0

107

Table 4.33 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

Table 4.33 Situation 11: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/ Assert Common 5 5 Ground Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 15 21

There were 2 positive politeness strategies used in Situation 11 by the AE participants. The most common was Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), which was employed by 15 participants, for a total of 21 tokens. Seventeen of the occurrences thanked the hearer at the end of the interaction. Four occurrences wished the hearer a good day. Strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) was used once each by 5 participants. In each occurrence the speaker presupposed familiarity with the hearer by using the in-group greeting hi or hey. Table 4.34 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

108

Table 4.34 Situation 11: Negative politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 5 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 7 Strategy 6: Apologize 16

# of tokens 5 7 18

Five negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 11 by the AE participants. The most common was Strategy 6 (Apologize), which was used by 16 participants, for a total of 18 occurrences. Fifteen of the occurrences used the apology ‘Excuse me’ to initiate the interaction. Three occurrences were explanations as to why the request for the information was needed, i.e. that they were new to the area. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was used once each by 7 participants. Six of the occurrences used the remote possibility marker, could, in the request for directions (e.g., Could you tell me where the bus stop is please?” AE 9), while one used would (e.g., “Would you happen to know where the nearest bus stop is?” AE 1). Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect) was used once each by 5 participants. Each occurrence used ‘can you’ in the request for directions, e.g., “Can you tell me how to get to the bus stop?” AE 6.

4.12. Situation 12: Asking to borrow a pen In Situation 12, participants were asked to imagine that they were at the post office mailing a letter when they realized they had forgotten to write the return address on the envelope. They then were informed that they saw someone waiting in line with a pen 109

and decided to ask him or her if they could borrow it. The participants were then asked to write a dialogue between themselves and the person they saw with the pen, in which they ask to borrow it. As the situation occurs between strangers, there is high distance; however, due to the nature of the request there is a low power differential. The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings had mean of 1.4, and a mode of 1. Table 4.35 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 4.35 Situation 12: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 14 2—Some potential 5 3—Moderate potential 0 4—Considerable potential 4 5—Great potential 0

Table 4.36 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

Table 4.36 Situation 12: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/ Assert Common 4 Ground Strategy 8: Joke 1 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 13

110

# of tokens 1 4 1 19

Four positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 12 by the AE participants. The most common was Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), which was employed by 13 participants, for a total of 19 occurrences. Eighteen of the occurrences thanked the hearer at the end of the interaction. One occurrence wished the hearer a good day. Strategy 7 (Presuppose, raise, assert common ground) was used once each by 4 participants. In each of the occurrences the speaker assumed familiarity by using the ingroup greeting hi or hey with the hearer. Strategies 3, (Intensify interest to hearer), and strategy 8 (Joke) each had a single token. For Strategy 3, the adverb ‘totally’ was used to intensify the speaker’s relation of forgetting to write the return address: “I just realize I totally forgot to write the return address,” AE 14. For Strategy 8, the speaker made a joke about the need to always put the return address on the envelope in case the post office decides not to deliver because it is short on postage. Table 4.37 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the AE participants for this situation.

Table 4.37 Situation 12: Negative politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 6 Strategy 2: Hedge/Question 8 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 14 Strategy 4: Minimize the Imposition, Rx 14 Strategy 5: Give Deference 1 Strategy 6: Apologize 16 111

# of tokens 6 8 14 15 1 24

Six negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 12 by the AE participants. The most common was strategy 6 (Apologize), which was employed by 16 participants, for a total of 24 tokens. Twelve of the occurrences used the apology ‘Excuse me’ to initiate the interaction. Another 12 occurrences gave the reason for having to make the request, i.e. that they forgot to write the return address on the envelope. Strategy 4 (Minimize the imposition, Rx) was employed by 14 participants, for a total of 15 tokens. Fourteen of the occurrences minimized the unit of time the pen would be used30, e.g., “for a moment” AE 7; “for just a second?” AE 13. One occurrence used the adverb ‘just’ to minimize what they needed it for, i.e. “I just need to write the return address on here” AE 17. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was employed once each by 14 participants; each occurrence used the remote possibility marker could or would to perform the request, e.g., “…could I borrow your pen for a moment?” AE 7. Strategy 2 (Hedge/question) was used once each by 8 participants; in each occurrence a hedge was used in the request to borrow the hearer’s pen. Five of the occurrences were embedded if clauses, e.g., “Would you mind if I use your pen a second?” AE 4. Two occurrences preceded the request with ‘do you think’, e.g., “…do you think I could borrow your pen for a second?” AE 19. One occurrence used the adverb possibly to hedge the request: “Could I possibly borrow your pen?”.

30

Two of these were additionally minimized by the use of the adverb ‘just’.

112

Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect) was used once each by 6 participants. Five of the occurrence requested use of the pen by means of may or can, e.g., “Can I use your pen for a second?” AE 15; “May I borrow your pen please?” AE 20. One occurrence used ‘do you mind’: “Do you mind if I borrow your pen…?” AE 5. Strategy 5 (Give deference) had a single token, in which the speaker abased him/herself by acknowledging the foolishness of his/her forgetting a pen.

4.13. Summary of American English data The AE data in Chapter 4 indicates that the power differential and type of imposition seemed less important overall, than distance as a factor in predicting the predominance of positive or negative facework in a given situation. In this section, I will review the specific trends within the three areas of distance designated in this study: low, medium, and high. The tables that are included below group the situations according to the type of task performed for comparison and reference purposes: a request, the conveyance of negative information or a negative response, and the conveyance of positive information. The data in Chapter 4 reveals that for situations of low distance, there was more positive facework performed by the AE participants. This was manifest in the greater number of responses containing a positive politeness strategy and the total number of occurrences of positive politeness. There were, however, a few exceptions to this that are important to note. In Situation 10, there were 7 more responses containing a negative politeness strategy; nevertheless, there were five more positive politeness tokens. 113

Situation 6 had more responses that contained a positive politeness strategy, but had 22 more negative politeness tokens. In contrast, the situations that had high distance (i.e. situations 4,11 and 12) contained more negative facework among AE participants. This was illustrated in the greater number of responses that contained a negative politeness strategy and the greater total number of occurrences. Although it could easily and rightly be argued that the situations between strangers in the survey lend themselves more easily to negative facework, even when compared with those situations among close friends or significant others where some type of request is made, there is still more negative facework done by the speaker when addressing a stranger versus a friend or significant other. In the 2 situations that had moderate distance, the dominance of the type of facework preformed was related to the power differential and the rating of the weight of the imposition that the situations had. In Situation 13, which had a low power differential and a low weight of imposition rating (i.e. 1.4 mean, mode of 1), there were more positive politeness strategies used and more occurrences of positive facework. However, in Situation 5, where the power differential was moderate and the weight of imposition rating was also more moderate (i.e. 2.4 mean, 3 mode), negative facework predominated. Table 4.38 provides a summary of the data for situations where a speaker makes a request of the hearer; Table 4.39 summarizes the data for situations where a negative response or information was conveyed; Table 4.40 summarizes the data for the solo situation where positive information was conveyed. Column 1 of the tables states the situation, column 2 indicates the distance for the situation, column 3 indicates the power 114

differential for the situation, and column 4 indicates the mean weight of imposition for the situation. Column 5 gives the total number of times a response contained a positive politeness strategy, while column 6 indicates the total number of positive politeness tokens for the situation. Column 7 gives the total number of times a response contains a negative politeness strategy, while column 8 indicates the total number of negative politeness tokens.

115

Table 4.38 Situations where a request was made of the hearer Situation D P W # of times # of # of times responses PP responses contained any tokens contained any one PP strategy one NP strategy 3: Ask a family L L 1.6 40 40 34 member/signific (54%) ant other to feed dog 4: Borrow a cell H M 2.4 11 11 70 phone from (10.5 stranger %) 5: Ask for a M M 2.4 7 7 85 letter of (5%) recommendation 9: Ask a friend L L 1.4 35 36 5 where they (86.9 bought their %) shoes 11: Ask for H L 1.4 20 26 28 directions (46.4 %) 12: Ask to H L 1.4 19 25 59 borrow a pen (26.9 %) 13: Order a meal M L 1.4 45 64 6 from the usual (91.4 worker %)

116

# of NP tokens 34 (46%) 94 (89.5 %) 134 (95%) 5 (12.2 %) 30 (53.6 %) 68 (73.1 %) 6 (85.6 %)

Table 4.39 Situations where negative information or response was given to hearer Situation D P W # of times # of # of times # of responses PP responses NP contained any tokens contained any tokens one PP strategy one NP strategy 6: Text a friend L L 3.4 30 33 27 42 to say you can’t (44%) (56%) go to the movies 7: Give opinion L L 3.7 48 73 1 1 of friend’s/

(98.6

significant

%)

(1.4%)

other’s haircut 8: Friend asks to L M 3.3 32 borrow new car 10: Let a friend L H 4.6 41 know they are fired

43 (63.2) 71 (53%)

16 48

25 (36.8) 63 (47%)

Table 4.40 Situation where positive information was conveyed to the hearer Situation D P W # of times # of # of times # of responses PP responses NP contained any tokens contained any tokens one PP strategy one NP strategy 1: Email a friend L L 1.3 46 65 1 1 and tell them (91.5 (8.5%) about your %) vacation

Tables 4.41 and 4.42 contain a tally of the total number of times each strategy was employed in the 12 situations. The strategies are listed from the most frequently employed to the least frequently employed, according to the total number of tokens. The 117

column on the right gives the total number of tokens and, in parenthesis, what percentage of the total they constituted. This information will be used in Chapters 7 and 8 for comparison with the RR and RA cultural groups.

Table 4.41 Usage totals of positive politeness strategies for AE Positive politeness strategy # of responses that contained the strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 111 4: Use of In-Group Identity Markers 57 10: Offer, Promise 43 6: Avoid Disagreement 27 1: Notice, attend to H 30 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 17 7: Presuppose/Raise/Assert Common 30 Ground 5: Seek Agreement 13 8: Joke 20 13: Give (or ask for) Reason 21 2: Exaggerate 7 9: Assert or Presuppose the Speakers 6 Knowledge of and Concern for the Hearer’s Wants 12: Include Both Speaker and Hearer 1 in the Activity 11: Be Optimistic 0 14: Assume or Assert Reciprocity 0 Total number of tokens:

118

# of tokens 172 (33.7%) 69 (13.5%) 48 (9.4%) 42 (8.2%) 33 (6.5%) 30 (5.9%) 30 (5.9%) 25 25 21 8 6

(4.9%) (4.9%) (4.1%) (1.6%) (1.2%)

1

(0.2%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 510

Table 4.42 Usage totals of negative politeness strategies for AE Negative politeness strategy # of responses that # of tokens contained the strategy 6: Apologize 112 178 (35.4%) 3: Be Pessimistic 60 61 (12.1%) 10: Go on Record as Incurring a Debt 46 61 (12.1%) 7: Impersonalize S and H 45 53 (10.5%) 5: Give Deference 20 47 (9.3%) 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 41 41 (8.2%) 4: Minimize the Imposition, Rx 26 30 (6.0%) 2: Question, Hedge 25 27 (5.4%) 8: State the FTA as a General Rule 5 5 (1.0%) 9: Nominalize 0 0 (0%) Total number of tokens: 503

119

Chapter 5 Russian Responses and Data Analysis

5.0. Overview of the chapter Chapter 5 contains an analysis of the responses of 20 Russian participants residing in Russia. The participants were recruited through friends, acquaintances and department chairs in Russia, whom I had previously familiarized with my research and background. Twenty-two participants were recruited; however, the last 2 surveys received were not included in the data in order to keep the number of participants equal for each of the cultural groups. The 20 Russian participants that were included in the study ranged in ages from 19–45, with the majority of the participants falling in the 18–29 year-old range. To calculate the data from the surveys, the participants’ responses to Part IA of the survey were tallied according to the type of facework done (i.e. negative or positive) and, within those types, by the strategies employed to perform it. The criterion used for the categorization of each strategy was in accordance with Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, outlined in section 3.3, with the additional modifications stated in 3.4.1. In the following discussion of the data, the situations that lent themselves more readily to the performance of positive politeness are analyzed first (sections 5.1-5.4), 120

while those that lent themselves more easily to negative politeness are discussed last (sections 5.5-5.12). Although this necessitates discussing them out of the actual order they appear in survey, it provides for easier comparison of similar social situations for the reader.

5.1. Situation 1: Emailing a friend In Situation 1, participants were instructed to imagine that they were on vacation and received an email from a close friend asking how their vacation was going. They were then asked to write an email in response to their friend’s inquiry. As the situation takes place between close friends and deals with a routine inquiry, there is low distance and a low power-differential. The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.2, and a mode of 1. Table 5.1 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 5.1 Situation 1: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 16 2—Some potential 4 3—Moderate potential 0 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great Potential 0

Table 5.2 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the RR participants, while Table 5.3 provides a breakdown of the use of positive politeness Strategy 15. There

121

is no discussion of negative politeness in this section, as no negative politeness strategies were used by the RR participants for this situation.

Table 5.2 Situation 1: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to H 2 Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 13 Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 13 Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/Assert 1 Common Ground Strategy 8: Joke 5 Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 7 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 12

# of tokens 2 21 17 2 5 8 26

Table 5.3 Situation 1: Breakdown of positive politeness strategy 15 # of tokens 26 % using strategy Show that the hearer is wanted and loved 7 26.9% Show interest in hearer, asking questions 10 38.5% Express good wishes to the hearer 3 11.5% Give temporal gifts to hearer 1 3.8% Express gratitude for hearer’s outreach 2 7.7% Express assurance of meeting again 3 11.5%

Seven positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 1 by the RR participants. The most common was Strategy 3 (Intensify interest to hearer), which was used by 13 participants, for a total of 21 tokens. Eleven of the occurrences employed an adverb to intensify an adjective, e.g., “Отдых здесь просто супер!” (“Break here is simply super!” RR 19). Eight occurrences used an adverb to intensify a verb, e.g., “Мне 122

всё очень нравится...” (“I really like everything…” RR 2). One occurrence used an exclamation: “Ты даже не представляешь, как здесь красиво!" (“You can’t even imagine how beautiful it is here!” RR 17). One occurrence exaggerated a statement: “Обещаю тысячи фотографий.” (“I promise thousands of pictures.” RR 5). Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used by 13 participants, for a total of 17 tokens. Eleven of the 16 occurrences used the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’). Five occurrences used an in-group address form (i.e. дорогой ‘dear’, друг ‘friend’, дружище ‘buddy’). One occurrence used the slang form класс (‘cool’) of классно. Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) was used by 12 participants, for a total of 26 tokens, making it the strategy with the highest frequency. Ten occurrences showed interest in the hearer by asking questions about the hearer’s well-being or that of his or her family. Seven occurrences communicated to the hearer that they were wanted or loved by expressing that they missed him or her, e.g., “Очень соскучилась.” (“Missed [you] a lot.” RR 17); wished they were there with them e.g., “Жаль, что ты не поехал.” (“It’s a pity that you didn’t go.” RR 1); or by finishing the email with a closing such as с любовью (‘with love’). Three expressed good wishes to the hearer, e.g., “Хорошего дня!” (“[Have] a good day!” RR 1), “Надеюсь всё хорошо!” (“I hope everything is good!” RR 2). Three others expressed assurance of meeting again by closing with до встречи (‘Until the meeting’)31. Two occurrences expressed acceptance of and gratitude to the hearer for his or her email, e.g., “Рада получить весточку от тебя!” (“Happy to receive news from you!” RR 2). One occurrence mentioned buying a gift for the hearer.

31

This is a conventional farewell in Russian.

123

Strategy 10 (Offer, promise) was employed by 7 participants, for a total of 8 tokens. Four of the occurrences offered or promised to meet the friend when they returned and show them pictures; 1 promised to call when home; 1 promised to tell them about the trip when they came; 1 promised pictures; and 1 promised to send pictures and bring souvenirs. Strategy 8 (Joke) was used once each by 5 participants. One occurrence joked about having to return to work; 1 joked about the color of their skin after getting a tan; 1 joked about how things were good but would be better if the hearer were there; 1 joked about the colder weather where the hearer was; and 1 about how the hearer probably envied the speaker. Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H) was used once each by two participants. In each of the cases the speaker took notice of the hearer’s condition and suggested he or she come on vacation as well. Strategy 7 (Presuppose, raise, assert common ground) was used twice by one participant. Both occurrences pointed to a shared knowledge they had of how he or she (i.e., the speaker) loved to eat. One of the occurrences used ты знаешь (‘you know’) and one used конечно (‘of course’) to do so.

5.2. Situation 7: Offering an opinion on a friend or significant other’s haircut In Situation 7, the participants were instructed to imagine that a close friend or significant other had just gotten a new haircut and thought it looked great, while they themselves thought it looked awful. The participants were then asked to write a dialogue 124

in which the close friend or significant other asked if they liked the haircut and they gave their response. Given that this situation occurs between intimates, there is low distance and a low power differential. The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 3.4, and a mode of 4. Table 5.4 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 5.4 Situation 7: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 2 2—Some potential 3 3—Moderate potential 5 4—Considerable potential 6 5—Great potential 4

Table 5.5 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the RR participants. There is no discussion of negative politeness in this section, as there were no negative politeness strategies used by the RR participants for this situation.

Table 5.5 Situation 7: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to H 7 Strategy 5: Seek Agreement 10 Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement 12 Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 1 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer

5

# of tokens 8 18 15 1 5

125

Five positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 7 by the RR participants. The most common was Strategy 5 (Seek agreement), which was used by 10 participants, for a total of 18 tokens. Seven occurrences turned the question back to the hearer and his or her own opinion of the haircut, e.g., “Как ты сама чувствуешь об этом?” (“How do you yourself feel about it?” RR 3); or stated that the hearer’s own opinion was the most important, e.g., “Ну, главное, чтобы тебе нравилось.” (“Well, the important thing is that you like it.” RR 20). Seven occurrences made statements that found something to agree on, for example, that the speaker was happy that the hearer was happy, e.g., “Но если ты довольно, то я рада за тебя.” (“Well, if you are satisfied, then I am happy for you.” RR 14); or how it is always nice to get a new haircut, e.g., “Новый стиль- это всегда интересно!” (“A new style – that is always interesting!” RR 4). Four occurrences asked questions that would lead to more neutral conversational territory, e.g., “А где ты стригся?” (“And where did you get your hair cut?” RR 15), “Хочу тебя спросить вот ещё о чём...” (“I want to ask you about something else…” RR 332). Strategy 6 (Avoid disagreement), was used by 12 participants, for a total of 15 tokens. Nine of the 15 tokens featured token agreement (i.e. agreeing at first but then qualifying the agreement, e.g., “Здорово. Но мне больше нравилась твоя обычная стрижка.” (“Great. But I liked your usual haircut better.” RR 1). Four were hedged opinions, e.g., “Ну, мне кажется, раньше было лучше.” (“Well, it seems to me that it was better before.” RR 10). One was a white lie (i.e. simply telling the hearer it was

32

The participant never finished the utterance.

126

great), and one tried to avoid or put off answering by stating, “сложно сказать…” (“difficult to say” RR 2). Strategy 1, (Notice, attend to H) was used by 7 participants, for a total of 8 tokens. Four of the occurrences noticed the hearer’s haircut and gave suggestions to help him or her, e.g., “...кстати, у меня есть контакты потрясающего парикмахера, можно к нему обратиться в следующий раз,” (“…by the way, I have contact with a tremendous hairdresser, you can reach out to him next time,” RR 2). Four others simply noted the hearer had gotten a haircut but gave no suggestions, e.g., “Ты подстриглась!” (“You got your hair cut!” RR 12). Strategy 15 (Give gifts to hearer) was used once each by 5 participants. Four of the occurrences offered comfort or reassurance to the hearer that he or she still looked fine, that his or her hair would grow, or offered comfort by saying their hair may just be poorly place, i.e., “Ну не расстраивайся, может она просто неудачно уложила твои волосы.” (“Well, don’t be upset, maybe she just didn’t style your hair well.” RR 9). One gave a compliment about how courageous the hearer was to get the cut. Only one participant employed Strategy 10 (Offer, promise), when he or she offered to perhaps like the haircut with time33. There were also 5 occurrences of a phrase, adverb, or if clauses preceding the opinion that do not easily fit into any of Brown and Levinson’s strategies but served to prepare the hearer for the negative opinion of the hair. Three occurrences used если честно (‘if honestly’), one used честно говоря (‘honestly speaking’) and another used 33

This is categorized as Strategy 10 because the participant is recognizing the hearer’s want to have his or her haircut liked and offers to attempt to fulfill that need or desire him or her.

127

не обижайся (‘don’t take offense’) preceding the face-threatening act of giving his or her opinion about the haircut to prepare the hearer.

5.3. Situation 9: Asking a friend where he or she got their shoes In Situation 9, the participants were instructed to imagine that they liked a friend’s pair of shoes and wanted to know where he or she bought them. They were then asked to create a dialogue in which they asked the friend where he/she got them. This situation involved low distance and a low power differential, due to the close relationship presented and the basic nature of the informational request. The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.2, and a mode of 1. Table 5.6 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 5.6 Situation 9: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 16 2—Some potential 2 3—Moderate potential 1 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great potential 0

Table 5.7 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by RR participants for this situation.

128

Table 5.7 Situation 9: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to Hearer 19 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, 3 etc.) Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 9 Strategy 8: Joke 1 Strategy 13: Give Reasons 6 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 6

# of tokens 19 4 1 10 1 7 7

Seven positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 9 by the RR participants. The most common was Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H), which was used once each by 19 participants. In each of the 19 occurrences, the speakers noticed and expressed admiration for the hearer’s shoes. Strategy 4 (Use in-group identity markers) was used by 9 participants, for a total of 10 tokens. Nine of the occurrences used the informal greeting привет (‘hi’), while 1 used the in-group address form дорогая (‘dear’). Strategy 13 (Give reasons) was used by 6 participants, for a total of 7 tokens. In each case, the speaker gave a reason for asking the hearer where he or she bought the shoes (i.e., that they wanted a pair too, that their shoes were old and needed new ones, etc.). Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) was used by 6 participants, for a total of 7 tokens. Two of the occurrences were compliments (unrelated to the shoes). Two occurrences thanked the hearer for the information. One occurrence gave the hearer 129

reassurance (i.e., that they wouldn’t buy the exact same shoes). One expressed interest in spending time together by inviting the hearer to go shopping, and 1 asked how the hearer was doing, to express personal interest. Strategy 2 (Exaggerate: interest, approval, etc.) was used by 3 participants, for a total of 4 tokens34. Two occurrences used the adverb очень (‘very’) to exaggerate how they liked the shoes. One occurrence exaggerated agreement with the hearer’s opinion of the shoes (i.e., after the hearer stated that the shoes were, “суперские, да?” [“super, yes?”], the speaker replied, “Дааа!” [“Yeees!] RR 9); and 1 occurrence exaggerated a reply to an invitation to go shopping together, i.e., “Супер, обязательно!” (“Super, definitely!” RR 9). Strategies 3 (Intensify interest to hearer) and 8 (Joke) each had a single token. In the case of Strategy 3, the participant exaggerated an utterance to intensify it: “Это туфли моей мечты!” (Those are the shoes of my dreams!” RR 11). For strategy 8, the participant joked about their own dilemma with finding larger shoe sizes. Table 5.8 indicates the negative politeness strategy used by the RR participants

34

In this case, utterances about the hearer’s shoes counted in this category only if they were in addition to the utterances speakers made when they first noticed them.

130

Table 5.8 Situation 9: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 1 1

Only 1 negative politeness strategy was used in Situation 9, Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic.) In the sole token, the speaker used a negated future tense interrogative verb construction to ask where the hearer had bought his or her shoes: “Не расскажешь, где купила?” (“You won’t tell me where you bought [them]?” RR 5).

5.4. Situation 13: Order meal at your regular place from the regular worker In Situation 13, the participants were asked to imagine that they were on lunch break and had stopped at their usual eatery, where they encountered the regular worker. They were then asked to write a dialogue between themselves and the worker, in which they ordered lunch. The distance for this situation was moderate, while the power differential was low. The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.1, and a mode of 1. Table 5.9 gives a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 5.9 Situation 13: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 18 2—Some potential 1 3—Moderate potential 2 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great potential 0 131

Table 5.10 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the RR participants for this situation.

Table 5.10 Situation 13: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 1 Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 3 Strategy 8: Joke 3 Strategy 12: Include Both Speaker and Hearer in the 1 Activity Strategy 13: Give Reason 1 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 12

# of tokens 1 4 3 1 1 18

Six positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 13 by the RR participants. The most common was Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), which was used by 12 participants, for a total of 18 tokens. Seven of the occurrences expressed thanks after the order, while 3 expressed thanks after the worker had wished them a good meal. Four occurrences expressed personal interest in the hearer by asking about how he or she was doing or how their weekend went. Two occurrences communicated that the hearer was wanted or valued by stating that is was nice to see him or her or that they needed to stop in again during their shift. Two occurrences were compliments to the eatery, which included the hearer, e.g., “Ах да, у вас всё свежее” (“Ah, yes, everything is fresher here,”35 RR 12).

35

Literally translated, “Ах да, у вас всё свежее,” means, “Ah, yes, at you all everything is fresher”.

132

Strategies 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used by 3 participants, for a total of 4 tokens. Three of the occurrences used ellipses in ordering their food, e.g., мне как обычно (‘as usual for me’). One occurrence used the in-group form of address привет (‘hi’)36. Strategy 8 (Joke) was used once each by 3 participants. One joke was related to the speaker and hearer meeting there; 1 was related to giving the perfect change; and 1 was related to ordering, i.e., “...чем Вы нас сегодня будете угощать?” (“…what will you treat us with today?” RR 11). Strategies 1 (Notice, attend to H), 12 (Include both speaker and hearer in the activity), and 13 (Give reasons), were each used only once. For Strategy 1, the speaker noticed the condition of the worker and recommended rest. For Strategy 12, the participant included the hearer in the act of ordering, i.e., “давайте попробуем...” (“let us have…”37 RR 17). For Strategy 13, the speaker indicated at the end of the order that his or her lunch break was short and thus, he or she had to run (i.e., to give the reason why he or she could not stay and talk). Table 5.11 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the RR participants for this situation.

36

The only other pronoun used in the sentence was вас (‘you’- accusative case), in “так приятно всегда видеть вас,” (“how nice to always see you,” RR 14). When вас is not capitalized it refers to you-plural in Russian. Since there are no other indicators of formal or inform address in the sentence, nor of any other participant in the interaction other than the speaker and hearer, the question of formality is somewhat ambiguous here. 37 There was no indication in the interaction that the speaker was accompanied by another person, as Вы (‘you’ second person singular, formal) was used and not вы (you- plural).

133

Table 5.11 Situation 13: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 1 1 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 15 17

There were only two negative politeness strategies used in Situation 13 by the RR participants. However, Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H), which was used by 15 participants, for a total of 17 tokens, was one of the most commonly used forms of facework by the participants. Ten of the 17 occurrences were impersonal verb constructions used to order, i.e., either мне (‘to me’) followed by the order, or мне можно (‘is it possible to me’) followed by the order. The other 7 occurrences used imperatives –5 used the perfective form to place the order (4 of which were accompanied by пожалуйста [‘please’]), 1 used a perfective form to request that the worker take the money, and 1 used a perfective form to request that the worker tell more about a particular food, i.e., “Подскажите…” (“Tell [me]…” RR 12). Strategy 3, Be pessimistic, was only used by a single participant, in which the conditional was used to place the order (i.e. “Я хотел бы купить,” [“I would like to buy”] RR 6), thus it was evidently an outlier.

5.5. Situation 3: Ask a roommate or family member to feed your dog In Situation 3, the participants were told to imagine that they had forgotten to feed their dog and were instructed to write a text message to a roommate or family member, asking them to feed the dog for them. The distance and power differential are low for this 134

situation, due to the nature of the relationship between the speaker and hearer. The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 2.3, and a mode of 1.538. Table 5.12 gives the breakdown of the ratings.

Table 5.12 Situation 3: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 7 2—Some potential 3 3—Moderate potential 7 4—Considerable potential 3 5—Great potential 0

Table 5.13 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the RR participants for Situation 3.

Table 5.13 Situation 3: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 4: Use In-Group Identity Markers 12 Strategy 8: Joke 1 Strategy 13: Give Reasons 16 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 8

# of tokens 16 1 16 8

Four positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 3 by the RR participants. The most common was Strategy 13 (Give reason), which was used once each by 16 participants. Each of the occurrences indicated the reason why the speaker needed to ask 38

Although the directions stated that the family member or roommate was still home, one participant acted as if the hearer had to stop by the speaker’s place to feed the dog.

135

the roommate or family member to feed the dog (i.e., that he or she had forgot, didn’t have time, or that the dog was hungry). Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was employed by 12 participants, for a total of 16 tokens. Ten of the occurrences used the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’). Four occurrences used the in-group slang плиз39 (‘please’- transliterated into Russian). Two occurrences used in-group forms of address, i.e., “милый” (“sweetie” RR 11) and “сестричка” (“sister” –the diminutive, RR 4). Strategy 15 (Give gifts to hearer) was used once each by 8 participants. In each of the 8 occurrences the participants thanked the hearer at the end of the text. Strategy 8 (Joke) had a single token, in which the speaker made a joke about the dog dying from hunger. Table 5.14 indicates the negative politeness strategies used in Situation 3 by the RR participants.

Table 5.14 Situation 3: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 2 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 3 Strategy 4: Minimize Imposition, Rx 1 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 15

# of tokens 2 3 1 15

Four negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 3 by the RR participants. The most common was Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H), which was used 39

One of the occurrences spelt it плз.

136

once each by 15 participants. In each case, a perfective imperative was used to request that the hearer feed the dog. Thirteen of the occurrences were accompanied by the politeness marker ‘пожалуйста’ ‘please’ or ‘плиз’ ‘please’. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was used once each by 3 participants. Two of the occurrences used interrogative conditional tense constructions to make the request, e.g., “Могла бы ты покормить моего кота?” (“Could you feed my cat?” RR 17), while 1 used a negated interrogative conditional tense construction to make the request, i.e., “не мог бы ты его покормить...?” (“couldn’t you feed him…?” RR 8). Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect) was used once each by 2 participants. One occurrence used the future of ‘to be able to’, to make the request: “ты сможешь, плиз?” (“Will you be able to, please?” RR 12). The other occurrence used “у тебя есть возможность” (“at you exists the opportunity,” RR 2) to make the request. Strategy 4 (Minimize the imposition, Rx) had a single token, in which the speaker minimized the imposition: “Есть просьба небольшая...” (“I have a small request…,” RR 9).

5.6. Situation 4: Borrowing a cell phone from a stranger In Situation 4, participants were instructed to imagine that they had arranged to meet a friend at a particular location but had arrived 30 minutes late due to traffic; their friend was no longer there. They were also informed that they had forgotten their cell phone. They were then asked to write a dialogue between themselves and a stranger, in which they asked the stranger if they could borrow his or her cell phone to call their 137

friend. As the situation occurs between strangers, it presents high distance. Additionally, as the participant has a non-routine request to borrow something from the hearer, there is a moderate power differential. The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 2.8, and a mode of 1. Table 5.15 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 5.15 Situation 4: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 5 2—Some potential 4 3—Moderate potential 4 4—Considerable potential 4 5—Great potential 3

Table 5.16 indicates the positive politeness strategies used in this situation by RR participants.

Table 5.16 Situation 4: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses # of responses containing strategy Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to the hearer 1 Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common 1 ground Strategy 8: Joke 1

# of tokens 1 1 1

Three positive politeness strategies were each used once in Situation 4 by the RR participants: Strategy 3 (Intensify interest to the hearer), Strategy 7 138

(Presuppose/raise/assert common ground), and Strategy 8 (Joke). For Strategy 3, the discourse marker, “Вы знаете” (“You know” RR 15) was used to draw the hearer into the conversation. For Strategy 7, the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’) was employed40, presupposing familiarity. For Strategy 8, a joke was made about how the speaker would not steal the phone. Table 5.17 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the RR participants for this situation.

Table 5.17 Situation 4: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 2 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 14 Strategy 4: Minimize Imposition, Rx 8 Strategy 5: Give Deference 1 Strategy 6: Apologize 20 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 6 Strategy 10: Go On Record As Incurring A Debt 12

# of tokens 2 17 8 1 37 7 17

Seven negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 4 by the RR participants. The most common was Strategy 6 (Apologize), which was used by all 20 of the participants and had a total of 37 tokens. Twenty of the occurrences gave the reason for committing the face-threatening act (i.e., that they forgot their phone and/or needed to call a friend). Seventeen occurrences were apologies, e.g, Извините (‘Excuse [me]’), 40

The only other indicator of formality in the interaction on part of the speaker was not informal. When requesting help the speaker said, “Помогите мне...” (“Help me…” RR 10), with the imperative in the second person singular formal form. Therefore, the use of the in-group greeting hi conflicts with the speaker’s later use of formality.

139

Простите (‘Forgive [me]’) – 11 were used to initiate the interaction, while 6 of the apologies occurred after the initiation of the interaction. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was used by 14 participants, for a total of 17 tokens. In each of the 17 occurrences a negated interrogative verb construction was used to make a request – 13 of the occurrences used a negated interrogative conditional verb construction, e.g., “Не могли бы Вы одолжить мне свой?” (“Couldn’t you loan me yours?” RR 18), while 4 used a negated interrogative perfective future tense verb construction, e.g., “Вы мне свой не одолжите позвонить,” (“You won’t loan me yours to call,” RR 7). Strategy 10 (Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H) was used by 12 participants, for a total of 17 tokens. Thirteen of the occurrences expressed gratitude they had toward the hearer– 12 occurrences occurred at the end of the interaction, e.g., “Спасибо Вам большое за отзывчивость!” (“Thank you so much for the responsiveness!” RR 2), “Спасибо, огромное!!!!!!” (“Many thanks!!!!!!” RR 14); while 1 occurred prior to the hearer’s response: “Я буду вам очень благодарна.” (I will be very grateful to you.” RR 14). Four occurrences offered to pay for the call. Strategy 4 (Minimize imposition, Rx) was used once each by 8 participants. Four of the occurrences minimized the time the call would take, e.g., на минутку (‘for a minute’- with minute in the diminutive form), короткий звонок (‘a short call’). Three occurrences stated that only one call would be made or that the call was local. One occurrence minimized the purpose of the call by using ‘только’, (‘just’): “…только узнать где человек сейчась?” (“…just to know where someone is now?” RR 13). 140

Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was used by 6 participants, for a total of 7 tokens. Five of the occurrences used the impersonal interrogative verb construction можнo (‘is it possible’) followed by the request to use the phone. One used an impersonal verb construction to request the hearer’s time: “У Вас найдётся для меня пара минут?” (literally – “At you a couple minutes will find themselves for me?” RR 12). One occurrence used a perfective imperative, accompanied by пожалуйста (‘please’) to request help after the interaction began, but before the specific request: “Помогите мне, пожалуйста.” (“Help me, please.” RR 10). Strategy 1 (Be indirect) was used once each by 2 participants. In each case the participant used the indirect speech act, можно я (‘can I’), to request use of the phone. Strategy 5 (Give deference) had only one token, in which the speaker humbled him or herself and elevated the hearer by stating, “Вы очень добры!” (“You are very kind!” RR 12).

5.7. Situation 5: Asking for a Letter of Recommendation In Situation 5, participants were asked to imagine that they were applying for an academic program and needed a letter of recommendation to complete their application by the next week’s deadline. They were then instructed to write an email to a professor, whom they had had last semester, in whose class they got their highest grade, to request a letter of recommendation. The distance and power differential are moderate for this situation, due to the context of the student-teacher relationship described in the situation’s

141

instructions. The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 2.1, and a mode of 2. Table 5.18 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 5.18 Situation 5: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 6 2—Some potential 7 3—Moderate potential 6 4—Considerable potential 1 5—Great potential 0

Table 5.19 indicates the negative politeness strategies used in Situation 5 by the RR participants. There is no discussion of positive politeness in this section, as there were no positive politeness strategies employed by the RR participants in this situation.

Table 5.19 Situation 5: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 1 Strategy 2: Hedge/Question 5 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 13 Strategy 4: Minimize the Imposition, Rx 1 Strategy 5: Give Deference 17 Strategy 6: Apologize 7 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 9 Strategy 10: Go on Record as Incurring a Debt 16

142

# of tokens 1 5 15 1 30 11 10 21

Eight negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 5 by the RR participants. The most common was Strategy 5 (Give deference), which was used by 17 participants, for a total of 30 tokens. Twenty-seven of the occurrences elevated the hearer – 22 of those used the respectful opening Уважаемый (‘Respected’) or closing С уважением (‘With respect’) in the email41, and 5 were complements that elevated the professor, e.g., “Хотел бы отметить, что Ваш курс был очень интересным и увлекательным, особенно...” (“I would like to note that your course was very interesting and fascinating, especially…” RR 6), Ваша занятия были очень познавательными...” (“Your lectures were very informative…” RR 2). Three of the occurrences humbled the speaker, e.g., “Я также очень благодарен Вам, за то что Вы так высоко оценили моё знание и успехи в изучение.” (“I am also very grateful to you, that you so highly evaluated my knowledge and success in learning.” RR 3). Strategy 10 (Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H) was used by 16 participants, for a total of 21 tokens. Seventeen of the occurrences expressed thanks, thanks in advance, or that they would be thankful, at the end of the email, e.g., “Спасибо.” (“Thanks” RR 9), “Заранее благодарю Вас!” (“I thank you in advance!” RR 4), “Была бы Вам очень признательна.” (I would be very grateful to you.” RR 1). Two expressed the appreciation he or she would have if the hearer would agree to write the letter of recommendation just before the close of the email, e.g., “Я была бы очень признательна, если б вы согласились помочь мне.” (“I would be very grateful if you would agree to help me.” RR 13). One occurrence expressed thanks he or she would have 41

These are conventionalized openings and closings in Russian written correspondence used to show respect.

143

when making the core request for the letter: “Я буду очень вам благодарна, если вы сможете помочь мне в этом и написать рекомендательное письмо для меня.” (“I will be very thankful to you if you will be able to help me with this and write a letter of recommendation for me.” RR 10). One occurrence expressed thanks he or she would have for the hearer’s reply. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was used by 13 participants, for a total of 15 tokens. Five occurrences used an interrogative conditional verb construction to request the letter and/or that the letter was done by the due date, e.g., “…хотела бы попросить вас написать мне рекомендательное письмо,”42 (I would like to ask you to write me the letter of recommendation,” RR 13). Eight occurrences used a negated interrogative conditional tense construction to request the letter and/or that the letter be written by the due date, e.g., “Не могли бы Вы мне помочь подать заявку на академическую программу.” (“Couldn’t you help me submit the application for the academic program.” RR 15). Two occurrences used a negated future tense verb construction to request the letter, e.g., “Вас не затруднит написать его?” (“It will not complicate you to write it?” RR 20). Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was used by 9 participants, for a total of 10 tokens. Seven of the occurrences used perfective imperatives, 5 of those were accompanied by the politeness marker пожалуйста (‘please’) – 6 of the imperatives were used as follow-ups to the original request, either for giving further directions or requesting that the hearer let them know if they could write the letter, while 1 participant 42

Preceding the request in this sentence, the speaker explained that he/she needed a letter of recommendation, following the request, in the same sentence, the speaker states when he/she needs it by.

144

used the imperative to make the core request. Two of the occurrences used point-of-view distancing by putting the verb in the past tense to request the letter, e.g., “Я подумала, что вы могли бы мне помочь с этим.” (“I thought that you could help me with that.” RR 11); One used point-of-view distancing as a prelude to making the request, i.e., “...хотела обратиться к Вам с просьбой.” (“…I wanted to turn to you with a favor.” RR 11). Strategy 6 (Apologize) was used by 7 participants, for a total of 11 tokens. Four of the occurrences gave a reason for asking that particular professor to write the letter43, e.g., “Думаю, у Вас, как ни у кого больше, получиться написать его глубоко и объективно.” (“I think that for you, like no one else, it will work to write it deep and objectively” RR 20). Four occurrences admitted the impingement, e.g., “У меня к Вам огромная просьба.” (“I have a very big favor”44 RR 18). Two expressed reluctance in committing the face-threatening act, e.g., “К сожалению, сроки предоставления документов достаточно ограничены...” (“Unfortunately, the time period for providing the documents is limited…” RR 6). One occurrence apologized for bothering the hearer: “Прошу прощения за беспокойство.” (“I ask forgiveness for the trouble.” RR 6). Strategy 2 (Hedge/question) was used once each by 5 participants. Two of the occurrences used an if clause to hedge the main request for the letter of recommendation, while 1 used an if clause to request it by the given date, e.g., “Мог бы я попросить Вас, если Вы считаете это уместным, предоставить мне Ваше рекомендательное

43

For this situation I did not count the speaker saying that they needed the letter of recommendation because it was necessary information for the hearer to carry out the task. 44 Literally, it translates, “I have a big favor to you”.

145

письмо...” (“Could I ask of you, if you deem it appropriate, to provide me a letter of recommendation…” RR 3). Two occurrences hedged the main request using the particle ли (‘whether’), e.g., “Не затруднит ли вас написать рекомендательное письмо...” (“It won’t complicate [particle whether] you to write the letter of recommendation…” RR 16). Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect) and Strategy 4 (Minimize the imposition Rx) had 1 token each. In the case of Strategy 1, an indirect request was used to ask for the letter of recommendation: “Могу ли я попросить о нём Вас?45” (“Can I ask it of you?” RR 5). For Strategy 4, an adjective was used to minimize the requested: “Я обращаюсь к Вам с небольшой просьбой.” (“I turn to you with a little request.” RR 4).

5.8. Situation 6: Texting a friend to say you can’t go to the movies In Situation 6, participants were instructed to imagine that they had movie plans with a friend but that something came up an hour before the show, so they could no longer go. They were then asked to write a text message to their friend, letting them know they could not attend. Due to the close speaker-hearer relationship and the type of scenario, there is low distance and a low power differential for this situation. The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 3.4, and a mode of 4. Table 5.20 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

45

The particle ли (‘whether’) adds additional politeness that does not translate into English in this sentence and is one of the two occurrences of it recorded in negative politeness Strategy 2 above.

146

Table 5.20 Situation 6: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 1 2—Some potential 2 3—Moderate potential 5 4—Considerable potential 7 5—Great potential 5

Table 5.21 indicates the positive politeness strategies used in Situation 6 by the RR participants.

Table 5.21 Situation 6: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 12 Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 16 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 3

# of tokens 14 16 3

Three positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 6 by the RR participants. The most common was strategy 10 (Offer, promise), which was employed once each by 16 participants. Seven of the occurrences were offers to go to the movies another day; 7 promised to explain what happened; 1 occurrence promised to make things right; and 1 was a promise to call. Strategy 12 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used by 12 participants, for a total of 14 tokens. Eleven of the occurrences used the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’). Two used the in-group address form дорогой or дорогая (‘dear’-the masculine and 147

feminine singular forms). One occurrence used an abbreviation, i.e., ЧП, which is short for чрезвычайное происшествие (‘emergency incident’). Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) was only used once each by 3 participants. One occurrence expressed thanks at the end of the text. One expressed love at the end of the text: “Люблю.” (‘I love [you]” RR 14). One expressed concern that the hearer not be offended: “Не обижайся!” (“Don’t be offended!” RR 18). Table 5.22 indicates that negative politeness strategies used by the RR participants for Situation 6.

Table 5.22 Situation 6: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 6: Apologize 18 29 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 4 4

Two negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 6 by the RR participants. The most common was Strategy 6 (Apologize), which was employed by 18 participants, for a total number of 29 tokens. Sixteen of the occurrences were apologies for not being able to go, e.g., “Прости,” (“Forgive [me],” RR 12), “Я очень извиняюсь...” (“I am very sorry…” RR 9), “Извини,” (“I’m sorry,46” RR 18). Ten occurrences gave the reason for having to commit the face-threatening act (i.e., that some type of extenuating circumstance came up). Three expressed reluctance in the committing

46

Literally translated this means ‘Excuse [me]’. However, in this context the best translation of the meaning conveyed is ‘I am sorry.’

148

of the face-threatening act (i.e., saying that they could not go) by using к сожалению (‘unfortunately’). Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was used once each by 4 participants. Each of the 4 occurrences used the impersonal verb construction у меня не получится/не получается47 (‘it won’t/doesn’t work for me’) or не получится (‘it won’t work’) to indicate that they could not make it to the movies.

5.9. Situation 8: A Friend Asks to Use Your Brand New Car In Situation 8, participants were instructed to imagine that one of their close friends asked to borrow their brand new car for an event and that they did not feel comfortable lending it to him or her. They were then asked to write a dialogue between themselves and their friend, in which their friend asked to borrow their car and they give their response. The distance for this situation is low, as the speaker and the hearer are close friends: however, as the speaker has something of value that the hearer wants to borrow, the power differential is moderate. The RR participants’ weight of the imposition ratings had a mean of 3.4, and a mode of 4. It should be noted, that for this situation, due to the social dynamics, the positive and negative facework in the participants’ responses was often interwoven in a way that was at times difficult to separate. Table 5.23 indicates the breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

47

The first verb is perfective, while the second is imperfective.

149

Table 5.23 Situation 8: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 0 2—Some potential 6 3—Moderate potential 4 4—Considerable potential 7 5—Great potential 3

Table 5.24 indicates the positive politeness strategies used in Situation 8 by the RR participants.

Table 5.24 Situation 8: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 2 Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 2 Strategy 4: Use of In-Group Identity Markers 3 Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement 8 Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common 3 ground Strategy 8: Joke 3 Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 7 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 1

# of tokens 2 2 3 11 3 3 7 1

Eight positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 8 by the RR participants. The most common was Strategy 6 (Avoid disagreement), which was used by 8 participants, for a total of 11 tokens. Seven of the occurrences utilized hedges – 4 inserted a hedge in the answer to the request (e.g., “...наверное не получится,” […it probably will not work out,”] RR 15), 2 hedged the reasons they did not want to loan the 150

car (e.g., “просто пока боюсь за неё…” [“it’s just a still afraid for it”] RR 9), and 1 hedged an offer. Three occurrences offered token agreement (i.e., seemingly agreed to loan the car but then refused), e.g., “я бы с удовольствием, но она новая у дорогая” (I would with pleasure, but it is new and expensive” RR 12). One avoided answering at first: “Я не уверена …” (“I’m not sure..”- RR 12). Strategy 10 (Offer, promise) was used once each by 7 participants. Each of occurrences offered to personally help the friend after the refusal in some way, e.g., give them a ride or offer to lend the hearer his or her older car. Strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) was employed once each by 3 participants. In each of the 3 occurrences the speaker pointed to the shared knowledge that the car was new. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used one each by 3 participants. Each of the occurrences used the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’). Strategy 8 (Joke) was also used once each by 3 participants. Two occurrences joked about how the speaker him/herself wanted to use it. One occurrence joked about how the speaker had to always have it in eyesight. Strategy 3 (Intensify interest to hearer) was used once each by 2 participants. Each of the occurrences used the conversational tag ты знаешь/знаешь (‘you know’) to draw the hearer in. Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H) was also used once each by 2 participants. Each of the occurrences suggested a way to solve the hearer’s need for a car after indicating

151

that it would not work to borrow his or hers, e.g., “возьми лучше машину в ренте” (“better to rent a car” RR 13). Lastly, Strategies 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) had a single token, in which the speaker reassured the hearer that they trusted him or her after refusing the request: “не то чтобы я тебе не доверяю” (“it’s not that I don’t trust you” RR 9). Table 5.25 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by RR participants in situation 8.

Table 5.25 Situation 8: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 6: Apologize 15 23 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 9 9

Two negative politeness strategies were used by the RR participants in Situation 8. Strategy 6 (Apologize) was used by 15 of the participants, for a total number of 23 tokens. Thirteen of the occurrences gave the reason for the refusal, e.g., “муж будет против” (“my husband will be against it” RR 13), “меня много дел и время очень дорого” (I have a lot to do and time is very precious” RR 15), “эта машина новая” (the car is new” RR 10). Nine were apologies for not being able to lend the hearer the car. One occurrence expressed reluctance in the refusal by using к сожалению (‘unfortunately’).

152

Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was used once each by 9 participants. Five of the occurrences used не смогу (‘I will not be able to’) or не могу (‘I cannot’) to indicate that they had to refuse. Three occurrences used the impersonal verb construction не получится (‘it will not work’) to make the refusal. One occurrence explicitly stated that the bank would not allow it, thus making the refusal impersonal: “Так что банк не позволит мне это сделать.” (“ So the bank will not allow me to do that.” RR 3). 5.10. Situation 10: Let a friend know they were fired In Situation 10, participants were asked to imagine that they had been working at a company for several years and that the owner asked them to fire one of the employees, Andrey, who had become a close friend of theirs. They were then instructed to write a dialogue in which they were to inform their close friend, Andrey, that he had been let go. Due to the close friendship, this situation presents low distance; however, because of the nature of their work relationship, it has a high power differential. The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 4, and a mode of 5. Table 5.26 indicates the breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 5.26 Situation 10: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 2 2—Some potential 1 3—Moderate potential 1 4—Considerable potential 7 5—Great potential 9

153

Table 5.27 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the RR participants for this situation.

Table 5.27 Situation 10: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 18 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to H 2 Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 6 Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground 6 Strategy 9: Assert or Presuppose the Speaker’s 7 Knowledge of and Concern for the Hearer’s Wants Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 8 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 13

# of tokens 2 1 6 7 7 11 30

Seven positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 10 by the RR participants. The most common was strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), which was used by 13 participants, for a total of 30 tokens. Nine of the occurrences expressed encouragement or comfort, e.g., “долго без работы ты не задержится, будь уверен!” (you won’t be long without work, be sure of that!” RR 2). Six expressed that the hearer was wanted or valued by stating that the hearer was a friend and/or loved, e.g., “ты мой друг” (“you are my friend” RR 9), “ты мой большой друг и я очень люблю тебя,” (“you are my great friend and I love you very much,” RR10). Five of the occurrences expressed sympathy, e.g., “Мне правда, очень жаль..” (I am truly very sorry.” RR 17). Three expressed a desire for continued friendship, e.g., “Надеюсь, это не повлияет на нашу дружбу,” (I hope this won’t affect our friendship,” RR 1). Two expressed a wish that the hearer did not get offended, e.g., “Не обижайся” (“Don’t be offended” RR 16). 154

One was a complement to the hearer about them being a good worker. One expressed understanding: “Да я понимаю, как это всё неприятно.” (“Yes, I understand how unpleasant this all is.” RR 18). One was a good wish for their endeavors: “Всего тебе хорошего!” (“All the best to you!” RR 12). One showed care by convincing management to let the hearer resign. One expressed general interest in the hearer by asking how he or she was at the beginning of the interaction. Strategy 10 (Offer, promise) was used by 8 participants, for a total of 11 tokens. Six of the occurrences offered or promised specific help with finding new employment, e.g., by writing a letter of recommendation or recommending them to another company. Two occurrences promised that they would do all they could do to help. Two offered help in a general way. One occurrence promised to call later. Strategy 748 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) was used by 6 participants, for a total of 7 tokens. Four pointed to a shared knowledge that the speaker and hearer had of the cutbacks that were going on in the company or the progress they were trying to make in the company, i.e., “...ты знаешь, что мы делаем всё возможное для развития нашей фирмы.” (“…you know that we are doing all we can for the development of our company.” RR 12). Two occurrences pointed to the shared knowledge of the kind of relationship they had, e.g., “..ты знаешь, что мы с тобой друзья.” (“...you know that we are friends.” RR 12). One occurrence pointed to the shared knowledge the hearer and speaker had that the speaker did not decide everything

48

It should be noted that for positive politeness Strategy 7 the utterances often counted for an additional strategy due to the dual purpose of their content.

155

in the company: “Ты знаешь, не я всё решаю в нашей компаний...” (“You know that I don’t decide everything in our company…” RR 20). Strategy 9 (Assert or presuppose the speaker’s knowledge of and concern for the hearer’s wants) was employed once each by 7 participants. In each of the 7 occurrences, the participants communicated that they had tried to change the management’s mind or expressed that they would change it if they could, to show that they too wanted the hearer to be able to remain in the company. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used once each by 6 participants. Five of the occurrences used the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’), while 1 used the in-group greeting здравствуй (‘hi’). Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H) was used once each by 2 participants. In both occurrences the speaker toke notice of the hearer’s situation (i.e., being fired) and gave advice – 1 suggested taking a break and traveling, another suggested the hearer go home and rest a bit before deciding what to do further. Strategy 3 (Intensify interest to hearer) had a single token. In the one occurrence the conversational tag ты знаешь (‘you know’) was used to create solidarity with the hearer. Table 5.28 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the RR participants in this situation.

156

Table 5.28 Situation 10: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 18 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 6: Apologize 17 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 15

# of tokens 21 16

Two negative politeness strategies were used by the RR participants in Situation 10. Strategy 6 (Apologize) was used by 17 participants, for a total of 21 tokens. Fourteen of the occurrences expressed regret in committing the face-threatening act, e.g., “К сожалению…” (“Unfortunately…” RR 1), “Мне очень не хочется тебе это говорить.” (I really don’t want to [have to] tell you this.” RR 9), “…не знаю как тебе сказать,” (“…I don’t know how to tell you,” RR 13). Seven of the occurrences gave the reason for why they were being let go, i.e., that there were cutbacks or that their work was not up to par. Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was used by 15 participants, for a total of 16 tokens. Thirteen of the occurrences impersonalize the firing by stating that the company management told them to let the hearer go, e.g., “...начальник попросил меня сказать тебе, что тебя увольняют.” (“…the boss asked me to tell you that they are dismissing you.” RR 9), “...но хозяин сказал, что ты освобождён от занимаемой должности,” (“..but the boss told me that you are relieved from your position,” RR 15). One occurrence did not mention the company leadership in the firing but used a verb the indicated that the speaker was obligated to do so: “Я вынуждена сообщить тебе, что ты уволен.” (“I am obligated to tell you that you have been dismissed.” RR 10). One occurrence impersonalized the firing by removing an agent: “ты попадаешь под 157

сокращение,” (“you fall under the cutbacks,”) RR 17. One occurrence was used a perfective imperative in the initial stages of the interaction, “подойди сюда” (“come here” RR 13) to request that the hearer come talk to the speaker.

5.11. Situation 11: You Ask a Stranger for Directions In Situation 11, participants were asked to imagine that they were tourists in another city and had gotten lost while looking for a bus stop and that they saw someone walking towards them, whom they decided to ask for directions. They were then asked to create a dialogue between themselves and the stranger in which they asked for directions to the bus stop. The distance for this situation is high, as the situation takes place between strangers; however, there is a low power differential, due to the circumstances of the situation and basic nature of the request. The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.4, and a mode of 1. Table 5.29 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings. Table 5.29 Situation 11: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 14 2—Some potential 5 3—Moderate potential 1 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great potential 0

Table 5.30 indicates the positive politeness strategies used in Situation 11 by RR participants. 158

Table 5.30 Situation 11: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/ Assert 1 Common Ground Strategy 8: Joke 1 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 14

# of tokens 1 1 15

Three positive politeness strategies were used by the RR participants in Situation 11. The most common was strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), which was employed by 14 participants, for a total of 15 tokens. Thirteen of the occurrences expressed thanks to the hearer at the end of the interaction. One occurrence complimented the hearer on their city: “…отличный у Вас городок,” (“…you have a wonderful town,” RR 8). One occurrence wished the hearer a good day. Strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) had a single token, in which the speaker presupposed familiarity by the use of the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’)49. Strategy 8 (Joke) also had a single token, in which the speaker joked about getting lost. Table 5.31 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the RR participants.

49

It should be noted that this participant also used the informal second person singular form of the imperative when asking for directs. It could be that the participant imagined that the stranger they asked for directions was younger, and thus he or she felt it appropriate to use the informal address and imperative in the interaction.

159

Table 5.31 Situation 11: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 12 Strategy 6: Apologize 15 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 7

# of tokens 13 19 8

Three negative politeness strategies were used by the RR participants in Situation 11. The most common was Strategy 6 (Apologize), which was employed by 15 participants, for a total of 19 tokens. Ten occurrences used the apology извините (‘excuse [me]’) to initiate the interaction. Two occurrences apologized after the initiation of the interaction. Seven occurrences gave the reason for why they had to ask directions, i.e., that they were lost and/or not from there. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was used by 12 participants, for a total of 13 tokens. All 13 occurrences used a negated interrogative verb construction. Ten of the occurrences requested directions – 8 used the negated future tense, e.g., “Вы не подскажете, как я могу доехать до улицы Ленина?” (“Will you not tell me how to get to Lenin street?” RR 1), while 3 used the negated imperfective condition, e.g., “Вы не могли бы подсказать мне, как попасть на остановку.” (“Could’t you tell me how to get to the stop.” RR 3). Two of the occurrences asked for help using a negated conditional construction, e.g., “Не могли бы Вы мне помочь.” (“ Couldn’t you help me.” RR 17). Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was used by 7 participants, for a total of 8 occurrences. Seven of the occurrences used a perfective imperative to request

160

directions50, e.g., “Подскажите пожалуйста, как попасть на остановку автобуса?” (“Tell me how to get to the bus stop, please?” RR 1). One occurrence used a perfective imperative to request the hearer’s time: “Уделите пожалуйста мне пару минут.” (Give me a couple minutes, please.” RR 2). All 8 of the imperatives were accompanied by the politeness marker пожалуйста (‘please’).

5.12. Situation 12: Asking to borrow a pen In Situation 12, participants were asked to imagine that they were at the post office mailing a letter when they realized they had forgotten to write the return address on the envelope. They were then told that they saw someone waiting in line with a pen and decided to ask him or her if they could borrow it. They were instructed to write a dialogue between themselves and the stranger, in which they asked to borrow the pen. There is high distance for the situation, as it takes place between strangers; however, due to the nature of the circumstances and type of request, there is a low power differential. The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.7, and a mode of 2. Table 5.32 provides a breakdown of the ratings.

Table 5.32 Situation 12: The RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 20 1—Little to no potential 8 2—Some potential 11 3—Moderate potential 1 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great potential 0

50

One of the imperatives used the informal second person singular. See footnote 17 for more details.

161

Table 5.33 indicates which positive politeness strategy was used by the RR in situation 12.

Table 5.33 Situation 12: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 11 11

Strategy 15 (Give gift to the hearer) was the only positive politeness strategy used by the RR participants in Situation 11. It was employed once each by 11 participants. Each of the occurrences expressed thanks to the hearer at the end of the interaction. Table 5.34 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by participants in Situation 12.

Table 5.34 Situation 12: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 20 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 3 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 12 Strategy 4: Minimize the Imposition, Rx 10 Strategy 6: Apologize 18 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 6 6.Strategy 10: Go on Record as Incurring a Debt 1

# of tokens 3 12 10 29 6 1

Six negative politeness strategies were used by the RR participants in Situation 12. The most common was strategy 6 (Apologize), which was employed by 18 162

participants, for a total of 29 tokens. Fifteen of the occurrences were apologies used to initiate the interaction, i.e., извините (‘excuse [me]’) or простите (‘forgive [me]’). Eleven occurrences gave the reason for committing the face-threatening act, i.e., that they needed to write the address and/or because they had forgotten a pen. Two occurrences apologized after the interaction had already begun. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was used once each by 12 participants. Eight the occurrences employed a negated interrogative imperfective conditional verb construction to make the request, e.g., “Не могли бы Вы мне одолжить ручку?” (“Couldn’t you loan me your pen?” RR 18). Four used a negated interrogative perfective future tense verb construction to make the request, e.g., “Вы не одолжите мне свою ручку...” (“Won’t you loan me your pen?” RR 1). Strategy 4 (Minimize the imposition, Rx) was used once each by 10 participants. Each of the occurrences highlighted the brief amount of time the pen would need to be borrowed to minimize the imposition, e.g., “на минутку” (“for a minute51” RR12), “на пару минут” (“for a couple minutes” RR 19), “на секунду” (“for a second” RR 13). Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was used once each by 6 participants. Each of occurrences used the impersonal verb construction можно (‘is it possible’) to request use of the pen, e.g., “…можно вашу ручку одолжит?” (“…is it possible to borrow your pen?” RR 16). Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect) was used once each by 3 participants. Each of the occurrences used могу/можно я (‘can I’) to request use of the pen.

51

The Russian has a diminutive of ‘minute’ that does not translate into English.

163

Strategy 10 (Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H) had a single occurrence in which the speaker openly acknowledged that the hearer had saved him or her: “Вы меня очень выручили!” (“You have really helped me out!”).

5.13. Summary of RR data The data in Chapter 5 for the RR participants indicates that the power differential and type of imposition are less important overall, than distance, as a factor in predicting the predominance of positive or negative facework in a given situation. In this section, I will review the specific trends within the three categories of distance designated in this study: low, medium, and high. The tables that are included below group the situations according to the type of task performed for comparison and reference purposes: a request, the conveyance of negative information or a negative response, and the conveyance of positive information. In situations of low distance, the analysis of the RR data in Chapter 5 reveals a predominance of positive politeness facework. This is manifest in the greater number of responses containing a positive politeness strategy and the total number of positive politeness occurrences. There were, however, two exceptions to this that are important to note. In Situation 6, there were more responses that contained a positive politeness strategy, however, there was an equal number of both negative and positive politeness occurrences. Likewise, in Situation 8, there were a greater number of responses containing a positive politeness strategy but an equal number of positive and negative politeness occurrences. 164

The RR responses to situations that occurred between strangers (i.e. Situations 4,11 and 12) demonstrated greater use of negative politeness than positive. These situations had more than half as many negative politeness occurrences than positive and had more responses containing a negative politeness strategy. Thus, the data in this study indicates that negative politeness facework is more prevalent than positive among strangers within the RR participant group. Even when compared with those situations among close friends/significant others where some type of request is made, there is still more negative politeness facework done by the speaker when addressing a stranger versus a friend or significant other. In the 2 situations that took place between acquaintances, the dominance of either positive or negative facework was related to the power differential and the weight of the imposition rating that the situations had. In Situation 13, which had a low power differential and a low weight of imposition (i.e. 1.1 mean), there were more responses containing a positive politeness strategy, as well as more positive politeness occurrences. However, in Situation 5, where the power differential was moderate and the rating for the weight of imposition was higher than in situation 13 (i.e. 2.1 mean), negative facework not only predominated but there was an absence of positive facework. Table 5.35 provides a summary of the data for situations where a speaker makes a request of the hearer; Table 5.36 summarizes the data for situations where a negative response or information was conveyed; Table 5.37 summarizes the data for the solo situation where positive information was conveyed. Column 1 of the tables states the situation, column 2 indicates the distance for the situation, column 3 indicates the power 165

differential for the situation, and column 4 indicates the mean weight of imposition for the situation. Column 5 gives the total number of times a response contained a positive politeness strategy, while column 6 indicates the total number of positive politeness tokens for the situation. Column 7 gives the total number of times a response contained a negative politeness strategy, while column 8 indicates the total number of negative politeness tokens. Where there were less than 20 responses for a situation it was indicated in parenthesis at the end of the situation’s description.

166

Table 5.35 Situations where a request was made of the hearer Situation D P W # of times # of PP # of times responses tokens responses contained any contained any one PP strategy one NP strategy 3: Asking a L L 2.3 37 41 21 family (66.1% member/signif ) icant other to feed dog 4: Borrowing H M 2.8 3 3 63 a cell phone (3.4%) from stranger 5: Asking for M M 2.1 0 0 69 a letter of Recommendat ion 9: Ask a L L 1.2 45 49 1 friend where (98%) they bought their shoes 11: Asking for H L 1.4 16 17 34 directions (29.8% ) 12: Asking to H L 1.7 11 11 50 borrow a pen (15.3% ) 13: Order a M L 1.1 21 28 16 meal from the (60.9% usual worker ) (19)

167

# of NP tokens 21 (33.9 %) 89 (96.7 %) 94 (100% ) 1 (2%) 40 (70.2 %) 61 (84.7 %) 18 (39.1 %)

Table 5.36 Situations where negative information was conveyed to hearer Situation D P W # of times # of PP # of times responses tokens responses contained any contained one PP any one NP strategy strategy 6: Text a friend L L 3.4 31 33 22 to say you (50%) can’t go to the movies 7: Give L L 3.4 35 47 0 opinion of (100%) friend’s/ significant other’s haircut 8: Friend asks L M 3.4 29 32 24 to borrow new (50%) car (19) 10: Let a friend L H 4 43 64 32 know they are (63.4%) fired (18)

# of NP tokens

33 (50%) 0

32 (50%) 37 (36.7%)

Table 5.37 Situation where positive information was conveyed to the hearer Situation D P W # of times # of PP # of times # of responses tokens responses NP contained any contained any tokens one PP strategy one NP strategy 1: Email a L L 1.2 53 81 0 0 friend and tell (100%) them about your vacation (19)

Tables 5.38 and 5.39 contain a tally of the total number of times each strategy was employed in the 12 situations. The strategies are listed from the most frequently 168

employed to the least frequently employed, according to the total number of tokens The column on the right gives the total number of tokens and, in parenthesis, what percentage of the total they constituted. This information will be used in Chapters 7 and 8 for comparison with the AE and RA cultural groups.

Table 5.38 Usage totals of positive politeness strategies for RR Positive politeness strategy # of responses that contained the strategy Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 85 Strategy 4: Use of In-Group Identity 58 Markers Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 39 Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 33 Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 18 Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement 20 Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) Reason 23 Strategy 5: Seek Agreement 10 Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/Assert 12 Common Ground Strategy 8: Joke 15 Strategy 9: Assert or Presuppose the 7 Speakers Knowledge of and Concern for the Hearer’s Wants Strategy 2: Exaggerate 3 Strategy 12: Include Both Speaker and 1 Hearer in the Activity Strategy 11: Be Optimistic 0 Strategy 14: Assume or Assert 0 Reciprocity Total number of occurrences:

169

# of tokens 124 (30.4%) 70 (17.2%) 43 34 26 26 24 18 16

(10.5%) (8.3%) (6.4%) (6.4%) (5.9%) (4.4%) (3.9%)

15 (3.7%) 7 (1.7%) 4 1

(1.0%) (0.2%)

0 0

(0%) (0%)

408

Table 5.39 Usage totals of negative politeness strategies for RR Negative politeness strategy # of responses that contained the strategy Strategy 6: Apologize 110 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 86 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 56 Strategy 10: Go on Record as Incurring 29 a Debt, or as not Indebting H Strategy 5: Give Deference 18 Strategy 4: Minimize the Imposition, 20 Rx Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 8 Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 5 Strategy 8: State the FTA as a General 0 Rule Strategy 9: Nominalize 0 Total number of occurrences:

170

# of tokens 169 (39.7%) 92 (21.6%) 62 (14.6%) 39 (9.2%) 31 (7.3%) 20 (4.7%) 8 5 0

(1.9%) (1.2%) (0%)

0 (0%) 426

Chapter 6 Russian-American Responses and Data Analysis

6.0. Overview of the chapter Chapter 6 contains an analysis of the data obtained from 19 Russian-American (hereafter RA) participant surveys, who were recruited through friends, acquaintances, and social media groups. Those participants who were not my acquaintances were offered a $10 gift card, in accordance with the approved IRB, as they were considered harder to recruit than my acquaintances. The RA participants ranged in ages from 22–55, with the majority falling in the 18–29 year-old range. The same procedure was followed with the RA surveys as with the AE and RR ones (see Chapters 4 and 5). The participants’ responses to Part IA of the survey were tallied according to the type of facework done (i.e., negative or positive) and, within those types, by the strategies employed. The criterion used for the categorization of each strategy was in accordance with Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, outlined in section 3.3, with the additional modifications stated in 3.3.1. In the following discussion, the situations that lent themselves more readily to positive politeness are analyzed first (sections 6.1–6.4), then those that lent themselves more easily to the use of negative politeness (sections 6.5–6.12). Although this 171

necessitates discussing the situations out of the order in which they appeared in the actual survey, it provides for easier comparison of similar social situations for the reader.

6.1. Situation 1: Emailing a friend In Situation 1, the participants were instructed to imagine that they were on vacation and had received an email from a close friend inquiring about how their vacation was going. They were then asked to write an email in which they responded to their friend’s question. As this situation takes place between close friends and involves a routine inquiry, there is a low power differential and low distance. The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.1, and a mode 1. Table 6.1 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 6.1 Situation 1: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 19 1—Little to no potential 18 2—Some potential 1 3—Moderate potential 0 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great potential 0

Table 6.2 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by RA participants, while Table 6.3 provides a breakdown of the use of positive politeness Strategy 15. There is no discussion of negative politeness strategies in this section, as there were no negative politeness strategies used by RA in this situation.

172

Table 6.2 Situation 1:Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 15 Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 14 Strategy 8: Joke 7 Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 6 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 17

# of tokens 33 14 7 6 33

Table 6.3 Breakdown of positive politeness strategy 15 for Situation 1 # of tokens 33 % using strategy Show that the hearer is wanted and loved 11 33.3% Show interest in hearer, asking questions 13 39.4% Express good wishes to the hearer 2 6.1% Express gratitude for hearer’s outreach 1 3.0% Express assurance of meeting again 6 18.2%

Five politeness strategies were used in Situation 1 by the RA participants. The most common was Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), which was used by 17 participants, for a total of 33 tokens. Thirteen of these occurrences showed interest in the hearer by asking questions about his or her well-being (or that of a family member), or by requesting that they write. Eleven expressed that the hearer was missed, e.g., “Жаль ты не тут” (“It’s a pity you aren’t here” RA 1); wanted, e.g., “Приезжай потусим” (“Come here, we can hang out”RA 10); or loved, e.g., “ljublju!” (“I love [you]!” RA 4). Six expressed assurance of meeting again, e.g., “До скорого!” (“Until soon!” RA 5); “до 173

встречи” (“until meeting” RA 1852). Two conveyed good wishes to the hearer, e.g., “А тебе желаю удачи на работе” (“I wish you good luck at work,” RA 3); and 1 expressed gratitude to the hearer for the email. Strategy 3 (Intensify interest to hearer) was used by 15 participants, for a total of 33 tokens. Twenty-five of the occurrences used an adverb to intensify a verb, e.g., “нам тут очень нравится,” (“we really like it here,” RA 1). Four occurrences used an adverb to intensify an adjective, e.g., “отель очень хороший,” (“the hotel is very nice,” RA 19). Three used the emphatic particle же or и, e.g., “...хотя отпуск и подходит к концу,” (“…although the break [emphatic particle] is coming to an end,” RA 1453). One occurrence used an exclamatory construction with ‘how’: “Как же классно всё-таки на море летом.” (“All the same, how cool, it is on the sea in the summer.” RA 6). Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used once each by 14 participants. Thirteen of the occurrences used the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’) 54, and 1 used the term of endearment дорогой (‘dear’). Strategy 8 (Joke) was used once each by 7 participants. Three of the occurrences joked about the tan he or she was getting. Two joked about how they were resting or enjoyed it. One occurrence joked about how much food they were eating, and 1 occurrence joked about the hearer missing him or her. Strategy 6 (Offer, promise) was used once each by 6 participants. Five of the occurrences promised to see the hearer soon, tell him or her the about their trip, and/or 52

It should be noted that theses are conventionalized farewells in Russian. Note the following sample above from RA 6, which contains one of the two occurrences of the emphatic particle же. 54 Five occurrences used the in-group farewell пока (‘bye’ or ‘until [then]’), which is a conventionalized farewell among intimates in Russian. The RR participants did not use this in there closing for this situation. 53

174

show him/her pictures upon return; the other declared that they would go together next time.

6.2. Situation 7: Offering an opinion on a friend or significant other’s haircut In Situation 7, the participants were asked to imagine that a close friend or significant other had gotten a new haircut and thought it looked great, while they themselves thought that it looked awful. The participants were then asked to write a dialogue in which the close friend or significant other asks them if they like the haircut and they give their response. Given that this situation transpires between close friends or significant others, there is low distance and a low power differential. The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 3.5, and a mode of 4. Table 6.4 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 6.4 Situation 7: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 19 1—Little to no potential 0 2—Some potential 4 3—Moderate potential 5 4—Considerable potential 7 5—Great potential 3

Table 6.5 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants. There is no discussion of negative politeness strategies in this section, as there were no negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants in this situation.

175

Table 6.5 Situation 7: Positive politeness strategies used Total # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to H 3 Strategy 5: Seek Agreement 6 Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement 15 Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/Assert 1 Common Ground Strategy 8: Joke 1 Strategy 13: Give Reasons 1 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 4

# of tokens 4 7 25 1 1 1 6

Seven positive politeness strategies were used by the RA participants in Situation 7. The most common was Strategy 6 (Avoid disagreement), which was employed by 15 participants, for a total of 25 tokens. Twelve of the occurrences admitted dislike for the new hairstyle, but with the opinion hedged, e.g., “Наверное, это просто я, но выглядит достаточно странно” (“It’s probably just me, but it looks quite strange,” RA 1). Seven used token agreement, i.e., agreed but then qualified the agreement: “да...но я бы не сделала себе такую.” “yes…but I wouldn’t have done such a cut” RA 15). Five simply said they liked it to avoid disagreeing; and 1 occurrence was a neutral reply: “Мне непривычно видеть тебе такой!” (“I’m not used to seeing you like that!” RA 7), again evidently to avoid disagreement. Strategy 5 (Seek agreement) was used by 6 participants, for a total of 7 tokens. In 5 of the occurrences the speakers found things they could agree on or guided the conversation to safe topics (e.g., “...но если тебе нравится то для меня сойдёт.” [“…but if you like it, it’s good enough for me.”] RA 10; “...да с точки зрения парикмахерской техники - это очень аккуратная работа.” [“…yes, from point of view 176

of the hairdressing technique, it is very neat work.”] RA 18); while 2 changed the topic to avoid further conversation about their opinion of the haircut. Strategy 15(Give gifts to the hearer) was used by 4 participants, for a total of 6 tokens. In 5 of the occurrences, the speaker offered reassurance about the hearer’s looks (i.e. that they still looked okay) or that their hair would grow back, while 1 gave the hearer a compliment about the type of hair (i.e., texture, fullness, etc.) he/she had. Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H) was used by 3 participants, for a total of 4 tokens. In each of the occurrences the speaker gave advice to the hearer about what they should do or should have done about his/her hair. Strategies 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground), 8, (Joke), and 13 (Give reasons) each had a single token. In the case of Strategy 7, the speaker used the discourse marker ты знаешь ‘you know’ to point to the hearer’s knowledge of how the speaker didn’t like asymmetric hairstyles. For Strategy 8, the participant joked about how to give their opinion: “Хмммм....ну как тебе сказать....? Правду или по-американски? шучу…” (“Hmmmm….well, how to tell you….? The truth or American style? I’m kidding…” RA 10). For Strategy 13, the participant gave a reason for their need to commit the face-threatening act—that they loved the hearer and wanted to be honest. Table 6.6 indicates the negative politeness strategy that was used by the RR participants for this situation.

Table 6.6 Situation 7: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 6: Apologize 1 1 177

There was 1 token of Strategy 6 (Apologize) among the RA participants, in which the speaker apologized (i.e. извини [‘I am sorry’]) directly preceding the face-threatening act of giving their negative opinion of the haircut to soften it. There were also 6 occurrences of adverbs or if clauses preceding the opinion that do not easily fit into any of Brown and Levinson’s strategies but served to prepare the hearer for the negative opinion of the hair. All 5 of them used either честно (‘honestly’), честно говоря (‘honestly speaking’), or если честно (‘if honestly’) to do so, e.g., “Честно, мне больше нравилось то как у тебя до этого было.” (“Honestly, I liked it better the way you had it before.” RA 5).

6.3. Situation 9: Asking a friend where they got their shoes In Situation 9, participants were asked to imagine that they liked a friend’s pair of shoes and wanted to know where he or she had bought them. They were then asked to create a dialogue in which they asked the friend where he or she got them. This situation involved low distance and a low power differential, due to the close relationship presented and the basic nature of the informational request. The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.5, and a mode of 1. Table 6.7 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

178

Table 6.7 Situation 9: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 19 1—Little to no potential 16 2—Some potential 3 3—Moderate potential 0 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great potential 0

Table 6.8 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants in this situation.

Table 6.8 Situation 9: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to H 17 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, etc.) 2 Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 1 Strategy 8: Joke 1 Strategy 13: Give Reasons 5 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 7

# of tokens 17 2 1 1 1 5 8

Seven positive politeness strategies were used by the RA participants in Situation 9. The most common was Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H), which was used once each by 17 participants. In each of the 17 occurrences the speakers noticed and admired the hearer’s shoes55.

55

One participant noticed that the hearer had new shoes but did not make a comment about them beyond them being new in the initial utterance.

179

Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) was employed by 7 participants, for a total of 8 tokens. In each of which the speaker expressed thanks to the hearer for the information. Strategy 13 (Give reason) was employed once each by 5 participants. In each of the occurrences, the speaker gave the reason why they were asking the hearer where they bought their shoes—e.g., that they had wanted such a pair, or that they would like to give such a pair as a gift. Strategy 2 (Exaggerate: interest, approval, etc.) was employed once each by 2 participants. In both occurrences the speaker exaggerated his/her approval of the hearer’s shoes after already initially taking notice of them, e.g., “Очень мне нравятся.” (“I really like them.”) RA 12. Strategy 3 (Intensity interest to the hearer) was used once by 1 participant, in which the speaker intensified interest to the hearer by intensifying a fact: “Я вообще ещё таких никогда не видела!” (“I totally have never before seen such [a pair of shoes]!” RA 2). Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was also used once by 1 participant, in which the speaker used the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’). Lastly, Strategy 8 (Joke) was used once, in which the speaker made a joke about his shopping skills. Table 6.9 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants in Situation 9.

180

Table 6.9 Situation 9: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 2: Hedge, Question 1 1 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 1 1

Two negative politeness strategies were used by the RA participants in Situation 9: Strategy 2 (Hedge, question) and Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H). Each of the strategies had a single token. For Strategy 2, the speaker hedged the informational request made to the hearer with “если не секрет” (“if it’s not a secret,” RA 15). For Strategy 7, the speaker used the impersonal verb construction можно узнать (‘is it possible to find out’) to request the information.

6.4. Situation 13: Order meal at your regular place from the regular worker In Situation 13, participants were asked to imagine that they were on lunch break at work and stopped in to get a bit to eat at their regular place, where they found the usual worker doing his or her shift. They were then instructed to write a dialogue between themselves and the worker, in which they ordered lunch. The distance for this situation was moderate, while the power differential was low. The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.1, and a mode of 1. Table 6.10 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

181

Table 6.10 Situation 13: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 19 1—Little to no potential 18 2—Some potential 1 3—Moderate potential 0 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great potential 0

Table 6.11 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants for this situation56.

Table 6.11 Situation 13: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 2 Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 Strategy 4: In-group Identity Markers 8 Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/Assert Common 3 Ground Strategy 8: Joke 1 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 17

# of tokens 3 1 10 3 3 30

Six positive politeness strategies were used by the RA participants in Situation 13. The most common was Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), which was used by 17 participants, for a total of 30 tokens. Twelve of the occurrences inquired into the wellbeing of the hearer or, in one case, how business was going; 11 occurrences expressed 56

Six out of the 19 RA participants used the informal second person singular to address the worker, while only 1 out of 19 RR participants did. This will be addressed in further detail in section 7.4.

182

thanks (8 for some part of the service; 1 that the hearer had wished him or her a good meal; 1 for asking about how they were; and 1 for a compliment). Three of the occurrences were compliments – 2 were about the food and 1 about the hearer’s new haircut. Two affirmed their relationship by saying, “...очень приятно Вас снова видеть” (“…it’s very nice to see you again,” RA 16) and “до завтра” (“until tomorrow,” RA 17). One was a wish for the hearer to have a good day; and 1 congratulated the hearer on his or her daughter’s graduation. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was employed by 8 participants, for a total of 10 occurrences. Six of the occurrences used the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’). Three occurrences used ellipsis in ordering the food, e.g., “Мне как обычно!” (“The same as usual for me!” RA 5). One occurrence used the in-group greeting здрасьте (‘hi’). Strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) was used once each by 3 participants. In two of the occurrences the speaker pointed to a shared knowledge about what they usually ordered before making the order, e.g., “…как всегда, салат, и пюре с курицей.” (“…like always, salad and mashed potatoes with chicken.” RA 7). In 1 occurrence the speaker engaged in small talk about the weather with the hearer. Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H) was used by 2 participants, for a total of 3 tokens. One occurrence noticed a new haircut57; 1 noted the hearer’s difficult work schedule; and 1 noticed the working situation for that day.

57

The speaker used the second person impersonal to ask the hearer about the haircut: “Ты постриглась?” (“You cut your hair?” RA 8).

183

Strategy 8 (Joke) was employed by 1 participant but had a total of 3 tokens. In the occurrences the speaker joked with the hearer about how they always met there and about how he or she (i.e., the speaker) was doing. Strategies 3 (Intensify interest to hearer) had a single token, which used the adverb очень (‘very’) to intensify the speaker’s contribution: “…я очень голодная.” (“I am very hungry.” RA 15). Table 6.12 indicates the negative politeness strategy used by the RA participants for this situation.

Table 6.12 Situation 13: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 7 7

There was only 1 negative politeness strategy used by the RA in Situations 13, Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H), which was used once each by 7 participants. Four of the occurrences used an impersonal verb construction to order, e.g., мне (‘to me’) or можно (‘is it possible’), followed by the order. Three occurrences used a perfective imperative to order (2 of the imperatives were coupled with please). The imperative that was not accompanied by please was in ты (‘you’) – the second person informal singular form.

6.5. Situation 3: Ask a roommate or family member to feed your dog 184

In Situation 3, participants were instructed to imagine that they had forgotten to feed their dog and were then asked to write a text message to a roommate or family member, asking them to feed the dog for them. The distance and power differential was low for this situation, due to the close speaker-hearer relationship and the nature of the request. The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 2.1, and a mode of 1. Here it is important to note that although the directions for the situation indicated that the roommate or family member was still home, three participants acted as though the hearer had to stop by the speaker’s place to feed the dog, which could explain some of the higher ratings. Table 6.13 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 6.13 Situation 3: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 19 1—Little to no potential 7 2—Some potential 6 3—Moderate potential 5 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great Potential 1

Table 6.14 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants in this situation.

185

Table 6.14 Situation 3: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 13 Strategy 8: Joke 1 Strategy 13: Give Reasons 18 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 15

# of tokens 13 1 18 16

Four positive politeness strategies were used by the RA participants in Situation 3. The most common was Strategy 13 (Give reasons), which was employed once each by 18 participants. In each occurrence, the speaker gave the reason he or she needed to make the request—that they had forgotten to feed the dog. Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) was used by 15 participants, for a total of 16 tokens. Fourteen of the occurrences expressed thanks at the end of their text, while 2 of the occurrences also expressed love. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used once each by 13 participants. Eight of the occurrences used the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’). Four occurrences used a term of endearment or a diminutive of a word that showed their relationship with the hearer (e.g., “милый” (“dear” RA 8), “сынок” (“sonny” RA 16), and “мамочка” (“mommy” RA 13), etc.). One occurrence used the in-group slang плиз (‘please’). Strategy 8 (Joke) had a single token, in which the speaker joked with the hearer about not letting his ‘little bother’ (i.e. the dog) die of hunger. Table 6.15 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants in Situation 3. 186

Table 6.15 Situation 3: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 3 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 4 Strategy 6: Apologize 4 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 10

# of tokens 3 4 4 14

Four negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 3 by the RA participants. The most common was Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H), which was used by 10 participants, for a total of 14 tokens. Thirteen of the occurrences used imperatives in connection with requesting that the dog be fed – 11 were perfective, e.g., “покорми собаку пожалуйста” (feed the dog please,” RA 15), “...дай ей немного еды.” (“…give her a little bit of food.” RA 5); and 2 were imperfective imperative forms, e.g., “Будь другом,” (“Be a friend,” RA 6). Eight of these were accompanied by the politeness marker ‘пожалуйста’ ‘please’or ‘плиз’ ‘please’. One of the occurrences used point-ofview distancing by putting what would normally be a present tense verb into past tense to soften the request: “хотела узнать...” (“I wanted to know…” RA 11). Strategy 6 (Apologize) was used once each by 4 participants. All 4 of the occurrences apologized for bothering the hearer, e.g., “Извини за беспокойство.” (“Forgive me for the trouble” RA 11).

187

Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic)58 was employed once each by 4 participants. Each of the occurrences used the negated conditional interrogative construction ты не мог/ла бы (imperfective verb) or не смог/ла бы (perfective verb) (‘couldn’t you’) to make the request, e.g., “ti ne mogla bi nakormit ee?” (“couldn’t you feed her?” RA 4), “-не смог бы ты накормить её?” (“Couldn’t you feed her? RA 8). 59 Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect) was used once each by 3 participants, in each of which an indirect request (i.e., можешь ‘ ‘can you’ or сможешь “will you be able to”) was used to make the request. The form сможешь (‘will you be able to’) was also tested in the RR data (see section 5.5). As this is not a conventional way of forming a request in Russian, their occurrence could indicate a shift towards what are categorized as conventionalized requests by Brown and Levinson under negative politeness Strategy 1 (see 3.3.2.1).

6.6. Situation 4: Borrowing a cell phone from a stranger In Situation 4, participants were instructed to imagine that they had arranged to meet a friend at a particular location but had arrived 30 minutes late due to traffic; their friend was no longer there. They were also informed that they had forgotten their cell phone. They were then asked to write a dialogue between themselves and a stranger, in which they asked him/her if they could borrow his/her cell phone to call their friend. As the situation occurs between strangers, it presents high distance. Additionally, as the 58

The name of this strategy in comparison to Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect) shows Brown and Levinson’s Anglophone bias. The use of negation in a request, which falls under Strategy 3 according to Brown and Levinson, is a conventionalized indirect way of making a request in Russian (Mills 1992). 59 One participant (RA 9) used the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’) but then proceeded to use Вы (‘you’second person singular formal) throughout the remainder of the interaction, including in the request form.

188

participant had an urgent need that the hearer could fulfill that was not routine, there is a moderate power differential for this situation. The RA participants’ weight of imposition rating had a mean of 2.6, and a mode of 1. Table 6.16 provides a breakdown of the ratings.

Table 6.16 Situation 4: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 19 1—Little to no potential 6 2—Some potential 3 3—Moderate potential 4 4—Considerable potential 5 5—Great Potential 1

Table 6.17 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants for situation 4.

Table 6.17 Situation 4: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 11: Be Optimistic 1 1

One positive politeness strategy was used by the RA participants in Situation 4, strategy 11, Be optimistic. It had only 1 token, in which the speaker’s wording was presumptuous, in that it assumed cooperation of the hearer: “вы не против если я позвоню с вашего телефона?” (“you are not against it if I call from your phone?”) RA 15. 189

Table 6.18 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants for this situation.

Table 6.18 Situation 4: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 4 Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 1 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 12 Strategy 4: Minimize Imposition, Rx 15 Strategy 5: Give Deference 1 Strategy 6: Apologize 19 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 2 Strategy 10: Go On Record As Incurring A Debt 12

# of tokens 5 1 12 16 1 39 2 13

Eight negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 4 by the RA participants. The most common was Strategy 6 (Apologize), which was used by 19 participants, for a total of 39 tokens. Sixteen of the occurrences gave the reason for having to make the request. Eighteen occurrences used an apology as an attention-getter to initiate the interaction,60 i.e. извините ‘excuse [me]’ or простите ‘pardon [me]’. Four occurrences expressed reluctance or apologized (not as an attention getter) for having to make the request. One occurrence admitted the impingement by acknowledging they had a “странная просьба” (“strange request” RA 5). Strategy 4 (Minimize imposition, Rx) was employed by 15 participants, for a total of 16 tokens. Each of the occurrences highlighted the briefness of the call or that it would 60

RA 8 used the informal ты form of the imperative but used the formal second person singular pronoun in the request to use the phone, which was also the only other time in the utterance that formality would be apparent: “Можно я...от Вас позвоню,” (“Is is possible I ….call from you”).

190

be only one call, e.g., “на минутку,” (“for a minute,” RA 3), “один звонок” (“one call” RA 6), “Это не займёт больше минуты.” (“It will not take more than a minute.” RA 12). Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was employed once each by 12 participants. Eleven of the occurrences used a negated conditional interrogative construction to make the request, e.g., “Вы не могли бы мне дать воспользоваться вашим телефоном” (“You couldn’t allow me to use your phone”; RA 9), while one used a non-negated conditional interrogative construction to make the request: “можно было бы воспользоваться вашим телефоном?” (“Would it be possible to use your phone?” RA 4). Strategy 10 (Go on record as incurring a debt) was also used by 12 participants, for a total of 13 tokens. Eleven of the occurrences expressed thanks or mentioned how the stranger had saved them at the end of the interaction, e.g., “Спасибо oгромное!” (“Many thanks!” RA 9). Two occurrences offered to pay for the phone call after making the request, e.g., “я вам заплачу за звонок.” (“I will pay you for the call.” RA 19). Strategy 1 (Be indirect) was used by 4 participants, for a total of 5 tokens61. Each of occurrences used the indirect request могу я (‘can I’) or можно я (‘is it possible that I’) to make the request, e.g., “Можно я быстренько от Вас позвоню...?” (“Is it possible that I quickly call from you…?” RA 10). Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was employed once each by 2 participants. Each of the occurrences used an impersonal verb construction to make the request, e.g.,

61

The one participant that had two occurrences first asked the hearer if they could ask a favor, i.e. “могу я попросить Вас об одолжении” (“Can I ask you for a favor…?),and then asked specifically to use the hearer’s phone.

191

“Можно воспользоваться Вашим телефоном?” (“Is it possible to use your phone?” RA 12). Strategy 2 (Question, Hedge) had a single token, in which the particle ли was used to hedge the request to use the cell phone: “Не могла ли бы я позвонить по вашему могильнику...?” (“Couldn’t I call on your cell…?”62 RA 16). Finally, Strategy 5 (Give deference) had a single token in which the speaker humbled self63 in front of the hearer by saying, “У меня такая глупая ситуация” (“I am in such a stupid situation,” RA 6).

6.7. Situation 5: Asking for a letter of recommendation In Situation 5, participants were asked to imagine that they were applying for an academic program and needed a letter of recommendation to complete their application by the next week’s deadline. They were then instructed to write an email to a professor whom they had had last semester, in whose class they got their highest grade, to request a letter of recommendation. The distance and power differential for this situation are moderate, due to the context of the student-teacher relationship described in the instructions. The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 2.1, and a mode of 1. Table 6.19 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

62

Literally, “Couldn’t whether I call on your cell…?”. Self-abasement is considered part of Brown and Levinson’s negative politeness Strategy 5 on the premise that it places the hearer higher than the speaker in the interaction.

63

192

Table 6.19 Situation 5: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 19 1—Little to no potential 7 2—Some potential 5 3—Moderate potential 4 4—Considerable potential 3 5—Great Potential 0

Table 6.20 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants. As they did not use any positive politeness strategies in this situation, there is no discussion of positive politeness in this section.

Table 6.20 Situation 5: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 1 Strategy 2: Hedge, Question 4 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 16 Strategy 4: Minimize the Imposition, Rx 1 Strategy 5: Give Deference 14 Strategy 6: Apologize 8 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 7 Strategy 10: Go on Record as Incurring a Debt 17

# of tokens 1 4 16 1 29 10 7 22

Eight negative politeness strategies were used by the RA participants in Situation 5. The most common was Strategy 10 (Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H), which was used by 17 participants, for a total of 22 tokens. Nineteen occurrences expressed that they would be thankful to the hearer after making the request, 193

or expressed thanks in general in the close of the email, e.g., “Заранее огромное Вам спасибо!” (Many thanks to you in advance!” RA 13), “Я буду Вам очень признательна!” (“I will be very grateful to you!” RA 7). One occurrence expressed thanks for the good grade received in the class. One occurrence expressed that they would be obligated to the professor for his/her help: “Я была бы Вам очень за то обязана.” (“I would be very obligated to you for that.” RA 14). One occurrence stated that he or she would be grateful to the professor if he or she received the letter by the due date after making the request. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was employed once each by 16 participants. Seven occurrences used a conditional construction with я хотел/а бы (‘I would like’) to request that the professor write the letter of recommendation, while 1 used the conditional construction мог бы я (‘could I’). Another 6 used the negated conditional interrogative construction не могли бы (‘couldn’t you’, with an imperfective verb) or не смогли бы (‘couldn’t you’, with a perfective verb). One participant used a non-negated conditional interrogative construction to make the request: “смогли бы вы” (“could you,” RA 8)64. Finally, one used the conditional with an impersonal verb construction: “мне бы хотелось” (“to me would be wanted,” with the desire presented as something beyond the speaker’s volition; RA 13). Strategy 5 (Give deference) was also used by 14 participants, for a total of 29 tokens. Sixteen of the occurrences used an expression of respect in the address (i.e.

64

This form is also attested in the RR data: “Вы смогли бы подписать такое письмо для меня?” (“Could you sign such a letter for me?” RR 7, situation 5), and “Могла бы ты покормить моего кота?” (“Could you feed my cat?” RR17, Situation 3). (See sections 5.5 and 5.7)

194

уважаемый ‘respected’) or closing (i.e. с уважением ‘with respect’). These are typical ways of beginning and ending business letters in Russian. Eleven other tokens complimented the professor in relation to the class or elevated him/her, e.g., “Ya hotela bi virazit vam blagodarnost za vash klass ya ochen mnogomu nauchilas u vas!” (“I want to express thanks to you for your class, I learned a lot from you!” RA 4), “-благодарю вас за то что вы дали хорошие знания…” (-I thank you that you shared good knowledge…” RA 8), Two occurrences humbled self, e.g., “Spasibo za to chto nashli vremya prochitat....” (“Thank you for finding time to read…” RA 4). Strategy 6 (Apologize) was used by 8 participants, for a total of 10 tokens. Seven of the occurrences gave a reason for the request: six explained why they wanted that professor in particular to write the letter, and one explained that they needed the recommend by the date in order to turn it in as soon as possible. Two apologized for the short notice or interruption; and 1 expressed regret (i.e., к сожалению ‘unfortunately’) when conveying the due date. Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was used once each by 7 participants. Six occurrences used a perfective imperative to give further instruction to the professor in regards to the letter, e.g., “Дайте мне знать...” (“Let me know…” RA 3), “...сообщите если сможете сделать” (“…let me know if you will be able to do it” RA 11). Three of these were accompanied by пожалуйста (‘please’). One occurrence used point-of-view distancing to make the core request by putting the verb хотеть (‘to want’) in the past tense, i.e. “...и хотел попросить если бы Вы смогли помочь мне с рекомендательным

195

письмом?” (“…and I wanted to ask if you could help me with the letter of recommendation?” RA 12). Strategy 2 (Hedge, question) was used once each by 4 participants. Three of the occurrences used an if clause to request the letter, or the letter on the due date, one of the clauses was embedded, e.g, “если вам не трудно” (“if it isn’t difficult for you,” RA 2), “Я хотела бы узнать если бы вы могли написать мне рекомендательное письмо...?” (“I would like to know if you could write a letter of recommendation for me…” RA 3). One occurrence hedged the core request using ли (‘whether’): “Не могли ли бы Вы написать для меня эту рекомендацию.” (Couldn’t you write the recommendation for me.”65 RA 16). Strategies 1 (Be conventionally indirect) and 4 (Minimize the imposition Rx) had 1 token each. In the case of Strategy 1, an indirect request was used to ask for the letter: “Я хочу попросить вас написать рекомендательное письмо для меня...” (“I want to ask you to write a letter of recommendation for me…” RA 1). For Strategy 4, the request was minimized by the use of an adjective: “Я пишу Вам с небольшой просьбой.” (“I write to you with a small request.” RA 6).

6.8. Situation 6: Texting a friend to say you can’t go to movies In Situation 6, participants were instructed to imagine that they had movie plans with a friend but that something had come up an hour before the show, so that they could no longer go. They were then asked to write a text message to their friend, letting them 65

Literally, “Couldn’t you write whether the recommendation for me.”

196

know they could not attend. Due to the close speaker-hearer relationship and the type of circumstance, both the distance and power differential are low for this situation. The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 3.4, and a mode of 4.5. Table 6.21 provides a breakdown of the ratings.

Table 6.21 Situation 6: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 19 1—Little to no potential 2 2—Some potential 3 3—Moderate potential 4 4—Considerable potential 5 5—Great potential 5

Table 6.22 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants for this situation.

Table 6.22 Situation 6: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 2 Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 9 Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 16 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 5

# of tokens 2 1 10 17 5

Five positive politeness strategies were used by the RA participants in Situation 6. The most common was Strategy 10 (Offer, promise), which was used by 16 participants, for a total of 17 tokens. Ten of the tokens offered or promised to go to the movies another 197

time; 6 promised to call or explain later; and 1 occurrence promised to call and give an update on the unfortunate situation that caused him/her (i.e., the speaker) to cancel. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used by 9 participants, for a total of 10 occurrences. Ten occurrences used the in-group greeting (привет ‘hi’)66, while 2 used the term of endearment дорогой/дорогая (‘dear’) in the greeting. Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) was used once each by 5 participants. Three of the occurrences expressed concern that the hearer not be offended; 1 expressed assurance that the participant had wanted to go to the movies; and 1 expressed assurance that they themselves were well, so that the hearer would not worry. Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H) was used once each by 2 participants. One of the tokens expressed envy that the hearer could go to the movie, while the other suggested the name of an individual that might be able to go instead, in an effort to fix the situation the hearer was now in. Strategy 3 (Intensify interest to hearer) had a single token, which used the discourse marker, ты знаешь (‘you know’), to draw the hearer into the conversation. Table 6.23 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants for this situation.

66

Two participants also used the farewell пока (‘bye’ or ‘until [then]’), which is a conventionalized farewell among intimates in Russian. The RR participants did not use this closing for this situation.

198

Table 6.23 Situation 6: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 6: Apologize 19 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 5 Strategy 10: Go On Record As Incurring 3 Debt

# of tokens 36 5 3

Three negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 6 by the RA participants. The most common was Strategy 6 (Apologize), which was used by 19 participants, for a total of 36 tokens. Twenty of the occurrences offered apologies for not being able to go. Fifteen occurrences gave a reason for having to commit the facethreatening act, e.g., “это по семейным обстоятельствам!” (“it’s because of a family situation!” RA 13), “u menya ne ozhidanno voznikli problemi!” (“some unexpected problems arose for me!” RA 4). One acknowledged the severity of the act by stating, “Ты меня убьёшь...” (“You’ll kill me…,” RA 2). Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was also used once each by 5 participants. In each of the occurrences an impersonal verb construction was used to convey that the speaker could not go: “...не получается сегодня” (“…it isn’t working out today,” RA 11); “...ничего сегодня у меня не получится,” (“…nothing will work out for me today,” RA 10). Strategy 10 (Go on record as incurring debt) was used once each by 3 participants. Each of the occurrences acknowledged, in one way or another, indebtedness for the circumstances of the situation, i.e. one offered chocolate to make up for it, and two offered to reimburse the hearer for the wasted ticked. 199

6.9. Situation 8: A friend asks to use your brand new car In Situation 8, participants were informed that one of their close friends asked to borrow their brand new car for an event but that they did not feel comfortable lending it to him or her. They were then asked to write a dialogue between themselves and the friend, in which the friend asks to borrow their car and they give their response. The distance for this situation is low, as the speaker and the hearer are friends; however, as the speaker has something of value that the hearer wants to borrow, the power differential is moderate. The RA participants’ weight of the imposition ratings had a mean of 3.7, and a mode of 4. It should be noted that, in this situation, due to the social dynamics and the type of request, the positive and negative facework in the participants’ responses were often interwoven in such a way that they were difficult to separate. Table 6.24 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 6.24 Situation 8: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 19 1—Little to no potential 1 2—Some potential 3 3—Moderate potential 1 4—Considerable potential 10 5—Great potential 4

Table 6.25 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants for this situation.

200

Table 6.25 Situation 8: Positive face strategies used # of responses # of responses containing strategy Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 1 Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 3 Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 2 Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement 6 Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert 4 common ground Strategy 8: Joke 4 Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 3 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 3

# of tokens 1 3 2 7 4 5 4 4

Eight positive politeness strategies were used in Situation 8 by the RA participants. The most common was Strategy 6 (Avoid disagreement), which was used by 6 participants, for a total of 7 tokens. Four of the occurrences were hedged responses, e.g., “Просто машина новая,” (“It’s just that the car is new,” RA 6), “я думаю мой муж будет против,” (“I think my husband will be against it,” RA 1). Three occurrences used token agreement (i.e. agreeing and then disagreeing or qualifying the agreement), e.g., “я бы с удовольствием-но пока не могу так,” (“I would with pleasure—but I can’t yet,” RA 8). Strategy 8 (Joke) was used by 4 participants, for a total of 5 tokens. Each of the jokes was in connection with the car or the friend borrowing it, e.g., about the friend’s poor driving skills, how the speaker loves the hearer, but not enough to loan the car to him/her, or how the speaker couldn’t function without the car. Strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) was used once each by 4 participants. Each used the discourse marker ты знаешь (‘you know’) to point to or 201

assert common knowledge about the car, i.e. that it was new or that the hearer’s name was not on the insurance. Strategy 10 (Offer, promise) was used by 3 participants, for a total of 4 occurrences. Each of the occurrences offered to give the hearer a ride. Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) was also employed by 3 participants, for a total of 4 tokens. Three of the occurrences expressed a desire that the hearer not be offended, while 1 expressed thanks to the hearer for understanding his/her refusal of the request. Strategy 3 (Intensify interest to hearer) was used once each by 3 participants. Each of the occurrences used the discourse marker ты знаешь/ знаешь (‘you know’) to draw the hearer into the conversation. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was used once each by two participants. One of the occurrences was the colloquial in-group address form братан (‘bro’), while the other used the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’). Lastly, Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H) had a single token, in which the speaker suggested that the hearer ask to use someone else’s car in an effort to remedy his or her predicament. Table 6.26 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants in this situation.

202

Table 6.26 Situation 8: Negative face strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 6: Apologize 15 22 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 3 3

Two negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 8 by the RA participants. The most common was Strategy 6 (Apologize), which was used by 15 participants, for a total of 22 tokens. Thirteen of the occurrences gave the reason for the speaker’s refusal of the request, while 9 of the occurrences apologized for the refusal. Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was used once each by 3 participants. Each of the occurrences used не могу (‘I cannot’) or не смогу (‘I won’t be able to’) to indicate that the speaker was unable to lend the hearer the car, implying that it was due to circumstances outside of their control. Additionally, as in section 6.2, there was 1 occurrence of an adverb preceding the an utterance that does not easily fit into any of Brown and Levinson’s strategies but served to prepare the hearer for the negative response to the request. In this case the speaker stated: “...честно говоря, я не люблю, когда мою машину водят другие люди.” (“…honestly speaking, I don’t love it when other people drive my car.” RA 14).

6.10. Situation 10: Let a friend know they were fired In situation 10, participants were instructed to imagine that they were working for a company and that the owner asked them to fire one of the employees, Andrey, who had worked there for a long time and had become a close friend of theirs. They were then 203

instructed to write a dialogue in which they were to inform their close friend, Andrey, that he had been let go. Due to the close friendship, the situation has low distance; however, because of the nature of their work relationship, it has a high power-differential. The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 4.4, and a mode of 5. Table 6.27 provides a breakdown of the weight of imposition ratings.

Table 6.27 Situation 10: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 19 1—Little to no potential 1 2—Some potential 0 3—Moderate potential 2 4—Considerable potential 3 5—Great potential 13

Table 6.28 indicates the positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants for this situation.

Table 6.28 Situation 10: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, 1 sympathy with the hearer) Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 1 Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common 5 ground Strategy 9: Assert or Presuppose the Speaker’s 3 Knowledge of and Concern for the Hearer’s Wants Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 5 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 16 204

# of tokens 1 1 1 6 5 6 40

Seven positive politeness strategies were used by the RA participants in Situation 10. The most common was strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), which was employed by 16 participants, for a total of 40 tokens. Eleven of the occurrences expressed sympathy for the friend, e.g., “Мне очень жаль.” (“It is a pity to me.”)67. Eight offered assurance—for example, that the hearer would find a good job or work soon; that things would work out better in the end; or that the hearer was not a bad worker. Six occurrences stated that the hearer was valued as a friend and/or longtime co-worker. Four expressed concern that the hearer not be offended. Four tokens expressed good wishes: 2 expressed the wish that the hearer find a good job or work soon, while 2 others were general wishes for good luck. Three tokens were compliments in relation to hearer’s work. One offered comfort by saying, “Всякое бывает, не бери сильно в голову” (“Stuff happens, don’t take it too much to heart.” RA 10). One thanked the hearer for being understanding; 1 asked how the speaker was doing at the opening of the conversation to show interest; and 1 occurrence expressed gratitude to the hearer for their work. Strategy 768 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) was employed by 5 participants, for a total of 6 tokens. Four of the occurrences pointed to shared knowledge about how things were negatively going at the company for the hearer or how the company was going through a hard time. Two occurrences pointed to the shared knowledge about the kind of friendship they had. Four of the 6 tokens used the discourse 67

A more natural translation of, “Мне очень жаль,” in English is “I am very sorry”. For this situation, the occurrences often counted for another strategy at the same time, due to the strong dual purpose of their content. For instance, the shared knowledge was often a vital part of informing the hearer that they had lost their job or in consoling them over that loss.

68

205

marker ты знаешь (‘you know’) to do so, e.g., “..ты знаешь, что ты мой самый близкий друг,” (“…you know that you are my closest friend,” RA 7). Strategy 10 (Offer, promise) was employed by 5 participants, for a total of 6 tokens. Four of the occurrences offered some type of help finding a new job; 1 offered help in general; and 1 offered monetary help until another job was found. Strategy 9 (Assert or presuppose the speaker’s knowledge of and concern for the hearer’s wants) was employed by 3 participants, for a total of 5 tokens. In each occurrence, the speaker declared that they did all they could to change their boss’s mind. Strategy 2 (Exaggerate) was employed once. Here the speaker exaggerated approval of the work the hearer had accomplished by use of the adverb действительно (‘really’). Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity marker) had a single token, where the speaker used the in-group greeting привет (‘hi’). Strategy 3 (Intensify interest to hearer) also had a single token, in which the discourse marker ты знаешь (‘you know’) was used to draw the hearer closer. Table 6.29 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants.

Table 6.29 Situation 10: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 6: Apologize 15 22 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 19 26

206

Two negative politeness strategies were used in Situation 10 by the RA participants. The most common was Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H), which was used by 19 participants, for a total of 26 tokens. Twenty-one of the occurrences were related to the actual firing. In 16 of those occurrences, the speaker declared that the decision was made by the head boss or company leadership, e.g., “...он сказал, что увольняет тебя.” (“…he said that he is dismissing you” RA 17), “Хозяин попросил меня тебе сказать, что он тебя увольняет.” (“The boss asked me to tell you that he is dismissing you.” RA 14). Four of them removed the speaker from the act by making the hearer the subject or using an impersonal verb construction: “…ты освобождён от твоей должности” (“…you are released from your responsibilities,” RA 10) – a quasi-performative but agentless; “Вам придётся покинуть нашу компанию,” (“You will have to leave our company,” RA 1269) – an impersonal verb construction using future tense. One stated that the hearer was let go out of circumstantial necessity: “...но так складываются обстоятельства, что мы70 вынуждены тебя уволить.” “…but the situation is developing in such a way that we are forced to discharge you,” RA 1). Four occurrences were imperatives used in the initial stages of the conversation – two used the perfective imperative зайди (‘stop by’) to request that the hearer come to his or her office, while another two used the imperfective imperative садись (‘sit’) to request that the hearer take 69

The use of Вы (‘you’-formal) by this participant is an outlier, as Russians generally use ты (‘you’informal) between close friends. No other participant in either the RA or RR data used the formal you for this situation. 70 The use of мы (‘we’) here is interesting in that earlier in the conversation the speaker separates him/herself from the company leadership and explicitly states that the company decided to give him other opportunities and release him from his current ones (although no reason was given), but then went on to include him/herself as a subject in “мы вынуждены” (“we are forced”) in the actual firing (note fuller excerpt above) but highlight that the events were due to company’s circumstances to impersonalize the face-threatening act.

207

a seat. One occurrence used an impersonal contruction at the beginning of the interaction to request that the hearer speak with him or her: “Andrei mozhno pogovorit s toboy…?” (“Andrey, is it possible to speak with you…?” RA 4). Strategy 6 (Apologize) was used by 15 participants, for a total of 22 occurrences. Sixteen of the occurrences expressed reluctance in committing the face-threatening act, e.g., “к сожалению…” (“unfortunately…” RA 16), “Мне тяжело с тобой об этом говорить,” (“It is hard for me to talk with you about this.” RA 15). Six occurrences gave a reason for committing it (e.g., that the quality of the hearer’s work had fallen or that the company was having cutbacks).

6.11. Situation 11: You ask a stranger for directions In Situation 11, participants were asked to imagine that they were tourists in another city that had gotten lost while looking for a bus stop and that they saw someone walking towards them, whom they decided to ask for directions. They were then asked to create a dialogue between themselves and the stranger in which they asked for directions to the bus stop. The distance for this situation is high, as the speaker and hearer are strangers, while the power-differential is low, due to the type of situation and the basic nature of the informational request. The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.4, and a mode of 1. Table 6.30 provides a breakdown of the ratings.

208

Table 6.30 Situation 11: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 19 1—Little to no potential 11 2—Some potential 8 3—Moderate potential 0 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great Potential 0

Table 6.31 indicates the positive politeness strategy used by the RA participants in this situation.

Table 6.31 Situation 11: Positive politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 15 18

One positive politeness strategy used by the RA participants in Situation 11, Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), which was used by 15 participants, for a total of 18 tokens. Sixteen of the occurrences expressed thanks to the hearer at the close of the interaction, while 2 occurrences extended good wishes (e.g., “всего доброго” [“all the best”] RA 17) to the hearer in addition to thanks. Table 6.32 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants in this situation.

209

Table 6.32 Situation 11: Negative politeness strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 2: Hedge, Question 3 3 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 16 16 Strategy 6: Apologize 17 21 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 1 1

Four negative politeness strategies were employed by the RA participants in Situation 11. The most common was Strategy 6 (Apologize), which was used by 17 participants, for a total of 21 occurrences. Thirteen of the occurrences used an apology as an attention getter to initiate the interaction (i.e., извините ‘excuse [me]’, простите ‘forgive [me]’ or прошу прощение ‘I ask forgiveness’). Six occurrences gave a reason for the request (i.e. that they were lost or not from there). Two occurrences were apologies made after already initiating the conversation. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was employed once each by 16 participants. Eleven of the occurrences used a negated perfective verb interrogative construction to request the information, e.g.,“…Вы не подскажете, где...” (“…you won’t say where…” RA 9). Three used a negated conditional interrogative construction to make the request, e.g., “Вы не могли бы подсказать где...” (“You couldn’t tell me where…” RA 5). Two occurrences used the negated imperfective ‘не знаете где’ (‘you don’t know where’) to request directions. Strategy 2 (Hedge, question) was employed once each by 3 participants. In two occurrences the speaker hedged a negated imperfect interrogative construction to request the information, e.g., “Вы случайно не знаете, где здесь ближайшая автобусная 210

остановка...” (“You by chance don’t know where there is a nearby bus stop…” RA15). In one occurrence the speaker hedged a negated perfective future request with the particle ли (‘whether’): “Не подскажите ли Вы, где остановка…?” (“You will not tell me where the bus stop is…?”71 RA 18). Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) had a single token, in which a perfective imperative was used, accompanied by пожалуйста (‘please’), to request the information: “подскажите пожалуйста,” (“tell me please,” RA 8).

6.12. Situation 12: Asking to borrow a pen In Situation 12, the participants were instructed to imagine that they were at the post office mailing a letter when they realized they had forgotten to write the return address on the envelop. They were then told that they saw someone waiting in line with a pen and decided to ask him or her if they could borrow it. The participants were then asked to write a dialogue in which they asked to borrow the pen. As this situation takes place between strangers, there is high distance. However, due to the nature of the situation and the type of request, there is low a power-differential. The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 1.4, and a mode of 1. Table 6.33 provides a breakdown of the ratings.

71

Literally, “ You will not tell whether me where the bus stop is…?”

211

Table 6.33 Situation 12: The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings # of responses 19 1—Little to no potential 13 2—Some potential 5 3—Moderate potential 1 4—Considerable potential 0 5—Great Potential 0

Table 6.34 indicates the positive politeness strategy used by the RA participants for this situation.

Table 6.34 Situation 12: Positive face strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses # of tokens containing strategy Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 13 13

Only one positive politeness strategy used by the RA participants in Situation 12, Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), which was employed once each by 13 participants. Each occurrence expressed thanks to the hearer at the end of the interaction. Table 6.35 indicates the negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants for this situation.

212

Table 6.35 Situation 12: Negative face strategies used # of responses: 19 # of responses containing strategy Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 3 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 12 Strategy 4: Minimize the Imposition, Rx 12 Strategy 6: Apologize 18 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 7

# of tokens 3 12 12 28 7

Five negative politeness strategies were used by the RA participants in Situation 12. The most common was Strategy 6 (Apologize), which was used by 18 participants, for a total of 28 tokens. Sixteen of the occurrences used an apology to get the hearer’s attention (извините ‘Excuse [me], прошу прощения ‘I ask forgiveness,’ прошу меня извинить ‘I ask [you] to excuse me,’ etc.). Eleven occurrences gave a reason for the request—that the speakers had forgotten or needed to write the return address; and 1 apologized after the interaction was already initiated. Strategies 3 (Be pessimistic) was employed once each by 12 participants. Seven of the occurrences used a negated conditional interrogative construction to make the request—e.g., “не могли бы Вы одолжить мне свою ручку...” (“You couldn’t loan me your pen…” RA 6). Five others used a negated perfective (3 tokens) or imperfective (2 tokens) non-past tense interrogative construction—e.g., “Вы не дадите мне вашу ручку,” (“You won’t give me your pen,” RA 9). All 12 of the occurrences for Strategy 4 (Minimize the imposition) was also used once each by 12 participants. Each of the occurrences minimized the imposition by stating that the pen would be borrowed for only a short time, e.g., на пару минут (‘for a couple minutes’), на минутку 213

(‘for a minute’-with minute in the diminutive), на секундочку (‘for a second’ –with second in the second diminutive). Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H ) was employed once each by 7 participants. Each occurrence used an impersonal interrogative verb construction to request use of the pen, e.g., “…можно вашу ручку…” (“…is it possible [to borrow] your pen…,” RA 9). Strategy 2 (Question, hedge) was used once each by 3 participants. Two occurrences hedged the request with ли (‘whether’), e.g., “…не одолжите ли вы мне ручку,” (“…you won’t loan me the pen72,” RA 8). One occurrence used an embedded if clause to make the request: “…вы не возражаете если я воспользуюсь вашей ручкой?” (“…you don’t object if I use your pen?” RA 15).

6.13. Summary of Russian American data The data in Chapter 6 for the RA participants indicates that the power differential and type of imposition was less important, overall, than distance as a factor in predicting the predominance of positive or negative facework in a given situation. In this section, I will review specific trends in the RA data within the three categories of distance designated in this study: low, medium, and high. The tables that are included below group the situations according to the type of task performed for comparison and reference purposes: a request, the conveyance of negative information or a negative response, and the conveyance of positive information.

72

Literally, “you won’t loan whether to me the pen”.

214

A review of the RA data in Chapter 6 reveals a predominance of positive facework in situations of low social distance. Regardless of the weight of imposition, in every case except one in which there was low distance between the speaker and the hearer, there were more responses containing a positive politeness strategy as well as more positive politeness tokens. The one exception to this was Situation 6, which had nine more negative politeness tokens. It should also be noted that Situation 10 had the same number of responses containing both negative and positive politeness strategies; nevertheless, there were 14 more positive politeness tokens. Conversely, the situations that took place between strangers showed a significant predominance of negative facework. In the three situations where there was high distance between the speaker and the hearer, a response contained a negative politeness strategy at least twice as many times, and there were twice as many occurrences of negative politeness. Though it could be argued that these situations lend themselves more readily to negative facework, positive politeness prevailed when similar situations were presented to the participants where the distance was low. Lastly, in situations of moderate social distance, the dominance of either positive or negative facework seemed to be related to the power differential and the mean weight of imposition rating for the situation. In Situation 5, where there was a moderate power differential and a mean weight of imposition of 2.1, negative facework was exclusively preformed. However, in Situation 13, where there was a low power differential and the mean weight of imposition was 1.1, there was a significant predominance of positive politeness. 215

Table 6.36 provides a summary of the data for situations where a speaker makes a request of the hearer; Table 6.37 summarizes the data for situations where a negative response or information was conveyed; Table 6.38 summarizes the data for the solo situation where positive information was conveyed. Column 1 of the tables states the situation, column 2 indicates the distance for the situation, column 3 indicates the power differential for the situation, and column 4 indicates the mean weight of imposition for the situation. Column 5 gives the total number of times a response contained a positive politeness strategy, while column 6 indicates the total number of positive politeness tokens for the situation. Column 7 gives the total number of times a response contains a negative politeness strategy, while column 8 indicates the total number of negative politeness tokens.

216

Table 6.36 Situations where a request was made of the hearer Situation D P W # of times # of PP # of times responses tokens responses contained contained any one any one NP PP strategy strategy 3: Asking a L L 2.1 47 48 21 family (65.8%) member/signifi cant other to feed dog 4: Borrowing a H M 2.6 1 1 66 cell phone from (1.1%) stranger 5: Asking for a M M 2.1 0 0 68 letter of recommendatio n 9: Ask a friend L L 1.2 34 35 2 where they (94.6%) bought their shoes 11: Asking for H L 1.4 15 18 37 directions (30.5%) 12: Asking to H L 1.4 13 13 52 borrow a pen (17.3%) 13: Order a M L 1.1 32 50 7 meal from the (87.7%) usual worker

217

# of NP tokens

25 (34.2%)

89 (98.9%) 90 (100%) 2 (5.4%) 41 (69.5%) 62 (82.7%) 7 (12.3%)

Table 6.37 Situations where negative information or response was given to hearer Situation D P W # of times # of # of times # of responses PP responses NP contained any tokens contained any tokens one PP strategy one NP strategy 6: Text a friend L L 3.4 33 35 27 44 to say you can’t (44.3 (55.7 go to the %) %) movies 7: Give opinion L L 3.5 31 45 1 1 of friend’s/ (97.8 (2.3%) significant %) other’s haircut 8: Friend asks L M 3.7 26 30 18 25 to borrow new (54.5 (45.5 car %) %) 10: Let a friend L H 4.4 34 60 34 48 know they are (55.6 (44.4 fired %) %)

Table 6.38 Situations where positive information was conveyed to the hearer Situation D P W # of times # of # of times # of responses PP responses NP contained any tokens contained any tokens one PP strategy one NP strategy 1: Email a L L 1.1 59 93 0 0 friend and tell (100% them about ) your vacation

Tables 6.39 and 6.40 contain a tally of the total number of times each strategy was employed in the 12 situations. The strategies are listed from the most frequently employed to the least frequently employed, according to the total number of tokens. The 218

column on the right gives the total number of tokens and, in parenthesis, what percentage of the total they constituted. This information will be used in Chapters 7 and 8 for comparison with the AE and RR cultural groups.

Table 6.39 Usage totals of positive politeness strategies for RA Positive politeness strategy # of responses that contained the strategy Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 112 Strategy 4: Use of In-Group Identity 48 Markers Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 22 Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 30 Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement 21 Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 25 Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) Reason 24 Strategy 8: Joke 15 Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/Assert 13 Common Ground Strategy 5: Seek Agreement 6 Strategy 9: Assert or Presuppose the 3 Speakers Knowledge of and Concern for the Hearer’s Wants Strategy 2: Exaggerate 3 Strategy 11: Be Optimistic 1 Strategy 12: Include Both Speaker and 0 Hearer in the Activity Strategy 14: Assume or Assert 0 Reciprocity Total number of occurrences:

219

# of tokens 173 (40.5%) 50 (11.7%) 40 33 32 27 24 18 14

(9.4%) (7.7%) (7.5%) (6.3%) (5.6%) (4.2%) (3.3%)

7 5

(1.6%) (1.2%)

3 1 0

(0.7%) (0.2%) (0%)

0

(0%)

427

Table 6.40 Usage totals of negative politeness strategies for RA Negative politeness strategy # of responses that contained the strategy Strategy 6: Apologize 116 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 62 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 60 Strategy 10: Go on Record as Incurring 32 a Debt, or as not Indebting H Strategy 5: Give Deference 15 Strategy 4: Minimize the Imposition, 28 Rx Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 12 Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 8 Strategy 8: State the FTA as a General 0 Rule Total number of occurrences:

220

# of tokens 183 (42.2%) 73 (16.8%) 60 (13.8%) 38 (8.8%) 30 (6.9%) 29 (6.7%) 12 (2.8%) 9 (2.1%) 0 (0%) 434

Chapter 7 Comparison of Data Across the AE, RR and RA cultural groups

7.0. Overview of the chapter Chapter 7 contains a comparison of the data analysis from the AE, RR, and RA participant surveys found in Chapters 4-6. First, the data for each situation from the AE and RR participants were compared against each other on the basis of weight of imposition ratings, dominance of positive or negative politeness and the politeness strategies used to perform the facework. For the comparison of the strategies used, the percent of the total tokens that a strategy accounted for within each respective cultural group was compared against the others. The percents are indicated on the tables in parenthesis next to the number of tokens for each strategy. In the comparison of the percents, I focused on areas of interest that showed noteworthy differences in either the overall percent usage and/or implementation of a strategy. As there were too many independent variables in each situation to make any claim about statistical significance, the differences noted are meant to draw attention to possible areas for further investigation. In the decision of what was a notable difference, I used the following criterion for transparency: first, there had to be 5 or more tokens of a strategy, second, the difference between the two groups’ percent usage had be 8% or 221

higher73. However, there were some instances when a strategy was addressed not on the basis of percent usage but due to a noticeable difference in the implementation of it that was important to note. Additionally, when stating the positive or negative politeness was performed similarly, I looked at the dominance of a strategies within the situation and the percent usages. For instance, if Strategy X accounted for the largest percent of positive politeness performed for the cultural groups in a given situation, then this was noted as a similarity. However, if there was a percent usage difference that fell within the aforementioned percentages it was also noted. The RA data was then compared against the findings from the AE and RR analysis to determine if the RA responses resembled one participant group more than another or if they behaved differently all together. The situations in this chapter are discussed in the same order as the previous Chapters 4, 5, and 6. This was done to aid the reader in comparing similar situations and to maintain continuity between the chapters.

7.1.0. Situation 1: Emailing a friend 7.1.1. The AE and RR weight of imposition means and politeness ratios In Situation 1, both the AE and the RR participants had a mean weight of imposition that was low—the AE mean was 1.3, with a mode of 1, while the RR mean was only slightly lower at 1.2, with a mode of 1.Consequently, both participant groups 73

I included as low as 8% because for some situations where the percent was lower, the difference also seemed noteworthy. For instance, in table 7.4 the AE percent usage of 19.2% (14 our of 73 tokens) of Strategy 15 and the RR percent usage of 10.6 (5 out of 47) seems worth noting due to the fact that at that low of a percent usage, a difference of 8-9% implies that for one group the strategy has almost twice a the significance in the performance of facework than for another.

222

saw little potential for a face-threatening act in responding to a friend’s email when no request was made, other than a routine inquiry into how he or she (i.e. the speaker) was doing. As would be expected in such a situation, positive politeness was exclusively used by the RR participants; while the AE participants had only 1 negative politeness token. Thus, in a low stakes situation between friends, where a routine inquiry is made, negative politeness appears to be of little or no value for both the AE and the RR participants.

7.1.2 Comparison of AE and RR positive politeness usage Table 7.1 provides a summary of the positive politeness performed by the AE and the RR participants for Situation 1, which is discussed following the table.

Table 7.1 Situation 1:Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 19 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 1 1 (1.3%) 2 2 (2.5%) Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 16 29 (36.3%) 13 21 (25.9%) Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 10 13 (16.3) 13 17 (21%) Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/Assert 0 0 1 2 (2.5%) Common Ground Strategy 8: Joke 7 8 (10%) 5 5 (6.2%) Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 7 7 (8.8%) 7 8 (9.9%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 13 22 (27.5%) 12 26 (32.1%) Total # of tokens 80 81

The data from the AE and the RR participant groups for Situation 1 indicate that the performance of positive facework was similar in nature for both groups. Six of the 7 positive politeness strategies were used by both participant groups, while the RR 223

participants used one additional strategy that was not common to both. The majority of the strategies used accounted for similar percents of the total positive politeness occurrences within their respective groups. However, there where 3 strategies that exhibited a noteworthy difference. Strategy 3 (Intensify interest to hearer) accounted for 10.3% more of the occurrences among the AE participants (i.e. 36. 3%) than the RR participants (i.e. 25.9%). The data from sections 4.1 and 5.1 indicate that both groups primarily used adverbs to intensify what they were saying and make it more animated, and thus more interesting to the hearer. Hence, in this case, the only difference was in the frequency with which the strategy occurred within each group. This finding is interesting in light of Larina’s claim that Russians are freer to express emotion, especially positive emotion (2009: 1.5.2). Her qualification of this statement by adding, “Такие черты, как романтизм, чувствительность и импульсивность оцениваются позитивно,” (“Characteristics such as romanticism, sensitivity, and impulsiveness are esteemed positively,”) seems especially important in light of the data for this situation, as it appears that while they may feel freer to express emotion, certain kinds of emotion may be valued and/or expressed more or while others less (ibid: 1.5.2). In this case, the data suggest that the AE participants felt freer to express emotion by intensifying their contributes with greater frequency than the RR participants, which at the same time served the purpose of strengthening solidarity in the interaction. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) also had a difference in the percent usage that, although much smaller than Strategy 3, is meaningful to note. Among the RR 224

participants, Strategy 4 accounted for 21%, while it accounted for 16.3% among the AE participants. A closer look at the uses of Strategy 4 in sections 4.1 and 5.1 indicate that the only areas of real difference were in the overall frequency of use within each group and the employment of in-group address forms. The RR data contained 5 in-group address forms, while the AE had only 2. However, the difference is not great enough to make any claims about a concrete difference in use by either cultural group. Strategy 8 (Joke) accounted for 10% of the total politeness tokens among the AE participants, while it accounted for 6.2% of the RR politeness tokens. Although this is not a large percent difference, the data from sections 4.1 and 5.1 indicate that the AE participants had a more standardized way of joking. For AE participants, 6 of the 8 jokes were centered around the same thing, i.e. the speaker’s return home. In contrast, each of the 5 jokes made by RR participants had varying topics. Although it is too preliminary to come to any particular conclusion, the data suggests that joking may be more conventionalized in American English. Finally, although Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) accounted for similar percents within each cultural group, a breakdown of its use demonstrates fundamental differences in how positive politeness was performed by the AE and RR participant groups. Three of the differences were particularly noteworthy. The most salient was within the in the area of asking questions to express interest in the hearer. For the RR participants, it accounted for 38.5% (i.e. 10 of the 26 tokens) of the total tokens for Strategy 15, while among the AE participants it only accounted for 18.2 % (i.e. 4 of the 22 tokens) of the total tokens. Conversely, the AE participants were more likely to wish 225

the hearer well, a tactic that accounted for 27.3% (i.e. 6 of the 22 tokens) among the AE participants and 11.5% (i.e. 3 of the 26 tokens) among the RR participants.

7.1.3. Comparison of the AE and the RR negative politeness usage Table 7.2 provides a summary of the negative politeness strategies used in Situation 1.

Table 7.2 Situation 1: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of 19 # of AE tokens RR tokens Strategy 2: Hedge, Question 1 1 0 0

In the area of negative politeness, only a single token of Strategy 2 (Hedge, question) was performed by an AE participant. Thus, it appears that negative politeness was of little to no significance for both participant groups in this situation.

7.1.4. Comparison of the RA data Table 7.3 provides a summary of the positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants in Situation 1. It is followed by a brief discussion of the RA data as it compares with the AE and the RR results from sections 7.1.1-7.1.3 above.

226

Table 7.3 Situation 1: Positive politeness strategies for RA responses Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 15 30 (32.3%) Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 14 18 (19.4%) Strategy 8: Joke 7 7 (7.5%) Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 6 6 (6.5%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 17 32 (34.4%) Total # of tokens 93

The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings were similar to both the AE and the RR ratings, with a mean of 1.1 and a mode of 1. The percent of positive politeness tokens was also similar to both at 100%. The RA data indicates that in the main areas of discrepancy between the AE and the RR data, the RA participants performed most similar to the RR participants. However, even though in the majority of the subcategories of Strategy 15 the RA participants performed comparable to the RR participants, some aspects of their use were slightly different from both the RR and the AE participant groups. For the RA participants, wishing the hearer good wishes accounted for an even smaller percent of the occurrences (i.e. 6.1%) than it did among the RR (i.e. 11.5%) and AE (i.e. 27.3%) participant groups. Also, the use of a farewell that assured meeting again (e.g. до скорого [‘until soon’]) accounted for nearly twice the percent (i.e. 6 of the 33 tokens) it did among the RR participants (i.e. 3 of the 26 tokens). Although neither of these differences is great enough to come any concrete conclusions about their use, they do indicate that changes in the politeness in the L1 may occur in ways that make it dissimilar to both the L1 and L2, suggesting that there maybe some 227

type of interlanguage that is created in the area of politeness for participants that reside in the L2 country.

7.2.0. Situation 7: Offering an opinion on a friend or significant other’s haircut 7.2.1. The AE and RR weight of imposition ratings and politeness ratios Both the AE and RR participants had a mean weight of imposition that was in the moderate to high-moderate range for Situation 7. For the AE participants, the mean was 3.7, with a mode of 5; the RR participants, on the other hand, had a slightly lower mean at 3.4, with a mode of 4. Thus, the majority of the AE participants saw a slightly greater potential for committing a face-threatening act in offering a negative opinion about a haircut to a close friend/significant other than the RR participants did. Both the AE and the RR participant groups overwhelmingly preferred positive politeness in Situation 7; the only exception was a single negative politeness token among the AE responses. Thus, the data suggest that negative politeness is dispreferred in situations with a low power differential, low distance and a moderate to high-moderate chance of committing a face-threatening act.

7.2.2. Comparison of the AE and RR positive politeness usage Table 7.4 summarizes the positive politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR participants in Situation 7.

228

Table 7.4 Situation 7: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to H 5 8 (11%) 7 8 (17%) Strategy 2: Exaggerate (approval) 1 1 (1.4%) 0 0 Strategy 4: Use of In-Group Identity Markers 2 2 (2.7%) 0 0 Strategy 5: Seek Agreement 12 24 (32.9%) 10 18 (38.3%) Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement 16 23 (31.5%) 12 15 (31.9%) Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 1 1 (1.4%) 1 1 (2.1%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 11 14 (19.2%) 5 5 (10.6%) Total # of tokens 73 47

The positive politeness performed by the AE and the RR participant groups for Situation 2 was, for the most part, comparable in nature. The two groups had 5 strategies in common; the AE group drew on two additional strategies, which accounted for a minimal number of tokens. The most salient difference between the two groups was seen in the performance of Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), which accounted for 19.2% among the AE participants and 10.6% among the RR participants. The breakdown of the use of Strategy 15 in Sections 4.2 and 5.2 shows that the AE and RR groups generally utilized the strategies in a similar way. The majority of the occurrences for each group involved offering reassurance that the hearer’s hair would grow back or that the hearer still looked fine/attractive. In both groups, there were fewer instances of compliments than reassurances. These data indicate that the AE and the RR participants did not perform

229

Strategy 15 differently but that it played a more important role in the AE participants’ facework than in that of the RR participants. Even though the comments about the hearer’s looks had the ostensible purpose of reassuring the hearer, they can probably still be tied to the tendency of Americans to perform positive facework by means of compliments. In a cross-cultural study on compliments in Japan and the United States, Americans were found to use more compliments, and in particular to favor compliments based on the hearer’s appearance (Barnland and Akari 1985). Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H) accounted for 17% among the RR participants and 11% among the AE participants. Although the two groups actually produced the same number of tokens, the difference in their percentages of usage demonstrates that noticing the condition of the hearer was more central to the positive facework performed by the RR participants. Furthermore, the breakdown of the data in sections 4. 2 and 5.2 indicates that half of the RR tokens (4 of the 8 occurrences) involved not only noticing the haircut but also giving suggestions to help the hearer; while only 1 of the 8 occurrences did so in the AE data. This tendency to notice a negative aspect of an individual and give corrective suggestions may manifest several values otherwise known to be prominent in Russian culture—in particular, sincerity and openness. According to Larina (2009: Заключение Английский и русский стили коммуникации), among Russians, “Sincerity, directness, truthfulness and naturalness have a higher position on the hierarchy of values” than among English speakers. Because corrective suggestions

230

presuppose that the haircut is subpar, in addition to demonstrating personal interest in the hearer’s needs, they are a manifestation of the value that Russians place on sincerity.74 Strategy 5 (Seek agreement) accounted for 32.9% of the tokens among the AE participants and 38.3% among the RR participants. Although there were more tokens among the AE participants, the higher percentage suggests that the strategy played a more central role in positive facework for the RR participants. Beyond the percentages, the breakdown of the data in sections 4.2 and 5.2 indicates that the AE participants were more likely to try to find something in the interaction to agree upon; 16 of the 24 occurrences attempted to agree with the hearer on some aspect of the situation—e.g., that the speaker was happy that the hearer was happy with the haircut. On the other hand, the RR participants used this sub-strategy (i.e. finding an aspect of the interaction to agree upon) and questions to turn the conversation back to the hearer and his/her opinion of the hair equally, accounting for 7 tokens each of the 18 total. Finally, although the AE and RA groups had similar percentages of tokens for Strategy 6 (Avoid disagreement), they chose markedly different subcategories for their facework. The RR participants favored token agreement, i.e., seeming to agree and then qualifying the agreement; this accounted for 9 of the 15 occurrences. On the other hand, 14 of the 23 occurrences in the AE data involved hedges mitigating the intensity of the speaker’s opinion. In other words, both groups found it important to soften their opinion of the haircut, but did so in different ways.

74

This can be further noted in the lower total number of tokens that the RR participants produced. They may have perceived less need to perform facework in this situation because of the premium placed on sincerity.

231

7.2.3. Comparison of the AE and RR negative politeness usage Table 7.5 provides a summary of the negative politeness performed in Situation 7 by the AE and RR participant groups.

Table 7.5 Situation 7: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 6: Apologize 1 1 0 0

There was only a single token of a negative politeness in this situation—Strategy 6 (Apologize), which was used by one AE participant. This suggests that both the AE and RR participant groups, did not see negative politeness strategies as effective in disarming the face-threatening act in this low distance and power situation.

7.2.4. Comparison of the RA Data Table 7.6 provides a summary of the positive politeness strategies used by the RR participants, which is followed by a comparison of the RA data with those of AE and the RA groups from sections 7.2.1-3 above.

232

Table 7.6 Situation 7: Positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to H 3 4 (7.7%) Strategy 5: Seek Agreement 6 7 (13.6%) Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement 15 25 (57.7%) Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/Assert 1 1 (1.9%) Common Ground Strategy 8: Joke 1 1 (1.9%) Strategy 13: Give Reasons 1 1 (1.9%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 3 6 (9.6%) Total # of tokens 45

The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings for Situation 7 had a mean of 3.5 and a mode of 4. This was almost identical to the RR participants’ rating of 3.4, with a mode of 4; the AE’s mean was slightly higher at 3.7, with a mode of 5. Like the RR participants, the RA group exclusively used positive politeness to perform facework in this situation; the only token of negative politeness token occurred in the AE data. However, the remainder of the RA participant data varied greatly and did not demonstrate a true bias toward either of the other cultural groups. The most striking difference in the RA data was in the use of Strategies 5 (Seek agreement) and 6 (Avoid disagreement). In the AE and RR participant groups, each of these strategies accounted for 30-40% of the tokens. By contrast, in the RA data, Strategy 6 accounted for 57.7% of all the positive politeness tokens, while Strategy 5 only accounted for 13.6%. A closer look at the data from section 6.2 shows a slight shift in the use of Strategy 6 toward a more AE participant usage as 12 of the 25 tokens were hedged opinions, while a smaller percent, i.e. 7 tokens, used token agreement (i.e. agreeing but 233

then qualifying the agreement). However, the clear discrepancy in the RA usage of Strategy 5, as compared with that of the other groups, is still curious. Hypothetically, the AE-like increase in the use of hedged opinions may have made the RA speakers feel less of a need to ‘seek agreement’. More research is needed to determine if this is a valid explanation. For the RA participants, the percentage of tokens of Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to the hearer) was more similar to the AE than to the RR group; that is, showing attentiveness to the hearer did not seem to play such an important role in the interaction. Nevertheless, in each of the occurrences of Strategy 1, the RA speakers gave advice about what the hearers should do, or should have done, about their haircuts. Thus, although the percentage was more like that of the AE participants, the actual way in which the strategy was implemented more closely mirrored the RR participants’ usage. In sum, the facework of the RA group in Situation 7 shows some signs of divergence from the RR participants. However, this divergence was not consistent and produced some results that were also dissimilar to those of the AE participants. Perhaps, as mentioned in section 7.1.4, these changes reflect the formation of a politeness interlanguage due to immersion in the L2 environment.

7.3. Situation 9: Asking a friend where they got their shoes 7.3.1. Weight of imposition and positive/negative politeness ratio In Situation 9, the AE and the RR participants both had a mean weight of imposition that was low; the AE mean was 1.4, with a mode of 1, while RR mean was 234

slightly lower at 1.2, with a mode of 1. In other words, both participant groups viewed the situation as posing a low risk for a face-threatening act. Consequently they preferred positive politeness and performed a limited amount of negative politeness (4 of the 41 total AE tokens and only 1 of the 50 total RR tokens).

7.3.2 Comparison of the AE and the RR positive politeness usage Table 7.7 provides a summary of the use of positive politeness by the AE and the RR participants.

Table 7.7 Situation 9: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to H 20 20 (55.6%) 19 19 (38.8%) Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, 4 5 (13.9%) 3 4 (8.2%) etc.) Strategy 3: Intensity Interest to Hearer 0 0 1 1 (2%) Strategy 4: Use of In-Group Identity 4 4 (11.1%) 9 10 (20.4%) Markers Strategy 8: Joke 1 1 (2.8%) 1 1 (2%) Strategy 12: Include Both Hearer & 1 1 (2.8%) 0 0 Speaker in Activity Strategy 13: Give Reasons 3 3 (8.3%) 6 7 (14.3%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 2 2 (5.6%) 6 7 (14.3%) Total # of tokens 36 49

Although both AE and RR participants had a mean weight of imposition that was almost identical for Situation 9, there were notable differences in how the two groups implemented positive facework in this context. Strategy 1 (Notice, attend to H) accounted for the largest percentage of both groups’ positive politeness tokens, but there was not a 235

notable difference in the proportions. For the AE participants, it made up 55.6% of the 36 tokens, but for the RR participants 38.8%. Moreover, although, apart from Strategy 2, the AE group used the same strategies as the RR one, they used them to a much lesser extent (lower percentage). In short, the AE group did minimal facework apart from noticing and admiring the shoes. Strategies 4, 13 and 15, in particular, appeared to be favored facework tools for the RR participants in Situation 9. They utilized Strategy 4 (Use in-group identity markers—in all but one case, greetings) almost twice as much as the AE participants. The RR group also made greater use of Strategy 13 (Give reasons) and Strategy 15 (each 14.3% of their total tokens). This is, in stark contrast to the AE group, where Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) accounted for only two tokens (5.6%). Both of these were expressions of thanks to the hearer, whereas the RR tokens of Strategy 15 included not only thanks but compliments and reassurances that they would not buy the same shoes. The differences noted would seem to imply that the RR participants perceived a greater weight of imposition in Situation 7, but they did not; in fact, their mean was slightly lower than that of the AE participants. Thus, the reason for their heightened use of positive politeness is unclear. One possibility is that there is some deeper cultural norm or value that puts constraints on topics such as where something was purchased or physical accessories. The fact that the RR participants used a greater variety of strategies to offset the face threat would be logical if this were a culturally sensitive area. However, it would still be unclear why the given ethos would not have been reflected in the rating of the weight of imposition in the situation. 236

7.3.3. Comparison of the AE and RR negative politeness usage Table 7.8 provides a summary of the negative politeness used by the AE and the RR participants.

Table 7.8 Situation 9: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 1 1 0 0 Strategy 2: Questions, Hedge 1 1 0 0 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 2 2 1 1 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 1 1 0 0 Total # of tokens 5 1

There was a minimal amount of negative politeness performed for Situation 9 by both the AE and the RR participants. The AE participants produced more tokens than the RR participants; thus the AE participants evidently felt that negative politeness was not inappropriate in such situations. Nevertheless, as was seen in Situation 7, neither cultural group seems likely to resort to negative politeness in a situation involving low distance, low power differential, and low weight of imposition, especially one in which only information is requested.

7.3.4. Comparison of the RA data Tables 7.9 and 7.10 summarize the positive and negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants in Situation 9. 237

Table 7.9 Situation 9: Positive politeness strategies for the RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to H 17 17 (48.6%) Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, etc.) 2 2 (5.7%) Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 1 (2.9%) Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 1 1 (2.9%) Strategy 8: Joke 1 1 (2.9%) Strategy 13: Give Reasons 5 5 (14.3%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 7 8 (22.9%) Total # of tokens 35

Table 7.10 Situation 9: Negative politeness strategies for the RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 2: Hedge, Question 1 1 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 1 1 Total # of tokens 2

The RA group assigned Situation 9 a mean weight of imposition of 1.5; this was more similar to the AE mean of 1.4 than to the RR mean of X. (All three groups had a mode of 1.) However, a breakdown of the strategies and the percentages that they constituted indicate that the RA participants generally behaved more like the RR participants, though they did exhibit some AE influence as well as unique tendencies. In positive facework, RA participants resembled the RR ones in the extent to which they used Strategies 13 and 15. They also implemented Strategy 13 in ways that were similar to the RR participants (see Sections 5.3 and 6.3). However, the RA group

238

implemented strategy 15 differently, in that they thanked the hearer in every case, whereas the RR participants’ use varied (see Section 7.3.2). For positive politeness Strategy 1, (Notice,  attend  to  H),  the RA percentage of use may demonstrate some AE influence, as it is situated between the RA and the AE percentages. Strategy 4, on the other hand, proved to be dissimilar to the other groups. The RA group only resorted to negative politeness twice in Situation 9. Thus it is hard to draw any conclusion other than that they deemed positive facework a better fit for the context.

7.4. Situation 13: Order a meal at your regular place from the regular worker 7.4.1 Weight of imposition and positive/negative politeness ratio In Situation 13, both the AE and RR participants rated the situation as having a low weight of imposition— 1.4, with a mode of 1, and 1.1, with a mode of 1, respectively. This indicates that both participant groups felt that there was relatively little possibility of a face-threatening act occurring in the given situation. However, even though the means were in close proximity, there was a noteworthy difference in the ratio of positive to negative politeness tokens between the two groups. For the AE participants, the total positive politeness tokens accounted for 91.4% of all the politeness tokens. The RR participants, on the other hand, did not have such a large difference in their positive to negative politeness ratios; the positive politeness tokens accounted for only 60.9% of the total politeness tokens.

239

The differences in the ratio of positive to negative politeness between the AE and the RR participants are, as I interpret it, indicative of important cultural differences. As neither group sees a high risk of a face threat in the situation, the most probable explanation is that the customer-cashier relationship has different social parameters in American and Russian culture. The RA participants had only slightly more positive politeness tokens than negative, and the majority were purely conventional; 37 % of them were expressions of thanks. Thus, it appears that the RR participants had a more taskoriented goal for the interaction and worried less about the positive face needs of the hearer (the server). By contrast, given the high percent of positive politeness and the particular strategies used, the AE participants evidently regarded the customer-cashier relationship as more personal and friendly. Their goals in the interaction appear to include not only making a purchase but creating, establishing, or affirming solidarity with a worker with whom they were familiar. In this cultural milieu, conversational relevance—making one’s “conversational contributions such as required” (Grice 1989: 26)—included performing positive facework. Several scholars have also noted the tendency for Americans to want to their good intentions to be know in their interactions and to maintain accord (see the work cited in Pinto 2011). On the other hand, the Russian culture does not seem to have the same social needs and thus, making one’s “contribution such as required,” more tightly follows Grice’s maxim of Quality, “Make your contributions as informative as required,” and, “Do not make your contributions more informative than required” (Grice 1989: 26-27). In her discussion of Russian politeness in service encounters, Rathmayr notes that 240

Western foreigners often felt that Russian shopkeepers were rude (Rathmayr 2008: 2). This, no doubt, is due to the impersonal nature of such interactions in Russian society and the different expectations the tourists had for the interaction as a whole.

7.4.2. Comparison of the AE and the RR positive politeness usage Table 7.11 provides a summary of the positive politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR participants.

Table 7.11 Situation 13: Positive politeness strategies for AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 19 AE RR Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to H 0 0 1 Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 19 26 (40%) 3 Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/Assert Common 3 3 (4.6%) 0 Ground Strategy 8: Joke 6 8 (12.3%) 3 Strategy 12: Include Both Speaker and Hearer 0 0 1 in the Activity Strategy 13: Give Reason 0 0 1 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 18 28 (43.1%) 12 Total # of tokens 65

# of tokens 1 (3.4%) 4 (14.3%) 0 3 (10.7%) 1 (3.6%) 1 (3.6%) 18(64.3%) 28

There were two major differences in how each participant group performed positive facework in Situation 13. The most salient was in the use of Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers), which was commonly used by the AE participants and accounted for 40% of the total positive politeness tokens. On the other hand, Strategy 4 only accounted for 14.3% of the total positive politeness tokens among the RR participants. As seen in the data in Sections 4.4 and 5.4, there was only 1 use of an in241

group greeting among the RR participants, but 13 among the AE ones. Additionally, while 8 of the 26 AE tokens used some form of slang (e.g., for yes or no), the RR participants did not have any occurrences of slang. Evidently, for AE participants, creating or signaling solidarity with the hearer though greetings and a more informal style of speaking was an important part of the interaction. Another important difference lie in the use of Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer). As the data in Sections 4.4 and 5.4 indicate, 16 of the 28 AE occurrences expressed interest in the hearer by asking about how he/she or their family was doing, while 11 expressed thanks. On the other hand, the most common use of Strategy 15 by the RR participants was to thank, which accounted for 10 of 18 tokens; only 4 expressed personal interest in the hear by inquiring about their well-being. Thus, the data suggest that for Americans, making inquiries into the well being of the hearer is an important part of positive facework in a customer-worker situation, while the RR data does not support such attention to positive facework between them. This particular “friendliness” of AE politeness is often seen by other cultures as artificial or insincere (Pinto 2011). This would most likely apply to the RR’s perception as well, as Russian culture places a high value on sincerity; by my own observations, many Russians view the American smalltalk practices as insincere. However, Pinto’s study of service encounters in the United States (ibid.) found that, regardless of the actual level of sincerity, Americans perceive customer-service personnel’s effort to reach out to their customers as a valuable practice, because they are making an effort to be polite and create solidarity. In my opinion, this observation also applies to the customer reaching out to the hearer as well. 242

7.4.3. Comparison of the AE and the RR negative politeness usage Table 7.12 summarizes the negative politeness performed by the AE and RR participants in Situation 13.

Table 7.12 Situation 13: Negative politeness strategies for AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 19 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 1 1 0 0 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 4 4 1 1 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 1 1 15 17

As the table shows, the AE participants made far less use of negative politeness in Situation 13 than the RR participants—only 6 tokens as compared with18, respectively. As the data in section 5.4 indicate, the majority of these occurrences were used to order food (15 of the 17) and highlight a fundamental difference among the RR and the AE data. While the RR participants primarily used impersonal verb constructions (i.e. можно ‘is it possible’) and secondarily imperatives to order their food, the AE participants were most likely to use ellipsis (i.e. ‘the same as usual,’), which can be seen as positive politeness Strategy 4, or negative politeness Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic).75 In short the RR participants relied almost equally on negative politeness to perform facework in

75

A number of the AE requests simply stated the food items they wanted, without any verb, in response to the workers question about what they would have for lunch. There were also other occurrences when the worker asked if they wanted the usual and they simply responded to the question in the affirmative.

243

Situation 13, even though the weight of imposition was low, while AE participants relied much more heavily on positive politeness.

7.4.4. Comparison of the RA data Tables 7.13 and 7.14 summarize the positive and negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants.

Table 7.13 Situation 13: Positive politeness strategies used by RA Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 2 3 (6 %) Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 1 (2%) Strategy 4: In-group Identity Markers 8 10 (20%) Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/Assert Common 3 3 (6%) Ground Strategy 8: Joke 1 3 (6%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 17 30 (60%) Total # of tokens 50

Table 7.14 Situation 13: Negative politeness strategies used by RA Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 7 7

The mean weight of imposition rating for the RA participants was 1.1, with a mode of 1, which was identical to the RR participant mean, as against the AE mean of 1.4. Nevertheless, positive politeness tokens accounted for 87.7% of the RA group’s total politeness tokens—a result markedly more similar to the AE use (91.4%) than the RR (60%). A deeper look at the use of strategies also indicates that RA participant use varied 244

considerably from the RR participants’. These facts suggest that some aspects of the RA facework were vulnerable to the influence of the AE trends. For the RA participants, Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), accounted for a percentage close to that of the RR groups—60 % and 64.3%, respectively. However, as the data in Section 6.4 indicate, the manner in which the RA group utilized Strategy 15 was more similar to that of the AE participants; 12 of the 30 tokens involved asking about the well-being of the hearer or, in one case, the prosperity of business, while and 11 expressed thanks. On the other hand, the less frequent uses of Strategy 15 were similar to the RA data. For instance, both the RA and the RR data contained occurrences of compliments—3 and 2 tokens, respectively—and each had 2 occurrences in which they noted that it was nice to see the worker or that they would see them there again. The somewhat greater use of Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) among the RA participants—20%, as opposed to 14.3% among the RR group—may be influenced by the use of politeness in American culture (cf. the 40% among the AE participants). This hypothesis is supported by the breakdown of usage in section 6.4: 7 of the 10 RA occurrences involved an in-group greeting, as opposed to only 1 of the 4 RR tokens. In the area of negative politeness, the RA participant use likewise appears to be influenced by the AE frequency of use. First, the total RA negative politeness tokens accounted for a percentage similar to the AE percent. Second, as seen in the data summarized in Tables 7.12 (for the AE and RR groups) and 7.14 (for the RA group), the

245

RA participants clearly resorted to this negative politeness strategy proportionally less than the RR participants. In short, the RA data in Situation 13 are open to the interpretation that the L2 is having some influence on the politeness of the L1. Perhaps this situation is more vulnerable than others to the L2 influence because the RA participants interact with the American culture at this level on a regular basis. Many of the RA participants in this study did not live in neighborhoods with a heavy concentration of Russian speakers (where the shop keepers would most likely also be Russophone). Thus it would be interesting to see if the possible L2 effect is less in Russophone enclaves (e.g., Brighton Beach, New York).

7.5. Situation 3: Ask a roommate/family member to feed your dog 7.5.1. Weight of imposition and positive/negative politeness ratio In Situation 3, the AE and the RR’s mean weight of imposition had a notable difference; the mean for the AE participants was 1.6, with a mode of 1, while the Russian mean was 2.3, with a mode of 1.5. In other words, the RR group perceived the request, even though made to a roommate or family member, as posing a greater risk of face threat than the AE participants did. Nevertheless, there were only slight differences in the positive to negative politeness ratio between the two groups. For the AE participants, the positive politeness tokens accounted for 54.1% of all the politeness tokens, and for the RR participants 66.1% of all politeness tokens.

246

7.5.2. Comparison of the AE and the RR positive politeness usage Table 7.15 provides a summary of the AE and RR positive politeness strategies used in Situation 3.

Table 7.15 Situation 3: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 9 9 (22.5%) 12 16 (39%) Strategy 8: Joke 0 0 1 1 (2.4%) Strategy 13: Give Reasons 18 18 (45%) 16 16 (39%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 13 13 (32.5%) 8 8 (19.5%) Total # of tokens 40 41

Three positive politeness strategies were used by both the AE and the RR participants for Situation 3, while an additional strategy was used by the RR participants. Of the 3 shared strategies, Strategy 13 (Give reasons) had comparable results and was the most common strategy for each group. This indicates that giving the reason for making the request was culturally important for both groups, so that the hearer could see the “reasonableness” of the request (Brown and Levinson 1987: 128). The remaining two strategies employed by both the AE and RR participants had significant differences in their overall percents of use. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) accounted 16.5% more of the total positive politeness tokens among RR participants (i.e. 39%) than it did among the AE participants (i.e. 22%). As the data in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 show, while each of the 9 AE tokens was an in-group greeting, 10 of 16 RR tokens were in-group greetings, 4 others involved in-group slang, and another 2 247

in-group forms of address. Thus, while both groups had a similar number of in-group greetings, the RR participants also relied on other types of in-group language or address to build and maintain solidarity in the interaction. In contrast, Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) accounted for 13% more of the total positive politeness tokens among the AE participants. However, the breakdown of the data in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 indicates that all or almost all of the occurrences for both participant groups involved thanking the hearer.76 Therefore, the main difference in Strategy 15 was not in the manner but in the frequency of use within each participant group.

7.5.3. Comparison of the AE and the RR negative politeness usage Table 7.16 provides a summary of the negative politeness strategies used in Situation 3 by the AE and the RR participant groups.

Table 7.16 Situation 3: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of AE RR tokens Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 12 12 (35.3%) 2 2 (9.5%) Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 1 1 (2.9%) 0 0 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 8 8 (23.5%) 3 3 (14.3%) Strategy 4: Minimize Imposition, Rx 1 1 (2.9%) 1 1 (4.8%) Strategy 6: Apologize 4 4 (11.8%) 0 0 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 3 3 (8.8%) 15 15(71.4%) Strategy 10: Go On Record As 5 5 (14.7%) 0 0 Incurring A Debt Total # of tokens 34 21

76

Two of the 13 AE occurrences were compliments to the hearer.

248

The performance of negative politeness by the AE and RR participants had several pronounced differences. The AE participants used 7 different negative politeness strategies in Situation 5; the RR participants only employed 4, which overlapped with those used by the AE participants. The greatest differences between the performance of negative politeness between the two groups were seen in the use of Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect), 3 (Be pessimistic), and 7 (Impersonalize S and H). Strategy 1 accounted for 25.8% more of the total negative politeness tokens among the AE participants (12 of 34) than the RR (2 of 21). Although the discrepancy was less, Strategy 3 also accounted for 9% more of the negative politeness tokens among the AE participants (8 of 34) than the RR (3 of 21). Conversely, Strategy 7 accounted for 62.6% more of the negative politeness occurrence among the RR participants (15 of 21) than the AE participants (3 of 34). As discussed in Sections 4.5 and 5.5, this difference stems from how each cultural group tended to make the request. The AE participants favored the use of indirect requests using Can you (Strategy 1) or Could/would you (Strategy 3) to request that the hearer feed the dog. These are well-documented ways in which English speakers use indirect speech acts to make requests. Likewise, the use of an imperative (categorized under Strategy 7) to make requests is common in Russian culture. Where Americans may find imperatives rude in some contexts, they are standard, polite ways to make a low weight of imposition request in Russian in situations of low social distance and/or power (Mills 1992: 68; Ogiermann 2009).

249

Additionally, Strategy 10 (Go on record as incurring a debt) accounted for 14.7% (5 of the 34 tokens) of the total AE negative politeness tokens, but it went unused by the RR participants. Each of the 5 AE tokens expressed some type of indebtedness to the hearer for feeding the dog. This is interesting, in light of the fact that AE participants overall rated the imposition to be lower than the RR participants.

7.5.4. Comparison of the RA Data Tables 7.17 and 7.18 summarizes the RA facework performed for Situation 3.

Table 7.17 Situation 3: Positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 4: Use of In-Group Identity Markers 13 13 (27.1%) Strategy 8: Joke 1 1 (2.1%) Strategy 13: Give Reasons 18 18 (37.5%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 15 16 (33.3%) Total # of tokens 48

Table 7.18 Situation 3: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 3 3 (12%) Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 4 4 (16%) Strategy 6: Apologize 4 4 (20%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 10 14 (52%) Total # of tokens 25

The RA 2.1 mean weight of imposition ratings for Situation 3 was similar to the RR mean of 2.3, although the mode was 1. Positive politeness tokens accounted for 250

65.8% of the total politeness tokens—slightly higher than either of the other groups, but more similar to the RR (61.2%) than the AE (55.6%). The RA positive and negative politeness strategies demonstrate some similarities to both groups. Within the area of positive politeness, the RA percentage for Strategy 13 (Give reasons) was 37.5%, similar to the RR’s 39%, but its percentage for Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) was 33.3% was more like the AE 32.5%. The three cultural groups made similar use of these two strategies—explaining why the request was necessary and expressing thanks, respectively—so the percentages demonstrate proportions of use. Ostensibly, the RA percentage for Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers), 27% of the politeness tokens, suggests a shift towards AE usage (22.5%, as compared with RR 39%). However, the breakdown of the data in Section 6.5 indicates that the RA group actually use Strategy 4 more like the RR group than the AE. The majority of the RA tokens involved in-group greetings, with an additional 4 in-group address forms and 1 token of slang.77 By contrast, all of the AE occurrences were in-group greetings. Thus, the L2 influence on the use of Strategy 4 appears to be limited to frequency. The data for the performance of RA negative politeness were likewise split. Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect) accounted for 12% of the RA tokens—more similar to the RR percentage of 7.7% than the AE of 34.4%. The RA percentage of use of Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) also most closely resembled that of the RR group. Additionally, although strikingly below the RR percent of 76.9%, the RA use of Strategy

77

The majority of the RR occurrences were likewise greetings, with an additional 4 tokens of slang and 2 tokens of an in-group address form.

251

7 (Impersonalize S and H), at 52%, was nevertheless more similar to that than to the AE use (9.4%). The RA use of Strategies 6 and 7 appear to have been influenced by AE practices. Strategy 6 (Apologize) accounted for 20% of the negative politeness tokens for the RA group, but went unused by the RR participants. As the data in Sections 4.5 and 6.5 indicate, both the AE and the RA groups used Strategy 6 to apologize for making the request or, in the case of 2 of the four 4 AE tokens, for admitting the type of impingement.

7.6. Situation 4: Borrowing a cell phone from a stranger 7.6.1. Weight of imposition and positive/negative politeness ratio Both the AE and the RR participant groups rated Situation 4 to have a weight of imposition in the moderate range—the AE participant mean was 2.4, with a mode of 2, while the RR participant mean was slightly higher at 2.8, with a mode of 1. The means for both groups indicate that the request was viewed to have a moderate chance of committing a face-threatening act. Thus, due to this and the high distance in the situation, it follows that both participant groups had a predominance of negative politeness. For AE participants the negative politeness tokens accounted for 89.5% of the total politeness tokens, while it accounted for 96.7% among the RR participants.

252

7.6.2. Comparison of the AE and the RR positive politeness usage Table 7.19 provides a summary of the positive politeness strategies for the AE and the RR participants.

Table 7.19 Situation 4: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 0 0 1 1 Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert 6 6 1 1 common ground Strategy 8: Joke 1 1 1 1 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to Hearer 4 4 0 0 Total # of tokens 11 3

There was little positive facework was performed in Situation 4 by either the AE or the RR participant groups. Each of the participant groups did, however, employed 3 positive politeness strategies, two of them shared (Strategies 7 and 8). In the RR group, there was only a single token for each of the 3 strategies it used; thus it is very difficult to draw any conclusions about their use of positive politeness. The AE participants, on the other hand, had a total of 11 tokens. Strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) accounted for 6 of those tokens, all of which involved an in-group greeting. Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), accounted for 4, which included 2 expressions of thanks and 2 wishes for the hearer to have a good day. Although the total number is low, the AE tokens of positive politeness do not seem to be mere outliers; clearly at least some of the AE participants viewed positive politeness strategies as appropriate for meeting the face needs of the hearer in the situation. 253

7.6.3. Comparison of the AE and the RR negative politeness usage Table 7.20 provides a summary of the negative politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR participants in Situation 4.

Table 7.20 Situation 4: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 7 7 (7.4%) 2 2 (2.2%) Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 7 7 (7.4%) 0 0 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 14 15 (16%) 14 17 (19.1%) Strategy 4: Minimize Imposition, Rx 10 13(13.8%) 8 8 (9%) Strategy 5: Give Deference 0 0 1 1 (1.1%) Strategy 6: Apologize 20 39(41.5%) 20 37 (41.6%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 0 0 6 7 (7.9%) Strategy 10: Go On Record As Incurring A 12 13(13.8%) 12 17 (19.1%) Debt Total # of tokens 94 89

There were several similarities between the negative facework performed by the AE and the RR participant groups in Situation 5. First, they shared 5 of the 8 negative politeness strategies employed. Additionally, they both made the most use of Strategy 6 (Apologize), which accounted for similar percentages within each group. Both groups showed similar patterns of use for that strategy: in descending order of frequency, the tokens conveyed the reason for the imposition, apologies for initiating the interaction, and finally, apologies that happened after the interaction had already begun (i.e they were not a used to initiate the interaction). 254

There were, nevertheless, several differences in the performance of negative facework among the AE and the RR participants. First, Strategy 2 (Question, hedge) accounted for 7.4% (7 of the 94 tokens) of the total AE negative politeness tokens (all of them hedges), but was not used at all by the RR participants. Thus, almost half of all the AE requests were hedged, while none of the RR were. This trend is apparently not unique to this situation; according to Larina (2003: 3.4.1.2), hedges are an important part of softening a request in English, but are rarely used in Russian. On the other hand, Strategy 10 accounted for 5.3% more tokens among the RR participants than among the AE. Although the percent difference is not great, the RR showed more diversity of usage: all of the AE tokens expressed gratitude to the hearer; 13 of the 17 RR tokens did as well, while the remaining 4 constituted offers to pay for the call. This is most probably the result of straightforward differences in how phone plans are set up; the prevalence of calling cards and pay-per-call plans in Russia made the speakers feel more obliged to pay for any direct financial charge that the call would impose on the hearer. Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) accounted for 7.9% of the RR negative politeness tokens but was not employed at all by the AE participants. All 7 of the RR tokens involved impersonal verb constructions; 5 of these were used to perform the core request. Although this strategy did not account for a large percentage of the negative facework, it highlighted a major difference in how the AE and RR participants made their requests.

255

Finally, the type of grammatical forms used to carry out Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) varied between the participant groups. All 15 of the AE tokens involved could or would, but the 17 RR tokens either a negated interrogative conditional or a negated perfective nonpast (i.e., future) construction. For the RR participants, negating the request added a conventional element of doubt (softened the interlocutionary intensity) and a heightened level of politeness; this is not characteristic of the ostensibly equivalent construction not in English (see Chapter 8).

7.6.4. Comparison of the RA data Tables 7.21 and 7.22 provide a summary of the RA positive and negative politeness strategies used in Situation 4.

Table 7.21 Situation 4: Positive politeness strategies used by RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 11: Be Optimistic 1 1

Table 7.22 Situation 4: Negative politeness strategies used by RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 4 5 (5.6%) Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 1 1 (1.1) Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 12 12 (13.5%) Strategy 4: Minimize Imposition, Rx 15 16 (18%) Strategy 5: Give Deference 1 1 (1.1%) Strategy 6: Apologize 19 39 (43.8%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 2 2 (2.2%) Strategy 10: Go On Record As Incurring A Debt 12 13 (14.6%) Total # of tokens 89 256

The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings had a mean of 2.6, with a mode of 1, which was similar to both the AE and RR ratings. The RA participants likewise predominantly used negative politeness—98.5% of their total politeness tokens. While this was quite similar to the RR (96.7%), certain features of the data indicate a slight shift away from the RR implementation of negative politeness strategies towards the AE, at least in regards to Strategies 1 (Be conventionally indirect), 4 (Minimize imposition), and 10 (Go on record as incurring a debt). For Strategy 1, the RA proportion of indirect requests involving могу я (‘can I’) or можно я (‘is it possible [that] I’) may reflect AE influence. The given constructions are not typical in standard Russian. Finally, for Strategy 10, the RA participants’ percentage was similar to that of the AE group. Nevertheless, as the data in Section 6.6 show, in implementing the strategy the RA participants behaved more like the RR than the AE group; 2 of the RA tokens involved offering to pay for the call. It is also possible that the smaller use of Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) among the RA participants, as compared to the RR ones, reflected AE influence. In this interpretation, the decline in use would be due to the lack of comparable impersonal forms in English. On the other hand, the RA use of Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic), although accounting for a relatively lower percent, was quite similar to that of the RR group; 11 of the 12 tokens used a negated verb construction.

257

7.7. Situation 5: Asking for a letter of recommendation 7.7.1. The AE and RR weight of imposition ratings and politeness ratios The mean weight of imposition for Situation 7 was low to moderate for both the AE and the RR participant groups—2.4, with a mode of 3, and 2.1, with a mode of 2, respectively. Negative politeness accounted for 94.7% of all the AE politeness tokens, and 100% of the RR tokens.

7.7.2. Comparison of the AE and the RR positive politeness usage Table 7.23 provides a summary of the positive politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR participants in Situation 5.

Table 7.23 Situation 5: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of 20 # of AE tokens RR tokens Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 1 0 0 Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common 2 2 0 0 ground Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 4 4 0 0 Total # of tokens 7

Positive politeness had a minimal amount of tokens among the AE participants and was not employed by the RR participants. The few positive politeness occurrences in the AE data illustrate that some AE participants felt that it was appropriate to perform at least a minimal amount of positive facework under the conditions of Situation 5. Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) showed the strongest presence, which accounted for 4 of the 258

7 occurrences. All 4 of the tokens expressed good wishes that the professor’s classes or he or she him/herself were doing well.

7.7.3. Comparison of the AE and RR negative politeness usage Table 7.24 provides a summary of the negative politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR participants.

Table 7.24 Situation 5: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 0 0 1 1 (1.1%) Strategy 2: Hedge/Question 5 7 (5.2%) 5 5 (5.3%) Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 11 11 (8.2%) 13 15 (16%) Strategy 4: Minimize the Imposition, Rx 1 1 (0.7%) 1 1 (1.1%) Strategy 5: Give Deference 19 46 (34.3%) 17 30 (31.9%) Strategy 6: Apologize 16 23 (17.2%) 7 11 (11.7%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 15 23 (17.2%) 9 10 (10.6%) Strategy 10: Go on Record as Incurring a 18 23 (17.2%) 16 21 (22.3%) Debt Total # of tokens 134 94 The AE and the RR participants showed several similarities in their negative facework in Situation 5. Four of the 7 shared negative politeness strategies (2, 4, 5, 10) accounted for similar proportions of the total for the respective groups. In both cases, Strategy 5 (Give deference) accounted for the greatest portion of the negative politeness tokens, and it was used to a comparable degree. In other words, both participant groups felt the need to elevate the hearer (the majority of the tokens) and to express humility, at least conventionally, to meet the negative face needs of the hearer. Strategy 10 (Go on record as incurring a debt) was the second most commonly used strategy by the RR 259

participants and also tied as second among the AE participants. This further illustrates a strong correlation in how the most salient features of negative facework were carried out by both participant groups. On the other hand, there were also several differences between the two groups in Situation 5. The most notable was seen in the use of Strategies 3 (Be pessimistic), which accounted for 7.2% more of the total negative politeness tokens among the RR participants. All of the tokens for both groups were used to make the core request or a request related to it. However, as previously mentioned, the AE participants used remote possibility markers to make the requests, while for the RR participants preferred negated verb constructions (10 of the 15 tokens, 8 of which were conditional). As Mills notes, the negated conditional is typically used in Russian when the situation favors the hearer, who is higher than the speaker in the social hierarchy (1991: 106). The use of the negated conditional by the RR participants for Situation 5 is consistent with Mills’ observation.

7.7.4. Comparison of the RA data Table 7.25 summarizes the negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants in Situation 5.

260

Table 7.25 Situation 5: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 1 1 (1.1%) Strategy 2: Hedge, Question 4 4 (4.4%) Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 16 16 (17.8%) Strategy 4: Minimize the Imposition, Rx 1 1 (1.1%) Strategy 5: Give Deference 14 29 (32.2%) Strategy 6: Apologize 8 10 (11.1%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 7 7 (7.8%) Strategy 10: Go on Record as Incurring a Debt 17 22 (24.4%) Total # of tokens 90

The RA participants’ weight of imposition rating had a mean of 2.1, which was identical to the RR participants’ mean, although the mode was one point lower at 1. Additionally, like the RR participants, the RA group used only negative politeness in this situation, and their facework was strikingly similar to that of the RR participants in all 8 of the politeness strategies chosen. This may suggest that the given situation was an area less susceptible to the politeness influence of the L2. Perhaps this is because the situation itself is relatively infrequent and done privately; in other words, RA participants would have little exposure to the typical way that an American English speaker would perform such a task, because it would not be performed publically.

7.8. Situation 6: Texting a Friend to Say You Can’t Go to the Movies 7.8.1. Weight of imposition and positive/negative politeness ratio In Situation 6, both the AE and RR participant groups’ weight of imposition mean that was moderate, at 3.4, but with a mode of 4. This indicates that both participant groups viewed the possibility of committing a face-threatening act as being equal. 261

Likewise, both groups showed a relatively even split in the occurrences of both positive and negative facework with a slight, but insignificant, lean towards negative politeness. For the AE participants, the negative politeness occurrences accounted for 56% of the total politeness tokens, while for the RR participants they accounted for 50.7%.

7.8.2. Comparison of the AE and the RR positive politeness usage Table 7.26 summarizes the positive politeness performed by the AE and the RR participants in Situation 6.

Table 7.26 Situation 6: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 1 1 (3%) 0 0 Strategy 4: Use of In-Group Language 10 12 (36.4%) 12 14 (42.4%) Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert 1 1 (3%) 0 0 common ground Strategy 8: Joke 1 1 (3%) 0 0 Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 17 18 (54.5%) 16 16 (48.5%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 0 0 3 3 (9.1%) Total # of tokens 33 33

The AE and RR data for the performance of positive politeness in Situation 6 was very similar in nature. The two most commonly used strategies were the same for both groups and accounted for similar percentages of the total positive politeness tokens. Strategy 10 (Offer, promise) accounted for the greatest percentage in both groups; as the data in Section 4.8 and 5.8 indicate, the majority of the tokens for both groups involved offering or promising to go another time or to call/explain later. Thus it appears that, for 262

both cultural groups, such promises or offers lessened the force of the face-threatening act and helped to maintain the positive face of the hearer. Strategy 4 (Use of in-group identity markers) was the second most common strategy for both cultural groups. The data in Sections 4.8 and 5.8 indicate that the majority of these occurrences involved in-group greetings.

7.8.3. Comparison of the AE and the RR negative politeness usage Table 7.27 summarizes the negative politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR participants for Situation 6.

Table 7.27 Situation 6: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 2 2 (4.8%) 0 0 Strategy 6: Apologize 20 35 (83.3%) 18 29 (87.9%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 4 4 (9.5%) 4 4 (12.1%) Strategy 10: Go On Record As Incurring A 1 1 (2.4%) 0 0 Debt Total # of tokens 42 33

The AE and the RR participants performed negative facework comparably in Situation 6. For both groups, the most common strategy, accounting for the majority of the total negative politeness tokens, was Strategy 6 (Apologize). As the data from Sections 4.8 and 5.8 indicate, both groups implemented the strategy in similar ways; the majority of the occurrences were apologies, and the second most common explanations of why it was necessary to cancel. For both groups, then, it was culturally important to 263

apologize in some way for the face-threatening act in order to meet the face needs of the interaction and individual. Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) also accounted for similar percentages among the two groups.78 The 4 tokens for each group minimized the agency of the speaker by implying that he or she was compelled by circumstance to commit the face-threatening act.

7.8.4. Comparison of RA data Tables 7.28 and 7.29 summarize the positive and negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants.

Table 7.28 Situation 6: Positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 2 2 (5.7%) Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 1 (2.9) Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 9 10 (28.6%) Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 16 17 (48.6%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 5 5 (14.3%) Total # of tokens 35

Table 7.29 Situation 6: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 6: Apologize 19 36 (81.8%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 5 5 (11.4%) Strategy 10: Go On Record As Incurring Debt 3 3 (6.8%) Total # of tokens 44

78

The RR participants used impersonal verb constructions, while the AE participants used verbs that showed obligation, such as ‘I have to’.

264

The RA participants’ weight of imposition ratings for Situation 6 had a mean of 3.4, with a mode of 4.5, which was very similar to the 3.4 mean and 4 mode of both the AE and RR participants. Negative politeness tokens constituted 56.5% of the total, which was almost identical to the AE percentage of 56%; however, the difference between the AE and the RR percent usage was not significant. A comparison of the RA data with the AE and RR data indicates that all three groups performed facework in this situation in similar ways, for the most part. The most noteworthy parallel between the RA data and the RR data was in the use of Strategy 15, which accounted for 13.5% among RA participants and 9.1% among the RR participants, but was not used by the AE group. However, the number of tokens of the strategy was not large enough to draw any certain conclusion about its use, other than that perhaps Russians are more prone to express a desire not to offend the hearer; 1 of the 3 RR tokens and 3 of the 5 RA tokens expressed a desire that the hearer not be offended.

7.9. Situation 8: A friend asks to use your brand new car 7.9.1. Weight of imposition and positive/negative politeness ratio Both the AE and RR participants’ weight of imposition ratings had moderate means at 3.3, with a mode of 3 among AE participants and 3.4, with a mode of 4 among RR participants. The proximity of the two groups’ means indicates relative similarity in the way they assessed the possible face threat in the situation. For the AE participants,

265

positive politeness accounted for 65% of all the politeness tokens; for the RR, the tokens were equally split between positive and negative politeness.

7.9.2. Comparison of the AE and the RR positive politeness usage Table 7.30 provides a summary of the positive politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR participants in Situation 8.

Table 7.30 Situation 8: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 19 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 2 2 (4.7%) 2 2 (6.3%) Strategy 2: Exaggerate 2 2 (4.7%) 0 0 Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 0 0 2 2 (6.3%) Strategy 4: In-Group Identity Markers 0 0 3 3 (9.4%) Strategy 5: Seek Agreement 1 1 (2.3%) 0 0 Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement 11 19 (44.2%) 8 11 (31.3%) Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common 1 1 (2.3% 3 3 (9.4%) ground Strategy 8: Joke 3 5 (11.6%) 3 3 (9.4%) Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 8 9 (20.9%) 7 7 (21.9%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 4 4 (9.3%) 1 1 (3.1%) Total # of tokens 43 32

The performance of positive politeness by the AE and RR participants groups in Situation 8 had several similarites and differences. The majority of the strategies that accounted for a larger percent of the positive facework were similar in nature, while those that had differences were in general, of less significance. Strategy 6 (Avoid disagreement) accounted for the highest percent of the total positive politeness tokens for both the AE and the RR participants—44.2% among the 266

AE participants, and 31.3% among the RR participants. Although there was a considerable difference in the total percents, the data in Sections 4.9 and 5.9 indicate that for both groups, the majority of the occurrences used hedges to soften the response to the hearer. Strategy 10 (Offer, promise) was the second most important strategy for both groups and was also used in similar ways to offset the face-threatening act by offering help in some other way than by loaning the car. This implies that for both groups, a key way to abate the face-threatening act was to offer to fulfill the purpose of the request (i.e. transportation to the event) by some other means. For the other strategies, it is difficult to assess the relative proportions of use, as they are represented by 3 or fewer tokens or differ by 3 or fewer tokens. The variety of positive politeness used, however, does suggest that both cultural groups felt comfortable using a wide variety of positive politeness strategies in this situation, but that only a few of them were so standardized that the majority of the participants resorted to them.

7.9.3. Comparison of the AE and the RR negative politeness usage Table 7.31 provides a summary of the negative politeness strategies used by the AE and RR participants in Situation 8.

267

Table 7.31 Situation 8: Negative politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 19 RR # of tokens AE Strategy 6: Apologize 10 19 (76%) 15 23 (71.9%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 2 2 (8%) 9 9 (28.1%) Strategy 8: State the FTA as a General Rule 4 4 (16%) 0 0 Total # of tokens 25 32

There were very few negative politeness strategies used by either the AE and RR participant groups in Situation 8. Strategy 6 (Apologize) accounted for the majority of the tokens and constituted similar percentages for each group. As shown by the data in Sections 4.9 and 5.9, their use was similar as well. For each group, the majority of the tokens gave the reason why the face-threatening act was necessary, while the second largest percent of the tokens conveyed apologies. This suggests that, for both groups, Strategy 6 was viewed as being the most useful of the negative politeness strategies in offsetting the face-threatening act in this situation. The remaining 2 strategies were notably dissimilar for the two groups. Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) only accounted for 8% of the total negative politeness occurrences among the AE participants, while for the RR participants it accounted for 28.1% of all the tokens (9 of the 32). Each of the occurrences attempted to distance the agent from the refusal by using an impersonal verb construction or by emphasizing the force of the circumstances; while only one of the two tokens was used for that purpose among the AE participants. Thus, for at least for some of the RR participants, there was a tendency to minimize their agency in the actual face-threatening act to lessen its impact or potential face damage. The use of Strategy 8 (State the FTA as a general rule) by a 268

few of the AE participants would seem to be a comparable form of minimizing agency, but the small number of tokens suggests that this is not a strong tendency.

7.9.4. Comparison of the RA data Tables 7.32 and 7.33 summarizes the positive and negative politeness strategies used for Situation 8 by the RA participants.

Table 7.32 Situation 8: Positive politeness strategies used by RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H 1 1 (0.3%) Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 3 3 (1%) Strategy 4: Use of In-Group Identity Markers 2 2 (6.7%) Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement 6 7 (23.3%) Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground 4 4 (13.3%) Strategy 8: Joke 4 5 (16.6%) Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 3 4 (13.3%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 3 4 (13.3%) Total # of tokens 30

Table 7.33 Situation 8: Negative politeness strategies used by RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 6: Apologize 15 22 (88%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 3 3 (12%) Total # of tokens 25

The RA mean weight of imposition was 3.7, with a mode of 4, which was relatively similar to the figures for the other groups. Positive politeness accounted for 56.1% of all the RA politeness tokens, which was slightly closer to the RR (50%) than 269

the AE (65%). The data on the use of positive and negative strategies, however, indicate that the RA participants often differed from the other two cultural groups. The RA use of the main positive-politeness Strategy 6 showed a stronger bias toward RR than AE tendencies, although it accounted for a smaller percentage than for the RR group. However, as the data in Section 6.9 indicate, the implementation of the strategy was similar to both the AE and the RR participant groups. Otherwise, the performance of positive politeness by the RA participants showed some major differences from that of the other cultural groups. Their use of Strategy 15 (Give Gifts to the Hearer), resembled in its proportions the AE use; it accounted for 13.3% of their tokens (4 of the 30), but only accounted 3.1% (1 out of 32) of the RR tokens. Nevertheless, the data in Sections 4.9 and 6.9 do not reveal much similarity in use; 3 of the 4 RA tokens expressed a desire that the hearer not be offended, while the AE occurrences expressed gratitude, reassurance, good wishes, and happiness at the hearer’s good news. Therefore, although the RA proportionate use of Strategy 15 resembles, and may reflect the influence of, AE practices, this does not extend to the details of implementation. Finally, although Strategy 10 (Offer, Promise) accounted for similar percentages among the AE (20.9%) and the RR (21.9%) participants, it only accounted for 13.35% among the RA participants. However, the breakdown of the data in Sections 4.9, 5.9, and 6.9 indicate that it was implemented in a similar way among all three participant groups. Therefore, the RA divergence from the AE and the RR is only at the level of frequency.

270

In the area of negative politeness, the RA participants only employed Strategies 6 (Apologize) and 7 (Impersonalize S and H), which were likewise the only two used by the RR participants; however, their proportionate use and implementation deviated somewhat from the RR usage. Strategy 6 accounted for 88% of the RA negative politeness tokens, which was slightly higher than either the RR or the AE totals. Judging from the data in Sections 4.9, 5.9, and 6.9, the RA implementation of the strategy was more aligned with the RR use. The majority of the AE tokens involved apologies for not being able to lend the car, followed by the reason for the refusal, while for the RA and the RR participants the majority of the occurrences gave the reason, followed by apologies. The RA use of Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H), which accounted for 12% of the negative politeness tokens (i.e. 3 of the 25), had a percent usage that was closer to the AE 8% than the RR 28.1%. Although the data in Sections 4.9, 5.9, and 6.9 indicate the use of the strategy was similar across all groups, the lower RA percent usage can be interpreted as the result of the influence of AE politeness.

7.10. Situation 10: Let a friend know they were fired 7.10.1. Weight of imposition and positive/negative politeness ratio The AE and RR participants both assigned Situation 10 a high weight of imposition; the AE mean was 4.6, with a mode of 5, while the RR mean was 4, with a mode of 5. There was, however, a slight difference in the two groups’ ratio of positive and negative politeness. Positive politeness accounted for 55.3% of the total AE

271

politeness tokens, but 63.4% of the RR politeness tokens. This indicates that positive politeness was slightly more important for the RR participants than for the AE.

7.10.2. Comparison of the AE and the RR positive politeness usage Table 7.34 summarizes the positive politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR participants for Situation 10. Table 7.34 Situation 10: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 19 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 1: Notice, Attend to H 0 0 2 2 (3.1%) Strategy 3: Intensity Interest to Hearer 0 0 1 1 (1.6%) Strategy 4: In-group Identity Markers 3 3 (4.2%) 6 6 (9.4%) Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common 8 8 (11.3%) 6 7 (10.9%) ground Strategy 9: Assert or Presuppose the Speaker’s 6 6 (8.5%) 7 7 (10.9%) Knowledge of and Concern for the H’s Wants Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 10 13 (18.3%) 8 11 (17.2%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 14 41 (57.7%) 13 30 (46.9%) Total # of tokens 71 64

There was great similarity in how the AE and RR groups performed positive facework in Situation 10. The majority of the strategies employed were shared and accounted for similar percentages of the total positive politeness tokens. Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) accounted for the largest proportion of the positive politeness tokens for both groups, though the AE percentage was slightly higher. As shown by the data in Sections 4.10 and 5.10, the primary functions of these verbal gifts were to encourage, comfort, offer sympathy, and express that the hearer was wanted or valued. 272

Consequently, both participant groups felt that giving some type of moral support was crucial in offsetting the full force of the face-threatening act. However, unlike the RR participants, the AE group also gave a notable amount of compliments (8 of the 41 tokens of strategy 15). As mentioned in Section 7.2.2, this is a salient feature of American positive politeness. Strategy 10 (Offer, promise) was the second most common strategy for both groups; it accounted for 18.3% of the AE tokens and 17.2% of the RR. As seen in Sections 4.10 and 5.10, the majority of the occurrences for both groups involved offers to help in finding new employment. In other words, along with giving gifts of moral support, offering to help was viewed by both groups as valuable in abating the force of the face-threatening act and maintaining solidarity. Strategies 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) and 9 (Assert or Presuppose the Speaker’s Knowledge of and Concern for the H’s Wants) likewise accounted for similar percentages within each respective group, although they were of less overall importance in the situation.

7.10.3. Comparison of the AE and the RR negative politeness usage Table 7.35 summarizes the negative politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR groups for Situation 10.

273

Table 7.35 Situation 10: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 19 # of AE RR tokens Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 8 8 (12.7%) Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 1 1 (1.6%) 0 0 Strategy 6: Apologize 19 34 (54%) 17 21 (56.8) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 19 19 (30.2%) 15 16 (43.2) Strategy 8: State the FTA as a General 1 1 (1.6%) 0 0 Rule Total # of tokens 63 37

The performance of negative politeness by the AE and the RR participants was very similar for both participant groups. Strategy 6 (Apologize) was the most common and accounted for similar percentages among both of the participant groups. The data from Sections 4.10 and 5.10 indicate that both participant groups used the strategy in a similar way. The majority of the occurrences expressed reluctance to commit the facethreatening act, while the second most common use was giving the reason why the facethreatening act was being committed. Strategy 7 was the second most common strategy for both groups. As comparison of the data in Sections 4.10 and 5.10 shows, it was used in similar ways by both participant groups: the speakers stated that the leadership had told them to let their friend go, i.e., removed themselves as agents of the face-threatening act. However, this accounted for 13% more of the total negative politeness tokens among the RR participants than among the AE ones. Although this does not mean that the RR participants actually produced more tokens than the AE participants, it does indicate that Strategy 7 was more central to their performance of negative facework. 274

Eight of the AE participants utilized Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect), which accounted for 12.7% of their negative politeness tokens. By contrast, none of the RR participants employed the given strategy. The AE occurrences were not used for the main face-threatening act (the actual firing); they were indirect requests for the hearer to talk with the speaker.

7.10.4. Comparison of the RA data Tables 7.36 and 7.37 summarize the positive and negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants for Situation 10.

Table 7.36 Situation 10: Positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy 1 1 (1.7%) with the hearer) Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 1 (1.7%) Strategy 4: Use of In-Group Identity Markers 1 1 (1.7%) Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground 5 6 (10%) Strategy 9: Assert or Presuppose the Speaker’s 3 5 (8.3%) Knowledge of and Concern for the Hearer’s Wants Strategy 10: Offer, Promise 5 6 (10%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 16 40 (66.7%) Total # of tokens 60

Table 7.37 Situation 10: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 6: Apologize 15 22 (45.8%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 19 26 (54.2%) Total # of tokens 48

275

For the RA participants, the weight of imposition had a mean of 4.4, with a mode of 5; this was similar to the AE and RR means (4.6 and 4 respectively, both with a mode of 5). Positive politeness strategies accounted for 58.3% of the total RA tokens, which falls between the AE (55.3%) and the RR (64%) totals. Of the strategies accounting for 10% or more of the tokens, the RA participants performed similarly to the other groups in their use of Strategy 7, but differently in their use of Strategies 9, 10 and 15. The percent usage of Strategies 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) and 10 (Offer, promise) were slightly different from both the AE and the RR participant groups. Strategy 10 accounted for only 10% of the RA positive politeness tokens, i.e., less than it the AE (18.3%) and RA (17.2%), although it was employed in similar ways across the three groups, it did not play as key a role for the RA participants as for the others. Conversely, Strategy 15 accounted for 66.7% of the RA positive politeness tokens, which was higher than the AE (57.7%) and the RR (46.9%). The RA data included 3 tokens of compliments, a use that was present in the AE data but absent from the RR. This appears to be due to the influence of a salient feature of American positive politeness. In the area of negative politeness, the RA participants performed markedly similar to the RR participants, with all of the tokens being split between Strategies 6 (Apologize) and 7 (Impersonalize A and H). These strategies were also the most commonly used among both the AE and the RR participants, however, where Strategy 6 account for a larger percent among both the AE and the RR participants, Strategy 7 accounted for a 276

larger percent among the RA participants. Nevertheless, the actual implementation of both of these strategies was similar among all 3 participant groups.

7.11. Situation 11: You ask a stranger for directions 7.11.1. Weight of imposition and positive/negative politeness ratio The AE and RR participant groups both assigned Situation 11 a low weight of imposition, with a mean of 1.4 and a mode of 1. The identical mean and mode for both participant groups indicates that they viewed this situation similarly and deemed its potential face threat to be low. Negative politeness accounted for 54.4% of the total AE politeness tokens, but 70.2% of the total RR politeness tokens. In light of the identical mean and mode for weight of imposition, the data suggest that the difference in the ratio of positive and negative politeness is not caused by a difference in the perceived threat in the situation, but in what the cultures value in the interaction. The more balanced positive-to-negative AE ratio may indicate that the AE participants felt the need to respect the social distance present, yet at the same time meet the possible positive face needs of the stranger.

7.11.2. Comparison of the AE and the RR positive politeness usage Table 7.38 provides a summary of the positive politeness performed by the AE and RR participants in Situation 11.

277

Table 7.38 Situation 11: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/ Assert 5 5 (19.2%) 1 1 (5.9%) Common Ground Strategy 8: Joke 0 0 1 1 (5.9%) Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 15 21 (80.8%) 14 15 (88.2%) Total # of tokens 26 17

Although there were relatively few occurrences of positive politeness in Situation 11, the data from the AE and RR participants show strong similarities. For both groups, Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) accounted for relatively similar high percentages – 80.8% among the AE participants and 88.2% among RR participants. As seen in sections 4.11 and 5.11, the majority of the occurrences were expressions of thanks for the hearer’s assistance. Strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground) accounted for 19.2% (5 of 26) of the AE positive politeness tokens, but only 5.9% (1 of 17) of the RR ones. As seen in Sections 4.11 and 5.11, the tokens in all cases were in-group greetings. The solitary RR token seems to be the result of the participant imagining that the stranger was younger, and therefore using an informal greeting.

7.11.3. Comparison of the AE and the RR negative politeness usage Table 7.39 provides a summary of the negative politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR participants for Situation 11.

278

Table 7.39 Situation 11: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 5 5 (16.7%) 0 0 Strategy 2: Hedge/Question 0 0 0 0 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 7 7 (23.3%) 12 13 (32.5%) Strategy 6: Apologize 16 18 (60%) 15 19 (47.5%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 0 0 7 8 (20%) Total # of tokens 30 40

There was great variation in the use of negative politeness strategies between the AE and the RR participants for Situation 11, with few similarities. There was overlap in the use of 3 strategies. Of these, Strategy 6 (Apologize) was the most widely used strategy overall for both participant groups; it accounted for relatively similar percentages of the negative politeness tokens—60% of the AE total and 47.5% of the RR. As seen in Sections 4.11 and 5.11, the majority of the tokens for both groups used apologies to initiate the interaction. The RR participants were more likely to give reasons for needing to make the request (7 of 19 tokens) than the AE participants (3 of 18 tokens). The remainder of the negative politeness performed by both groups was dissimilar. Although Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) was used by both groups, it accounted for 20% of the tokens for the RR participants, but only 3.2% for the AE participants. Seven of the 8 RR occurrences featured a perfective imperative for the core request. Although for American speakers the imperative would be atypical in such a 279

situation, and perhaps even rude, it is one of the principle ways in which Russians make polite low-imposition requests (Mills 1992; Larina 2003; Ogiermann 2009). Mills notes that imperatives are often used as introductory clauses before interrogatives, to signal to the hearer that information will be requested (1991: 101). The data in this study supports this observation. On the other hand, Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect) accounted for 16.7% of the negative politeness tokens among the AE participants. Each of the 5 tokens involved the indirect request ‘Can you’ to request the directions. Although this was not the main way that the AE group performed the request in this situation, it is representative of a highly conventionalized way of forming requests in English, i.e. by questioning the hearer’s ability to do the action. As Searle notes (1979: 32), due to cultural knowledge, the hearer is able to ascertain that the speaker is not truly asking about ability. Finally, Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) was the second most frequently used strategy for both groups. However, there was a notable difference in its proportions of use, as well as the manner in which it was performed. For the RR participants, it accounted for 32.5% of the total negative politeness tokens, the majority of which involved a negated verb construction. As noted elsewhere, in Russian the negation of the verb heightens the politeness of the request and thus, plays to the hearer’s negative face needs of the hearer by offering an out (Mills 1992), at least conventionally. Eight of the 13 tokens had negated perfective nonpast (future) verbs, which, according to Mills (1991: 101), seems to be gradually overtaking the traditional polite imperative in informational requests. Although Mills does not state to what extent the imperative was used at the time of her 280

study, in my data the negated future is as widely used as the imperative in informational requests. For the AE participants, by contrast, Strategy 3 accounted for a smaller proportion of the tokens (23.3%, or 7 tokens). Each of these featured either could or would in the core request.

7.11.4. Comparison of the RA data Tables 7.40 and 7.41 provide a summary of the positive and negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants in Situation 11.

Table 7.40 Situation 11: Positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 15 18

Table 7.41 Situation 11: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 2: Hedge, Question 3 3 (7.3%) Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 16 16 (39%) Strategy 6: Apologize 17 21 (51.2%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 1 1 (2.4%) Total # of tokens 41

For the RA participants, Situation 11 had a mean weight of imposition of 1.4, with a mode of 1—the same as for the other two groups. Negative politeness accounted for 67.9% of the total RA tokens; this was very similar to the RR percentage (70.2%), and considerably more than the AE (54.4%). In regards to the use of individual positive 281

and negative politeness strategies, the RA participants performed more similar to the RR group than to AE, with a few exceptions. In the area of positive politeness, the RA participants only employed Strategy 15, which was also the most widely used strategy among the RR and the AE participants. The majority of the tokens were also expressed thanks to the hearer. Thus, in the area of positive politeness, the RA participants performed relatively similar to both the AE and the RR participant groups. In the area of negative politeness, Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) accounted for 36.8% of the RA tokens, similar to the RR (32.5%), and proportionately much more than the AE (19.4%). The RA speakers employed the strategy in much the same way as the RR participants. The RA use of Strategy 6 (Apologize) was similar to the AE and the RR in both proportion and performance, although the RA speakers were slightly more likely to give a reason for making the request (6 of the 21 tokens). By contrast, the RA group only had a single token of Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H), which accounted for 20% of the RR tokens. The decreased use of the imperative among the RA participants may be due to the influence of American politeness; note that the AE group had no tokens of Strategy 7 in this situation.

7.12. Situation 12: Asking to borrow a pen 7.12.1. Weight of imposition and positive/negative politeness ratio The AE and RR participants weight of imposition ratings for Situation 12 both had means that were low, with a mean of 1.4 and a mode of 1 for AE participants and a 282

slightly higher RR mean at 1.7, with a mode of 2. Both groups had a clear preference for negative facework in this context; it accounted for 73.1% of all the AE tokens and 84.7% of the RR tokens. The higher RR percentage is in accordance with the slightly higher mean and mode; in other words, negative politeness was somewhat more important for the RR participants than for the AE in offsetting the weight of the imposition.

7.12.2. Comparison of the AE and the RR positive politeness usage Table 7.42 summarizes the positive politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR participants for Situation 12.

Table 7.42 Situation 12: Positive politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 3: Intensify Interest to Hearer 1 1 (4%) 0 0 Strategy 7: Presuppose/Raise/ Assert 4 4 (16%) 0 0 Common Ground Strategy 8: Joke 1 1 (4%) 0 0 Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 13 19 (76%) 11 11 (100%) Total # of tokens 25 11

Both the AE and RR groups performed a minimal amount of positive politeness in Situation 12. Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer) was the most common positive politeness strategy for the AE group (76%) and the only one used by the RR participants. As seen in Sections 4.12 and 5.12, all of the RR tokens and all but one of the AE tokens expressed thanks to the hearer. Although there were no strong tendencies in the other 283

three strategies used by the AE participants, overall we can conclude that positive politeness was more likely to be performed by the AE participants than the RR, even though the situation involves high distance.

7.12.3. Comparison of the AE and the RR negative politeness usage Table 7.43 provides a summary of the negative politeness strategies used by the AE and the RR participants for Situation 12.

Table 7.43 Situation 12: Negative politeness strategies used by AE and RR Total # of responses 20 # of tokens 20 # of tokens AE RR Strategy 1: Be Conventionally Indirect 6 6 (8.8%) 3 3 (4.9%) Strategy 2: Hedge/Question 8 8 (11.8%) 0 0 Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 14 14 (20.6%) 12 12 (19.7%) Strategy 4: Minimize the Imposition, Rx 14 15 (22.1%) 10 10 (16.4%) Strategy 6: Apologize 16 24 (35.3%) 18 29 (47.5%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 0 0 6 6 (9.8%) 8. Strategy 10: Go on Record as 0 0 1 1 (1.6%) Incurring a Debt, or as Not Indebting H

There were several similarities in the two groups’ performance of negative politeness in Situation 12. Strategy 6 (Apologize) accounted for the largest percent of negative politeness tokens in both cases— 35.3% for the AE participants and 47.5% for the RR participants. A review of the data in Sections 4.12 and 5.12 indicates that the performance of both participant groups was similar to that seen in Situation 11 (asking a

284

stranger for directions); the majority of the tokens were apologies used to initiate the interaction, and the next largest number gave the speaker’s reason for making the request. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) accounted for similar proportions of use in the two groups but, as in Situation 11, had very different implementation. The RR participants used negated verb constructions, while the AE participants used the remote possibility markers could or would. There were other 3 negative politeness strategies that revealed notable differences in the performance of the AE and RR groups. First, Strategy 2 (Hedge, question) accounted for 14.5% of the AE tokens but was not used by the RR participants. Each of the AE occurrences involved a hedge rather than a question. Such hedges were also used by AE speakers in other situations of low power, distance and weight of imposition, while the RR group did not. The second noteworthy difference was seen in the greater prevalence of Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) among the RR speakers; it accounted for 19.7% of their negative politeness tokens, as compared with 11.3% among the AE participants. As seen in Sections 4.12 and 5.12, the Russian tokens involved negated verb constructions, and the AE occurrences remote possibility markers. This indicates that firstly, the RR participants were more likely to use Strategy 13 to make a request in a low distance, power and weight of imposition situation, but likewise that how the two groups employed the strategy was also different.

285

7.12.4. Comparison of the RA data Tables 7.44 and 7.45 summarize the positive and negative politeness performed by the RA participants for Situation 12.

Table 7.44 Situation 12: Positive politeness strategies used by the RA participants Total #of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 15: Give Gifts to the Hearer 13 13

Table 7.45 Situation 12: Negative politeness strategies used by the RA participants Total # of responses 19 # of tokens Strategy 2: Question, Hedge 3 3 (4.8%) Strategy 3: Be Pessimistic 12 12 (19.4%) Strategy 4: Minimize the Imposition, 12 12 (19.4%) Rx Strategy 6: Apologize 18 28 (45.2%) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H 7 7 (11.3%) Total # of tokens 62

The RA participants had a mean weight of imposition of 1.4, with a mode of 1— the same as the AE participants, but not dissimilar to the RR mean. Negative facework accounted for 81.9% of all politeness tokens; this was closer to the RR percentage of 84.7%. Within the areas of positive and negative politeness, the RA participants also most closely resembled the RR participants’ usage. In the area of positive politeness the RA participants, like RR participants, employed Strategy 15 for a 100% of the positive politeness tokens. As for negative politeness, 3 of the 4 strategies used by the RA participants likewise resembled the RR 286

usage. Strategies 3 (Be pessimistic), 6 (Apologize), and 7 (Impersonalize S and H) were within 2% or less of the RR usage. Overall, the RA participants performed negative politeness similarly to the RR group, with only one exception. Strategy 4 (Minimize imposition, Rx) accounted for 19.4% among the RA participants, which was in between the AE 24.2% and RR 16.4% percent usages, which appears to demonstrate an AE influence.

287

Chapter 8 Conclusion

8.0. Overview of the chapter As shown in Chapter 7, for all three of the cultural groups (AE, RR and RA), the most important factor for predicting which type of facework (i.e. positive or negative) will be dominant in a given situations is social distance. This can be seen most clearly in situations of either low distance (involving intimates) or high distance. In situations of moderate distance the weight of imposition and power differential also play a role in determining which type of facework is dominant. Within the three distance categories (low—moderate – high), the three cultural groups generally show similar preferences for either positive or negative facework.79 Nevertheless, several salient differences emerge among the cultural groups when the following factors are examined: the actual ratio of positive-to-negative politeness; the strategies and sub-strategies used; and the total number of politeness tokens. In other words, the salient differences among the three study groups cannot be reduced to whether positive or negative politeness predominates in a given situation. 79

The ratio for positive and negative politeness for Situations 6 and 8 of the RR data was 50/50. The AE ratio for Situation 6 was 44% positive to 56% negative and the RA ratio was 44.3% and 55.7%. For situation 8, there was a greater difference, the AE ratio was 63.2 % positive and 36.8% negative, The RA data was not as great, 54.5% positive and 45.5% .

288

In Sections 8.1-8.2, I will discuss the most salient differences in the use of positive and negative politeness strategies and sub-strategies among the three cultural groups. In Section 8.3, I will examine how the factors of social distance and weight of imposition serve as predictors of positive and negative politeness dominance. In Section 8.4, I will discuss the overall differences in the amount of facework performed by each cultural group. In Section 8.5, I will consider the influence of L2 politeness on the performance of politeness in the L1. Lastly, in Section 8.6, I will suggest areas for further research.

8.1. Overall trends in the use of positive-negative strategies For the most part, the total tokens of each of the positive politeness strategies accounted for similar percents within each of the AE, RR, and RA participant groups, with few deviations. The area of negative politeness, however, contained more salient differences in percent usages, as well as the use of strategies and sub-strategies. These differences are discussed in Sections 8.1.1 (positive politeness differences) and 8.1.2 (negative politeness differences).

8.1.1. Difference in the use of Strategy 15 Although the use of positive politeness was similar among the three participant groups, Strategy 15 (Give gifts to the hearer), showed several differences worth noting. Table 7.46 contains a breakdown of the uses of positive politeness Strategy 15 for each of the three participant groups in this study. 289

Table 8.1: Uses of Strategy 15 by the AE, RR and RA participants Sub-strategy AE RR RA Express that H is 15 17 19 wanted/loved/valued (8.9%) (13.7%) (11%) Asking questions to show interest in 20 17 26 H (11.8%) (13.7%) (15%) Good wishes for the H 20 4 9 (11.8%) (3.2%) (5.2%) Gratitude to H for reaching out to S 3 2 1 (1.8%) (1.6%) (0.6%) Gifts 1 1 0 (0.6%) (0.8%) Express assurance of/desire to 1 6 8 continue friendship (0.6%) (4.8%) (4.6%) Thanks 62 45 65 (36.7%) (36.3%) (37.6%) Compliments 14 7 7 (8.2%) (5.6%) (4%) Reassurance/comfort/encouragement 15 15 15 (8.9%) (12.1%) (8.7%) Care/concern 1 4 11 (0.6%) (3.2%) (6.4%) Share excitement of H’s positive 1 0 1 news (0.6%) (0.6%) Sympathy/Understanding 19 6 11 (11.2%) (4.8%) (6.4%) Total # of tokens 169 124 173

Among the AE participants, the sub-strategy Good wishes for H was used more than 3 times as much as among the RR participants and more than twice as much as the RA participants. Thus, for the AE participants, the explicit expression of good wishes was used as a tool to meet the positive face needs of the other person in the interaction.

290

This coincides with Pinto’s (2011:116) observation that “showing good intentions” is important in English. AE participants also used the sub-strategy Expressed sympathy to the hearer more than twice as often as the RR and nearly twice as often as the RA participants. In contrast, the RR and the RA participants were more likely than the AE participants to utilize the sub-strategies Expressing assurance of/desire to continue friendship and Expressing concern/care. The tokens of the first sub-strategy involved leave-taking formulas that directly stated that the speaker and hearer would see each other again or expressed a desire that their friendship would continue (see Situation 10). The majority of the tokens of the second sub-strategy expressed concern that the hearer not be offended. Therefore, even though there are a moderate number of tokens for each sub-strategy, together they suggest that there is a tendency in Russian politeness to explicitly (verbally) monitor the status of the relationship when performing facethreatening acts.

8.2. Overall trends in the use of negative-politeness strategies In the area of negative politeness, the AE, RR and RA participant groups again show comparable percentages for most of the strategies. However, clear differences emerged for four of the negative politeness strategies. These tendencies not only provide insight into the different grammatical forms used to perform negative facework, but also shed light on the differing cultural values at the core of social interaction within each of the participant groups. 291

8.2.1. Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect) One of the noteworthy differences in the performance of negative facework involved the use of Strategy 1 (Be conventionally indirect). While it makes up a small proportion of the total number of negative politeness tokens for each group, it was four times more frequent among the AE participants than among the RR and the RA participants. (On conventional indirectness, see also section 3.3.2.1.) Strategy 1 accounted for only 1.9% of all negative politeness tokens among the RR participants, and only 2.1% of the total among the RA participants, but 8.2% of the total among the AE participants. Thus, although the Strategy 1 makes up a small proportion of the total negative-politeness tokens for each group, it is striking that it was four times more frequent among the AE participants than among the RR or RA participants. The most common way in which AE participants performed negative politeness Strategy 1 in this study was by means of the expression can you, which conventionally questions the felicity condition of the hearer’s ability to perform the request and serves to soften the potential force of the face-threatening act. This particular grammatical form of indirectness was most common in low weight of imposition situations in this study, rather than moderate to high. The tendency to use such a form of indirectness in English is well documented80, although often lumped together indiscriminately with other forms of indirectness. As the purpose of indirectness is to allow the hearer greater freedom in how 80

See, e.g., Brown and Levinson 1987; Camiciottoli 2009; Mills 1992; Blum-Kulka 1987; Ogiermann 2009.

292

he/she responds to the request (Leech 1983: 108), the use of can you by the AE participants is evidence of one way in which the AE culture orients to the negative face needs of the hearer in interactions. This conventionalized form of questioning the hearer’s ability to perform an action serves a dual purpose: it is direct enough to allow for “pragmatic clarity” and at the same time to “avoid coerciveness” (Blum-Kulka 1987: 131). Thus, its use suggests a heightened attention to negative face needs in AE culture. In contrast, the RR and the RA participant groups often used imperatives, impersonal verb constructions, and negated perfective future constructions for requests in situations where the weight of imposition was low. This agrees with the more general observations of Ogiermann (2009) and Larina (2009) that these forms are felt to be appropriate and polite by the Russian speakers in these types of situations (Ogiermann 2009, Larina 2009). The strategies in question are discussed in the following subsections.

8.2.2. Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H) In Brown and Levinson’s approach, imperatives and impersonal verb constructions are among the sub-strategies of negative politeness Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H). The RR participants used Strategy 7 more than twice as often as the AE participants; the tokens constituted 21.6% of the RR negative politeness tokens, as compared with 10.5% among the AE ones. Among the RA participants it accounted for 16.8% of the negative politeness tokens, a frequency approximately midway between the RR and the AE participant groups.

293

For the RR participants, 39 of the total 92 Strategy 7 tokens were imperatives, 28 of which were used to perform the core request, while a further 29 used impersonal verb constructions81. For the AE participants, 25 of the 53 tokens of Strategy 7 were an imperative, but it is important to note that only 2 were actually used to perform the core request82. For RA participants, 26 of the 73 tokens were imperatives, 14 of which were used to make the core request, while 13 used an impersonal verb construction83. Thus, the most salient differences in the use of Strategy 7 in the data is the significantly more frequent use of imperatives to perform the core request by the RR and the RA participants and the use of an impersonal verb constructions. In the data from this study, impersonal verb constructions were not used by the AE participants and the AE imperatives are mostly confined to secondary requests.

8.2.2.1. Imperatives The above results are in accord with the claim advanced by some scholars that argue that the imperative is the most frequent and, typically, culturally appropriate choice in Russian in low weight of imposition requests (Mills 1991, Betsch 2003, Ogiermann 2009). According to Mills (1991: 101) imperatives are routinely used in informational requests; these are typically low in weight of imposition, i.e. not particularly face-

81

An additional 15 expressed that the agent was not the speaker in the face-threatening act or removed the agent, 6 used a verb which indicated that the speaker was obligated to act as he/she did, and 3 used pointof-view distancing. 82 An additional 13 expressed that the agent was not the speaker in committing the face-threatening act, 9 used a verb which indicated that the speaker was obliged to act as he/she did, 5 used point-of-view distancing, and 1 used a construction that made the hearer the subject to remove the agent. 83 An additional 20 expressed that the agent was not themselves or removed an agent, 4 used verbs which indicated that the speaker was obligated to act as he/she did, and 2 used point-of-view distancing.

294

threatening. The fact that the imperative commonly collocates with the politeness marker пожалуйста (‘please’) further demonstrates the polite intentions of the imperative in Russian. According to Larina (2009: section 3.5.1.2), “The word пожалуйста, … has stronger pragmatic value in Russian than the English please…Its use with an imperative softens the categorization of its sound and transforms it from a command to a request.” In short, the Russian grammatical form of the imperative is not perceived as being innately a command and is indisputably seen as (all other things being equal) a polite and respectful way to perform requests in Russian culture. The high frequency of imperatives used to make the core request in Russian appears to be indicative of a difference in how the imposition is viewed and the way in which the use of indirectness is perceived by the Russian culture. Ogiermann suggests that impositions of this type are not viewed as a threat to face to the same extent as they are in Western Europe (2009: 210). Additionally, indirect requests are more taxing on the hearer and have a higher “interpretive demand” (Blum-Kulka 1987: 133). In a sense then, the more direct way of making a request in Russian is still respective of negative politeness in that it does not impede on the hearer’s interpretive load and thus, time, in the way that the use of a more indirect request would. In this context, it is important to reexamine Benacchio’s claim about the differing politeness values of perfective and imperfective imperatives in Russian. In brief, Benacchio (2002) treats the perfective imperative as more neutral and as an expression of negative politeness; on the other hand, she claims that the imperfective imperative is used to create greater solidarity and is an expression of positive politeness (or less rudeness). 295

However, the results of the present study do not confirm Benacchio’s dichotomy. In almost all cases the perfective was used regardless of the social distance between the interactants or the power differential. Simple requests were always performed using the perfective, regardless of the social distance in all but 2 of the RR and RA tokens, which involved the idiomatic imperfective sadis’ ‘sit down’84.

8.2.2.2. Impersonal verb constructions As mentioned in Section 8.2, impersonal verb constructions accounted for a large percent of the RR and RA tokens of Strategy 7, but were not represented in the AE data. The majority of the tokens of impersonal verb constructions occur in requests with a low weight of imposition; while a smaller percentage is used it to convey negative news (e.g., that the speaker could not go to the movies). In general, the use of impersonal verb constructions has been discussed little in the literature on Russian politeness, although they are quite frequently used. Such constructions can omit personal pronouns altogether e.g., “можно вашу ручку...” (“is it possible [to borrow] your pen…” [RR 9, Situation 12]); “не получится... ” (“it won’t work out…” [RR 15, Situation 8]). Alternatively, they can involve personal pronouns in the dative case, typical for experiences of secondary agents: “Можно мне булочку и сок?” (“Is it possible to me a roll and juice? ” [RR 19, Situation 13]). In such a way, this contruction makes the request or, in Situation 8, the conveyence of negative news, more

84

In Situation 10, imperfective imperatives were used to ask the hearer to take a seat in two instances in the RA data. These two tokens are in line with Benacchio’s hypothesis; however, the same RA data contained two perfective imperatives asking the hearer to stop by.

296

impersonal (less agentive) and therefore weakens the illocutionary intensity of the facethreatening act.

8.2.3. Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic), accounted for similar percents of the negative politeness tokens in the three participant groups – RR 14.6%, RR 13.8%, and AE 12.1%. However, unlike the AE participants, the RR and RA participants tended to use the substrategy of negation to perform their negative facework. Generally speaking, negated verbs were employed in perfective nonpast (future) tense in requests with a low weight of imposition and in the conditional in requests with a higher weight of imposition. For the RR participants, 54 of the 62 tokens of Strategy 3 used a negated verb construction to make a request – 35 in the conditional, 19 in the perfective nonpast. Only 8 tokens used the non-negated conditional construction to make a request. The RA participants used a negated verb construction for 47 of the 56 tokens – 28 in the conditional, 14 in the negated perfective nonpast, and 2 in the negated imperfective nonpast (present tense). By contrast, none of the 33 AE occurrences of Strategy 3 involved negation. The negated perfective nonpast construction is typical in Russian in requests with a low weight of imposition. The data from the present study indicates that in high distance situations where only information is requested (Situation 11), the negated perfective nonpast construction occurs with virtually equal frequency to imperatives. This is inline with Mills (1991: 101) observation that the negated perfective nonpast 297

construction is being used “with increasing frequency” in Russian in situations where the imperative may have previously been typical. This pragmatic use of negation by the Russian participants of both the RR and the RA groups creates an additional measure of politeness in the request and serves to “explicitly [express] doubt” that the conditions/fulfillment of the request may be obtained, and offers redress for the face-threatening act against the hearer (Brown and Levinson 1987: 173). As noted in section 2.5.2, negation alone can make a request polite, and render additional modifications unneeded (Mills 1992). This is confirmed by Larina (2009, 3.5.1.2): “In regards to negative statements, the obvious is observed. Negative statements in Russian, which, as already noted, give the addressee the opportunity to answer negatively, they are more polite than positive…” The contrast between the RR and the RA data, in which negation in Strategy 3 is favored, the AE data, in which it is absent, is worth noting. While the use of negation is attested in English indirect speech acts, requests made with a negated construction have a considerably different connotation in English than in Russian. According to Larina (2009: 3.5.1.2.), negation of a verb used to make a request in English leaves less room for refusal. Likewise, Brown and Levinson treat negated requests in English under the heading of positive politeness Strategy 11 (Be optimistic); they state that in such a request the speaker assumes “that H wants S’s wants for S… and will help him to obtain them” (1987: 126). In other words, the speaker presupposes that the hearer will cooperate with him or her. Brown and Levinson observe that ‘You couldn’t pass the salt,’ cannot be a request in English unless some “possibility notion” is added to it, such as please, and 298

preferably a tag like ‘could you?’ (ibd: 135-136). Therefore, the Russian use of negation is distinctly different from AE’s and serves as a marker of negative politeness in Russian rather than positive. In situations when the weight of imposition is moderate to high, the RR and RA participants almost always used negation with the conditional mood. This is consistent with the findings of Mills (1991: 106), who notes that the negated conditional is preferred in Russian in “more formal situations,” when the interaction favors the hearer and/or the hearer is higher on the social hierarchy. In such cases, the construction doubles the pessimistic negative politeness – first by the negation, and second by the conditional, which lowers the obligation present in the request by presenting its felicity condition(s) as contrary to fact. This use was particularly evident in Situation 5, when participants were instructed to write an email to a professor requesting a letter of recommendation.

8.2.4. Strategy 2 (Question, hedge) The final negative politeness strategy I will consider is Strategy 2 (Question, hedge), which was chiefly realized in the form of hedges. Here the differences among the groups, though it was not as great as the strategies discussed above, is still worth noting. Among the AE participants, Strategy 2 accounted for 5.4% of the total negative politeness tokens; by contrast, it made up only 1.2% among the RR participants and only 2.8% among the RA participants. The more prominent use of hedges by AE participants demonstrates again how the AE participants acknowledged and validated the negative face needs of the hearer 299

differently than the RR and RA groups. As the general goal of a hedge is to soften a statement or request, their use signals a respect for the hearer’s negative face needs, i.e. the desire to not be imposed upon. Coupled with requests in particular, it expresses to the hearer that the speaker does “not assume [the hearer] is willing or able to do A,” and thus conventionally leaves the hearer more freedom to opt out of completing the desired action (Brown and Levinson 1987: 146). According to Larina (2009: 3.5.1.2.), hedged requests are a salient difference between English and Russian politeness: “Modifiers of requests with the meaning of doubt or uncertainty, which are characteristic for the English language and used to soften the request, are practically not used in Russian.” My data coupled with Larina’s observation, suggests that in the E+AE culture hedges are viewed as more useful tools in disarming the threat of a face-threatening act than in Russian culture. This tendency appears to have influenced the performance of facework among the RA participants in this study.

8.3. Social distance and weight of imposition as predicators of the type of facework Social distance proved to be the single most important factor in predicting the predominance of either positive or negative politeness in situations of low and high distance for each of the three cultural groups. In situations of low distance positive politeness predominated in 6 of the 7 low distance situations for the AE and RA participants, and 5 of the 7 situations for RR participants85. In high distance situations, negative politeness was always predominant for all cultural groups.

85

In Situations 6 and 8 the positive to negative ratio was 50/50 for RR participants.

300

However, there was a difference, among the three groups in the ratio of positiveto-negative politeness occurrences. In situations of low distance, AE participants’ responses consistently had a higher percentage of negative politeness occurrences than the RR and RA participants; it ranged from 1.4% to 12.1% higher than the RR group and 0.3%-11.8% higher than the RA group. There were only two exceptions to this pattern. First, in Situation 8, the RR participants had 13.2% more negative politeness occurrences than the AE, while the RA group had 8.7% more than the AE. The data does not indicate that these differences were due to a greater perceived threat in the interaction; the RR mean weight of imposition was only 0.1 higher than the AE and the RA mean was 0.4 higher than the AE (still not a great difference). Second, in Situation 6 (letting a friend know you can’t go to the movies), the RA group had 0.9% higher use (i.e. difference) of negative politeness occurrences than the AE group. Although the difference in ratios does not indicate that the AE group had fewer positive politeness tokens than the RR and RA ones, they clearly showed a general tendency to use a greater proportion of negative politeness than the RR and RA participants in low distance situations. This indicates that the value assigned to negative face needs is more prominent in low distance relationships among the AE participants than among the RR and RA participants. Pinto (2011: 215) notes that the United States is well known for its abundant use of politeness in everyday interactions and is “characterized by a heavy dose of polite linguistic routines such as ‘thank you’, ‘please’ and ‘I’m sorry,’ ”. On the other hand, the Russian culture has been characterized as a 301

low-distance culture, and is said to be less reticent about expressing their feelings than English speakers. According to Larina (2009: 1.5.2), this ability to be freer with one’s emotions is generally indicative of lower-distance cultures, which would render negative facework less essential. Therefore, negative politeness appears to be a more integral part of interactions in United States culture in low distance situation than it is in the Russian culture. Conversely, in situations of high distance, AE participants consistently had a higher percent of positive politeness tokens, which ranged from 7.1% - 16.6% higher than the RR participants and 9.4% -15.9% higher than the RA participants. These data suggest that meeting the positive face needs of an individual in high distance situations is based on the overall value that the society places on the recognition of those needs, not necessarily the weight of the perceived threat. The largest discrepancy in ratios was seen in Situation 11 (asking for directions), where the AE participants had 16.6% more positive politeness tokens than the RR and 15.9% more than RA. However, the means for the weight of imposition rating for the RR and RA groups do not indicate that a difference in perception of the situation was a factor in the percent differences; the RR participants’ mean was only 0.3 higher than the AE, and the RA mean was equal to the AE. These data are in accord with Pinto’s (2011: 216) observation that English speakers exert great effort in “showing good intentions” in interactions and “maintaining social harmony”. However, in the case of the RR participants, this finding conflicts with Rathmayr’s (2003) claim that Russian is overall a positive-face society, in which positive 302

politeness strategies are more frequent than negative politeness ones. It is clear from my data that Russians do not necessarily perform more of positive facework, at least in comparison with AE speakers; rather they have a higher ratio of positive-to-negative politeness in low distance situations and a lower ratio of positive-to-negative politeness in high distance situations. In sum, while further verification is needed, my data suggests that AE speakers remain closer to some starting baseline of politeness, while for RR and RA speakers the matter of distance tended to be more polarizing and the use of positive and negative politeness more compartmentalized. 86

8.4. Differences in the quantity of facework performed Overall, the AE and RA participants had a higher token per a response average than the RR participant group, even despite the fact that one or two each of the AE and RA surveys were rather scarce, while all of the RR surveys contained high quality responses. The AE participants had a total of 1,013 politeness tokens, for an average of 4.2 tokens per a response (240 responses); the RR participants had a total of 833 politeness tokens, for an average of 3.5 tokens per a response (235 responses); and the RA participants had a total of 861 politeness tokens, for an average of 3.8 tokens per a response (228 responses). These differences in the total average of tokens per a response strengthen many of the claims made by other scholars that English speakers attend to politeness in conversation and points to differences at a deeper cultural level and the values of those systems for the AE and RR participant groups. Additionally, the data for 86

There was, more often than not, a slight shift seen in the RA participants percents towards the AE ones, although they are still overall closer to the RR participant percents.

303

the RA participants may suggests a possible influence of the L2 frequency of politeness performance on the L1 politeness frequency, which will be discussed in section 8.5. The data indicate that the AE participants tend to perform more facework in general, than the RR and RA participant groups. These findings imply a greater attentiveness to the positive and negative face needs of the hearer by AE speakers in an interaction. In a sense then, it could be said that the AE participants do more multitasking in an interaction than their RR and RA counterparts, because they are more focused on the needs of the hearer and on maintaining the pleasantness of the interaction, in addition to performing the needed speech act or task in the interaction – ordering food, conveying or requesting information, etc. This accords with Pinto’s observations (2011:215-16) that “everyday interaction in the United States is often characterized by a heavy dose of polite linguistic routines such as ‘thank you’, ‘please’ and ‘I’m sorry’,” and that there is also a “higher level of intensification” in English (i.e., using adverbs to intensify the illocutionary force of speech acts). On the other hand, the RR participants do not seem to need to perform as much facework in the situations presented them. This tendency, I would argue, is due to the cultural value that the Russian culture places on being sincere. Brown and Levinson argue that “if there is a norm of sincerity” in a given culture, “sincere disapproval is less of an FTA,” (1987: 249). For Russians, the openly acknowledged value of sincerity (iskrennost’) allows them to share what they think frankly and makes them less afraid of causing or receiving a face-threatening act (Rathmayr 2008, Larina 2009, Ogiermann 2009). In situations of moderate to high social distance the value of sincerity could mean 304

that the pageantry of ‘how are you’s’ are not only not needed but out of place, because a sincere question (i.e. one soliciting a candid response) and answer would only take place between intimates. Due to this, Grice’s maximum of quantity (i.e. make your contributions as informative as required but not more formative than required) is not as readily trumped on account of other cultural face needs, as is the case with the AE participants. According to Orgiermann (2009: 190), “Not only is the mutual knowledge necessary to infer a culture-specific implicature but cultural values also determine whether it may be more appropriate to flout conversational maxims or to abide by the rules of the cooperative principle in a particular situation.” However, as noted above, in being concise in interactions of high distance, Russians are in a sense respecting the negative face needs of the hearer by infringing on as little of the hearer’s time and attention as possible. Thus, the data are open to the interpretation that Russian culture places more focus on the core purpose and efficiency of the interaction, while American culture puts more focus on the social aspect of the interaction by meeting the face needs of the hearer while carrying out the task.

8.5. Evidence of L2 influence on politeness in L1 of RA Though more research is clearly needed, the data in this study suggests that, among émigrés, politeness and facework in the L2 may indeed influence politeness and facework in the L1. This is evidenced in the shift towards AE norms of percent usage and the sub-strategies or grammatical forms preferred by the RA participants in some situations. 305

The L2 effect appears to be modulated by the frequency with which a RA participant would generally encounter the prescribed situation on a daily basis. For instance, the relatively uncommon situation of requesting a letter of recommendation showed little to no AE influence. Nevertheless, even in more familiar situations the apparent L2 influence was not consistent. In some situations, the total number of token production seemed to be influenced by the L2 but the actual implementation of it was not. For instance, in Situation 13 the RA participants used strikingly fewer tokens of negative politeness Strategy 7 than their RR counterparts, but nevertheless used them in the same way (see Section 7.4.4). Others had an increased frequency mimicking the AE participants’ frequency but still implemented the strategy similar to the RR participants (see 7.4.4, Situation 13, Strategy 15). Additionally, at times, the RA participants’ percentage of use for a strategy was notably different than both the AE and the RR groups (see 7.9.4, Situation 8; 7.10.4, Situation 10). Therefore, there are indications that a politeness interlanguage of sorts may be emerging, much as when second-language learners show some grammatical and lexical similarities to the L1 and the L2, but also some distinctive characteristics of their own. The politeness interlanguage in this study was produced in the L1; further research is needed to determine how the RA group uses politeness and facework in the L2.

306

8.6. Cross-cultural implications of the research As noted in the introduction, many of the cultural misunderstandings that occur between interactants from different cultures and the negative stereotypes that then result are derived from a lack of pragmatic knowledge in language-specific area of politeness. The analysis of the data in this study points to differing grammatical forms and cultural values that may be the root of many misunderstandings. Even after years of formal study, second-language learners generally cannot acquire a pragmatic knowledge of the target language without intense immersion, and even then the acquisition of native-like pragmatic competence depends in part on personal factors. Therefore, when they interact with someone from the other culture, they are not likely to realize that a different grammatical form can be used to perform a single strategy. For instance, in the case of negative politeness Strategy 3 (Be pessimistic), Russians prefer negated constructions of either the perfective nonpast (future) or the conditional mood to convey doubt that the hearer will fulfill a request, while Americans prefer the use of Could or Would. Both of these forms inject, at least conventionally, an element of uncertainty and serve to make the request more sensitive to the negative face needs of the hearer. However, because the negation of a request in English tends to make it more forceful, Americans can view its use by Russians as less polite, although it was intended to do the contrary, and may be hesitant to use such constructions themselves in speaking Russian. Therefore, for speakers to understand a grammatical form properly,

307

they must understand the function and pragmatic purpose it serves within that culture, irrespective of its significance in their own language. As mentioned, another area that can lead to cultural misunderstandings is the differing values at the core of each society. In the case of the current study, it has been established that Russians place a high value on sincerity. As a result, they can feel that it is appropriate to express even negative opinions openly, and they often speak in more direct terms (i.e., without redress) than typical American English speakers would in comparable situations. For example, in Russian imperatives are considered a polite way to make requests with low weight of imposition, often accompanied by please. However, Americans typically prefer a more indirect way to make requests, e.g., by questioning the hearer’s ability to perform them with can you. Based on my own experience and perceptions others have shared with me, American English speakers often feel imperative requests to be abrasive and authoritative, and thus, offensive to their negative face. This difference can also be seen in the more abundant use of hedges by Americans, which can be taken to be unnecessary and misunderstood by Russians, due to their value of sincerity. For example, in a conversation I had with a fellow graduate student, who was a native Russian speaker, she expressed perplexity about why Americans hedged even the conveyance of simple information. She noted that, if we knew someone was not coming to an appointment, we might relate this to the person waiting for him/her by saying, “I think he/she isn’t coming,” instead of the straightforward message, “He/she is not coming.”

308

Although Russians may conclude from such indirectness that Americans do not value sincerity, is it my observation that they do. However, competing cultural values also play roles in American facework and can take precedence. For instance, in Situation 13 (ordering lunch), AE participants often asked about the well-being of the hearer, while Russians did not. This may be taken as insincere, because the customer may not wish to hear any negative information and knows that the cashier is not likely to give a detailed or (if unhappy) true response while waiting on a customer. However, the pragmatic function, by my observations, is simply to greet and acknowledge the other person in the interaction, and thus validate them and their positive face needs.

8.7. A critique of Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory While the present study highlights some of the strengths of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, it also demonstrates some of its weaknesses. Although their strategies are diverse enough to umbrella the ways in which different cultures perform facework, they are often overlapping, subsume many different kinds of acts (e.g., positive politeness Strategy 15: Give gifts), and sometimes lack a thorough explanation of their use (e.g. positive politeness Strategy 9). Furthermore, Brown and Levinson’s approach is dichotomistic, so that it is frequently overlooks the fact that both positive and negative facework, as they define them, can be performed in the same utterance, sometimes with the same strategy. Many of the strategies that Brown and Levinson define as addressing positive or negative face needs actually have the dual purpose of addressing both needs. The authors 309

acknowledge this in one case: giving a reason for making a request is positive politeness Strategy 13; giving a reason or for committing a face threatening act is negative politeness Strategy 6. However, they do not explain the criterion for deciding which type of politeness is at work for a given token (i.e. the explanation of the reason for the request). Moreover, Brown and Levinson overlook the fact that some of their other strategies can also address both face needs, perhaps simultaneously. For instance, Strategy 8 (Joke) can build solidarity between interactants, so Brown and Levinson categorized it as a positive politeness strategy; however, joking can also be used to soften a refusal or a request, which is a form of negative facework. Thus, in Situation 12 (requesting use of the pen in the post office), AE participant 2 joked about the need to write a return address in case the letter got in the mail. The joking is evidently intended to make the stranger feel less imposed upon, but it also establishes solidarity based on shared American cultural stereotypes (e.g., the Post Office is unreliable; we have to protect each other from their incompetence). To take a further example, Brown and Levinson claim that imperatives can be both bald-on-record and also function as negative politeness Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H). In addition to being a contradiction, this is an oversimplification of the typological category of the imperative. In many languages, imperative forms are marked for number and person, so that they are actually personal constructions. This does not necessarily render them rude or blunt (bald-on-record), as has been amply illustrated by the Russian data in this study. An additional dynamic that Brown and Levinson fail to fully address in regards to face-threatening acts is that some acts can pose a threat to both the positive and negative 310

face at the same time. For instance, in Situation 8, the refusal to loan the car to a close friend not only inconveniences the hearer, i.e., threatens his/her negative face, but is also open to the interpretation that the speaker does not value the hearer’s pressing need, i.e., threatens his/her positive face. Thus, many social situations cannot be easily categorized as threatening one type of facework to the exclusion of the other. This further complicates that categorization of the facework performed, which will often interweave the negative and positive politeness strategies. For instance, in Situation 8, a speaker may use positive politeness Strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/ assert common ground) to point out that the hearer has knowledge of his/her general rule not loan out the new car; however, stating face-threatening acts as general rules is categorized as negative politeness Strategy 7 (Impersonalize S and H). Thus, positive and negative politeness strategies can be used in the same utterance. If Brown and Levinson’s model is actually to be used in the categorization of facework, it needs to be revised so that it can handle more complex situations. As I have pointed in various sections of the dissertation, for Brown and Levinson’s model to be applied consistently to actual conversation, their definitions of strategies need to be more clearly articulated and have a clearer focus. For instance, some of their strategies have a long list of functions—so much so that they beg either for a broader definition or for the addition of more fine-tuned (sub)strategies. This can be seen in positive politeness Strategy 7 (Presuppose/raise/assert common ground), which, in their treatment, ranges from the use of small talk to point-of-view operations (with several subcategories) and to presupposition manipulations (also with several 311

subcategories). On the other hand, some strategies are, to a large extent, left unexplained, with only a few examples given. This is the case with positive politeness Strategy 9 (Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants), which would seem to cover all positive politeness strategies; it is given a one-sentence explanation followed by three examples, which do not clearly fit into the explanation. These shortcomings in the exposition of Brown and Levinson’s strategies make it cumbersome to use them for categorizing facework, and often leaves them open to purely subjective interpretation. As Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory continues to be the most widely mentioned and relied upon in politeness research, and as there is no widely accepted alternative, it is vital that the actual language and issues mentioned above be clarified. This will aid in the study and classification of politeness across cultures.

8.8. Area for prospective research Positive politeness is one area of study that has been mostly overlooked in the area of Russian pragmatics. The data in this study offer some insight into how Russians, Russian émigrés in the U.S., and American English speakers carry out positive facework; however, further research is needed to verify some of the observations made in this study (see Section 8.1.1). In addition, further research is needed to substantiate the trends indicated by the positive-to-negative politeness ratios in my analysis. In my data, the AE participants’ ratios remain closer to some starting baseline, while the RR participants’ use of positive and negative politeness is more polarized.

312

It would also be worthwhile to isolate a single variable—distance, weight of imposition, power—to determine more precisely which social factors most strongly influence the type of politeness performed and the strategies chosen. To do this, for instance, there would need to be parallel situations with a single task (e.g. borrowing a pen), but with persons of differing social distance. Additionally, as noted in Section 8.6, further research is needed to more clearly determine to what extent the L2 influences the politeness of L1. The data suggest that the RA participants have produced some type of politeness interlanguage, however, this also needs to be tested in the L2, to determine if it is likewise produced there, or unique to the L1. A longitudinal study would also be of interest, to determine if the influences observed are intensified with the length of residence in the United States. In future research, it would also be beneficial to have the participants rate the social distance of each situation themselves to determine if there was a difference in the perceived distance between the cultural groups. This could, in turn, influence the ratio of positive-to-negative politeness and types of strategies performed. Also, debriefing the participants after their completion of surveys would be beneficial for determining what, if any, face threat they themselves saw in the interaction. This would help investigators to match the results of their analyses with the values that speakers themselves see as relevant in the given situations and other factors that motivate their choice of strategies and, within the strategies, particular grammatical and lexical forms.

313

Bibliography Barnlund, D. C., and S. Araki. 1985. "Intercultural Encounters: The Management of Compliments by Japanese and Americans.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 16 (1): 9-26. Benacchio, Rosanna. 2002. “Competition of Aspect, Politeness and Etiquette in the Russian Imperative.” Russian Linguistic 26:149-178. http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Barnlund_Dean_C.pdf?issn=00220221&issue=v 16i0001&article=9_ietmocbjaa (Accessed March 10, 2014). Бенаккьо, Р. Выражение вежливости формами повелительного наклонения несовершенного и совершенного вида в русском языке. Works from the Aspect Seminar if the Philosophy Department at Moscow State University. 3. 6-17. Betsch, Michael. 2003. “Questions as indirect requests in Russian and Czech.” In Meaning through Language Contrast II, Edited by Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt and Ken Turner, 277-290. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. http://books.google.com/books?id=ToPN1kTaBMUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage& q=michael&f=false (Accessed January 22, 2014). Bohm, Micheal, 2011. “Why Russians Don’t Smile.” The Moscow Times, April 29, 2011, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/why-russians-dont-smile/436037.html (Accessed April 16, 2014). Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman. 1960. "The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity." In Style in Language, Edited by Sebeok, 253-276. Cambridge: Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/.../BrownGilman-Pronouns.pdf‎ (accessed March 1, 2014). Brown, Roger, and Marguerite Ford. 1964. “Address in American English.” In Language in culture and society: A reader in linguistics and anthropology, Edited by 314

Dell Hymes, 234–44. New York: Harper & Row. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. “Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different?” Journal of Pragmatics 11: 131-146. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain. 1984. "Requests and Apologies: A CrossCultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP)." Applied Linguistics 5 (3): 196-213. MLA International Bibliography, EBSCOhost (Accessed March 1, 2014). Byon, Andrew Sangpil. 2006. "The Role of Linguistic Indirectness and Honorifics in Achieving Linguistic Politeness in Korean Requests." Journal Of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 2 (2): 247-276. MLA International Bibliography, EBSCOhost (accessed March 23, 2014). Camiciottoli, Belinda Crawford. 2009. "'Just Wondering If You Could Comment On That': Indirect Requests For Information In Corporate Earnings Calls." Text & Talk: An Interdisciplinary Journal Of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies 29.6 (2009): 661-681. MLA International Bibliography. (Accessed January 21, 2014). Comrie, Bernard. 1984. “Interrogativity in Russian.” Typological Studies in Language 4: 7 -47. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=bZ2J9Pr_5i0C&printsec=frontcover&output=re ader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA9 (Accessed August 2, 2013). Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interactional Ritual. New York: Anchor Books. Green, Georgia M., and Jerry L. Morgan. 1981. "Pragmatics, grammar and discourse." In Radical Pragmatics. Edited by Peter Cole, 167-181. Academic Press. Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. “Logic and Conversation”. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Gouldner, Alvin W. 1970. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books. Kasanga, Luanga A., and Joy-Christine Lwanga-Lumu. 2007. "Cross-Cultural Linguistic Realization of Politeness: A Study of Apologies in English and Setswana." Journal Of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 3(1): 65-92. MLA International Bibliography, EBSCOhost (accessed March 23, 2014). Ларина, Татьяна. 2009. Категория вежливости и стиль коммуникации. Москва: Рукописные памятники Древней Руси. http://www.ereading.co.uk/book.php?book=137743 (Accessed December 12, 2013). 315

Leech, Geoffrey. 2007. “Politeness, East vs. West.” Journal of Politeness Research 3, 167–206. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Groups Ltd. Mao, LuMing Robert. 1994. “Beyond politeness theory: Face revisited and renewed.” Journal of Pragmatics 21 (5): 451–86. McLaren, Yvonne. 2001. "To Claim or Not to Claim? An Analysis of the Politeness of Self-Evaluation in a Corpus of French Corporate Brochures." Multilingua: Journal Of Cross-Cultural And Interlanguage Communication 20 (2): 171-190. MLA International Bibliography, EBSCOhost (accessed March 23, 2014). Mills, Margaret. 1992. “Conventionalized Politeness in Russian Requests: a Pragmatic View of Indirectness.” Russian Linguistics 16: 65-78. Mills, Margaret. 1991. “The Performance Force of the Interrogative in Colloquial Russian: From Direct to Indirect Speech Acts.” SEEJ 35 (4): 553-569. Nomura, Naoki, and Dean Barnlund. 1983. "Patterns of interpersonal criticism in Japan and United States". International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 7 (1): 1-18. http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lib.ohiostate.edu/science/article/pii/0147176783900020 (Accessed March 10, 2014). Ogiermann, Eva. 2009. "Politeness and In-Directness across Cultures: A Comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian Requests." Journal Of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 5 (2): 189-216. MLA International Bibliography, EBSCOhost (Accessed January 22, 2014). Ohashi, Jun. 2003. "Japanese Culture Specific Face and Politeness Orientation: A Pragmatic Investigation of Yoroshiku onegaishimasu." Multilingua: Journal Of CrossCultural And Interlanguage Communication 22 (3): 257-274. MLA International Bibliography, EBSCOhost (accessed March 23, 2014).

Psathas, George. 1980. “Approaches to the study of the world of everyday life.” Human Studies 3 (1): 3-17. Pavlenko, Aneta. 2000. "L2 Influence on L1 in Late Bilingualism." Issues In Applied Linguistics 11 (2): 175-205. MLA International Bibliography, EBSCOhost (accessed March 24, 2014). Pinto, Derrin. 2011. “Are Americans insincere? Interactional style and politeness in everyday America.” Journal of Politeness Research 7:215-238. 316

Ратмайр, Ренате. 2003. Прагматика извинения. Справителное исследование на материале русского языка и русской культуры. Москва: Языки славянской культуры. гл. 1 & 2. Rathmayr, Renate. 2008. “Intercultural Aspects of New Russian Politeness.” WU Online Papers International Business Communication. http://epub.wu-wien.ac.at (Accessed August 11, 2009). Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1988. “Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation.” In Erving Goffman Exploring the Interaction Order, Edited by Paul Drew and Athony Wooton, 89135. Cambridge: Polity Press http://cdclv.unlv.edu/archives/interactionism/schegloff/goffman.pdf (Accessed August 27, 2013). Schmid, M. S, & B. Köpke. 2008. “L1 attrition and the mental lexicon,” in: Aneta Pavlenko (ed.), The Bilingual Mental Lexicon. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 209 – 238.http://www.let.rug.nl/languageattrition/Papers/Schmid%20&%20Kopke%202008.pd f (Accessed September 4, 2013). Schnurr, Stephanie, and Angela Chan. 2009. "Politeness and Leadership Discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong: A Cross-Cultural Case Study of Workplace Talk." Journal Of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 5 (2): 131-157. MLA International Bibliography, EBSCOhost (accessed March 23, 2014). Sicola, Laura. 2005. "'Communicative Lingerings': Exploring Awareness of L2 Influence on L1 in American Expatriates after Re-entry." Language Awareness 14 (2/3): 153-169. Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 24, 2014). Simone, Alina. 2014. “The ‘How Are You?’ Culture Clash.” New York Times, January 19, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/opinion/the-how-are-you-cultureclash.html?_r=0 (Accessed April 16, 2014). Traverso, Véronique. 2006. "Aspects of Polite Behaviour in French and Syrian Service Encounters: A Data-Based Comparative Study." Journal Of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 2 (1): 105-122. MLA International Bibliography, EBSCOhost (accessed March 23, 2014). Watts, Richard J. 2003. Key Topics In Sociolinguistics: Politeness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ch. 4-7. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: the Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. http://www.amazon.com/reader/3110177692/ref=rdr_sb_li_hist_2&state=01111 (Accessed August 27, 2013). 317

Appendices: Participant Surveys

English Survey: Dear Participant: This research is designed to look at how people communicate in various forms of communication. There will be various situations presented to you after which you will be directed to either write a dialogue, email or text in response to the situation. Participation in this study is voluntary. If at any time if you feel uncomfortable with continuing, you may abandon the survey or questionnaire without penalty and they will not be counted in the study. By completing and returning the following survey and participant questionnaire you are agreeing to be included in the study. If you have any questions regarding the survey or background questionnaire please contact Ellen Bunker-Lopez by phone at: 607-351-3497 or by email at: [email protected] or Dr. Daniel Collins at: [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns for someone not on the research team, feel free to contact Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at The Ohio State University by phone at: 614-688-4792 or 1-800-678-6251 or by mail at: The Ohio State University, 300 Research Administration Building, 1960 Kenny Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1063 For issues of privacy, names of participants will not be provided in the study but instead each study will be assigned a number, with a master copy of the numbers assigned to each person’s survey retained by myself, Ellen Bunker. The survey and questionnaire will take about 45 minutes to complete. Part IA Survey Instructions: For each of the following situations, please respond as naturally as you would in any real circumstance in the manner asked for at the end of each situation. There is no length requirement or restriction for responses. You may take as much time as you need for each response. 318

1. You are on vacation in Florida and love it. You have been there for 4 days already and have no desire to go home. You spend your days at the beach and doing other activities you enjoy, and eat out regularly. A close friend sends you an email to see how things are going. In your email to him/her you write:

2. You are visiting a close friend and sitting around talking when his/her little 4-year-old comes up to you and shows you a picture they have just drawn. The child begins the conversation by saying, “Look at the picture I drew.” Complete the dialogue between you and the child started below in which the child is showing you the picture. Child: Look at the picture I drew.

3. You are at work and remember that you forgot to feed your dog before leaving. You send a text message to your roommate or family member, who is still at home, asking him/her to do so. Write the text you send below.

4. You forgot your cell phone and get to the place you were supposed to meet a friend 30 minutes late due to traffic. Your friend is not there. You decide to ask a stranger if you can borrow their cell phone to call your friend to try to find them. Write a dialogue between you and the stranger in which you ask to borrow their cell phone.

5. You want to apply to an academic program and have completed the application process but need a letter of recommendation from a professor. You decide to ask a professor you had for one of your classes last semester. You don’t know him well, outside of the context of the classroom, but his class was your highest grade for the semester. It’s Monday and you need the letter of recommendation by the following Tuesday, leaving him a 7 days notice. Write an email below, asking him to write a letter of recommendation and telling him that it will be needed by Tuesday.

6. You were supposed to go to the movies with a friend tonight but something came up and you no longer can. It's an hour before it’s supposed to start. You send him/her a text to let them know. 319

7. Your close friend or significant other just got a haircut, which he/she thinks looks great and asks you what you think. You think it looks awful. Write a dialogue between you and him/her in which he/she asks you about their haircut and you respond.

8. Your good friend asked if he/she could borrow your brand new car for an upcoming event. You don’t feel comfortable loaning it to him/her as it’s brand new. Write a dialogue between you and your friend in which he/she asks to borrow your car.

9. You notice your friend has a nice pair of shoes on and wonder where he/she bought them. Create a dialogue between you and the friend in which you find out where he/she bought the shoes.

10. You are a manager of a company, at which you have worked for a long time. You have become very friendly with all the other employees and close friends with some of them. You were informed by the owner of the company that you have to fire one of them, Andrew, who has become a close friend of yours. Create a dialogue between you and Andrew in which you let him know that he was lost his job.

11. You are walking down the street as a tourist in another city. You are looking for the bus stop but seem to be lost. There is someone walking towards you on the street. You decide to ask the passerby directions to the bus stop. Write a dialogue between you and the stranger in which you ask directions to the bus stop.

12. You are at the post office about to put a letter in the mail but realize you forgot to write the return address on the envelope. You see someone waiting in line for postal services with a pen in hand. You approach them to ask if you can borrow their pen. Write a dialogue between you and him/her in which you ask to use their pen.

320

13. You’re on a lunch break at work and stop in at your regular place to get something to eat. It’s the usual worker there on the lunch shift. Write a dialogue between you and him/her in which you order.

Participant Survey Part IB: Survey Instructions: For each of the following situations, please indicate to what extent the situation has the potential to offend or hurt the other person or be potentially embarrassing for them by putting an “x” next to the corresponding number. 1. You are on vacation in Florida and love it. You have been there for 4 days already and have no desire to go home. You spend your days at the beach and doing other activities you enjoy, and eat out regularly. A close friend sends you an email to see how things are going. In your email to him/her you write: 1 Little to No Potential for Offence, Hurt

2 Some Potential

or Embarrassment

3 Moderate Potential for Offence, Hurt

4 Considerable Potential

5 Great Potential for Offence, Hurt or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

2. You are visiting a close friend and sitting around talking when his/her little 4-year-old comes up to you and shows you a picture they have just drawn. The child begins the conversation by saying, “Look at the picture I drew.” Complete the dialogue between you and the child started below in which the child is showing you the picture. Child: Look at the picture I drew. 1 Little to No Potential for Offence, Hurt

2 Some Potential

or Embarrassment

3 Moderate Potential for Offence, Hurt

4 Considerable Potential

5 Great Potential for Offence, Hurt or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

3. You are at work and remember that you forgot to feed your dog before leaving. You send a text message to your roommate or family member, who is still at home, asking him/her to do so. Write the text you send below. 1 Little to

2

3

Some Potential

Moderate

321

4 Considerable Potential

5 Great Potential

No Potential for Offence, Hurt

Potential for Offence, Hurt

or Embarrassment

for Offence, Hurt or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

4. You forgot your cell phone and get to the place you were supposed to meet a friend 30 minutes late due to traffic. Your friend is not there. You decide to ask a stranger if you can borrow their cell phone to call your friend to try to find them. Write a dialogue between you and the stranger in which you ask to borrow their cell phone. 1 Little to No Potential for Offence, Hurt

2 Some Potential

or Embarrassment

3 Moderate Potential for Offence, Hurt

4 Considerable Potential

5 Great Potential for Offence, Hurt or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

5. You want to apply to an academic program and have completed the application process but need a letter of recommendation from a professor. You decide to ask a professor you had for one of your classes last semester. You don’t know him well, outside of the context of the classroom, but his class was your highest grade for the semester. It’s Monday and you need the letter of recommendation by the following Tuesday, leaving him a 7 days notice. Write an email below, asking him to write a letter of recommendation and telling him that it will be needed by Tuesday. 1 Little to No Potential for Offence, Hurt

2 Some Potential

or Embarrassment

3 Moderate Potential for Offence, Hurt

4 Considerable Potential

5 Great Potential for Offence, Hurt or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

6. You were supposed to go to the movies with a friend tonight but something came up and you no longer can. It's an hour before it’s supposed to start. You send him/her a text to let them know. 1 Little to No Potential for Offence, Hurt

2 Some Potential

or Embarrassment

3 Moderate Potential for Offence, Hurt

4 Considerable Potential

5 Great Potential for Offence, Hurt or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

7. Your close friend or significant other just got a haircut, which he/she thinks looks great and asks you what you think. You think it looks awful. Write a dialogue between you and him/her in which he/she asks you about their haircut and you respond. 1 Little to No Potential for Offence, Hurt

2 Some Potential

3 Moderate Potential for Offence, Hurt

322

4 Considerable Potential

5 Great Potential for Offence, Hurt or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

8. Your good friend asked if he/she could borrow your brand new car for an upcoming event. You don’t feel comfortable loaning it to him/her as it’s brand new. Write a dialogue between you and your friend in which he/she asks to borrow your car. 1 Little to No Potential for Offence, Hurt

2 Some Potential

or Embarrassment

3 Moderate Potential for Offence, Hurt

4 Considerable Potential

5 Great Potential for Offence, Hurt or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

9. You notice your friend has a nice pair of shoes on and wonder where he/she bought them. Create a dialogue between you and the friend in which you find out where he/she bought the shoes. 1 Little to No Potential for Offence, Hurt

2 Some Potential

or Embarrassment

3 Moderate Potential for Offence, Hurt

4 Considerable Potential

5 Great Potential for Offence, Hurt or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

10. You are a manager of a company, at which you have worked for a long time. You have become very friendly with all the other employees and close friends with some of them. You were informed by the owner of the company that you have to fire one of them, Andrew, who has become a close friend of yours. Create a dialogue between you and Andrew in which you let him know that he was lost his job. 1 Little to No Potential for Offence, Hurt

2 Some Potential

or Embarrassment

3 Moderate Potential for Offence, Hurt

4 Considerable Potential

5 Great Potential for Offence, Hurt or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

11. You are walking down the street as a tourist in another city. You are looking for the bus stop but seem to be lost. There is someone walking towards you on the street. You decide to ask the passerby directions to the bus stop. Write a dialogue between you and the stranger in which you ask directions to the bus stop. 1 Little to No Potential for Offence, Hurt

or Embarrassment

2 Some Potential

3 Moderate Potential for Offence, Hurt

4 Considerable Potential

5 Great Potential for Offence, Hurt or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

12. You are at the post office about to put a letter in the mail but realize you forgot to write the return address on the envelope. You see someone waiting in line for postal services with a pen in hand. You approach them to ask if you can borrow their pen. Write a dialogue between you and him/her in which you ask to use their pen. 323

1

2

Little to No Potential for Offence, Hurt

3

Some Potential

or Embarrassment

Moderate Potential for Offence, Hurt

4

5

Considerable Potential

Great Potential for Offence, Hurt or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

13. You’re on a lunch break at work and stop in at your regular place to get something to eat. It’s the usual worker there on the lunch shift. Write a dialogue between you and him/her in which you order. 1

2

Little to No Potential for Offence, Hurt

3

Some Potential

or Embarrassment

Moderate Potential for Offence, Hurt

4

5

Considerable Potential

Great Potential for Offence, Hurt or Embarrassment

or Embarrassment

Part II Participant Information: Please fill out the following information. Name: ________________________________________________ Age: _________________________

Gender:

male

female

Native Language: ________________________________________________________________________ Language you speak at home: ______________________________________________ Place of Birth: ________________________________________________________________________ Current Residence (city and state): ___________________________________________ Last Level of Education Completed: _________________________________________ Have you ever lived out side of the United States for longer than 2 years? Yes

No

If yes, where and for how long?_______________________________________

324

Russian survey for Russians residing in Russia: Дорогой Участник/Дорогая Участница: Это исследование сделано, чтобы узнать, как люди используют разные средствами коммуникации. Вам будут представлены разные ситуации, после которых Вас попросят написать диалог, электронную почту или смс в ответ на ситуацию. Участие в исследованием добровольное. Если Вы почувствуете неудобство в продолжение исследования, в любой момент Вы можете прекратить ваше участие без определённых обязательств, и ваши ответы не будут включены в данные исследования. Заполняя и возвращая настоящий опрос и анкету участника, Вы соглашаетесь быть включённым/включённой в исследование. Если у Вас есть какие-нибудь вопросы по поводу этого исследования или анкеты участника опроса, пожалуйста, обращаетесь к Эллен Бункер по телефону: 607-351-3497 или по электронной почте: [email protected] или к Доктору Коллинсу: [email protected]. Если у Вас есть вопросы или сомнения по поводу кого-то, кто не имеет отношения к участникам исследования, пожалуйста, обращайтесь к Сандре Мэдовс в Офис Ответственных Методoв Исследования Университета Штата Огайо по телефону: 614-688-4792 или 1800-678-6251 или по почте: The Ohio State University, 300 Research Administration Building, 1960 Kenny Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1063. Имена участников не будут включены в публикацию результатов исследования. Вместo этого, каждой анкете будет предписан номер. Список имён и соответственные номера будут храниться у Эллен Бункер. Чтобы закончить опрос и анкету, требуется приблизительно 45 минут. Часть IA Указания Опроса: Пожалуйста, отвечайте на следующие ситуации обычным способом, как Вы отвечали бы в настоящей жизни. Нет определённого минимума слов и нет ограничения во времени. 1. Вы в отпуске в Сочи и Вам там очень нравится. Вы уже там 4 дня и Вам совсем не хочется домой. Днём Вы бываете на пляже и занимаетесь другими делами, которые Вам нравятся, и Вы регулярно ходите в рестораны. Один из ваших хороших друзей посылает Вам письмо по электронной почте и спрашивает, как проходит отпуск. В ответ на это Вы ему/ей пишете: (Напишите ваш ответ по электронной почте)

325

2. Вы в гостях у друга/подруги и вы общаетесь между собой, когда его/её четырехлетний ребёнок приходит к Вам, чтобы показать Вам то, что он/она нарисовал(a). Ребёнок начинает разговор с Вами, говоря, . Завершите диалог между Вами и ребёнком уже начатый, в котором ребёнок Вам показывает свой рисунок. Ребёнок: -Видишь то, что я нарисовал/а? 3. Вы на работе и вспоминаете, что Вы забыли накормить вашу собаку перед тем, как Вы ушли сегодня утром. Напишите смс вашему соседу/вашей соседке по комнате или члену семьи, которая/который ещё дома, чтобы попросить, сможет ли он/она собаку накормить. Напишите ваш смс. 4. Вы договорились с другом/подругой о том, что вы сегодня встретитесь, но Вы пришли на 30 минут позже и его/её нет. Вы также забыли ваш мобильник. Вы решили попросить у кого-нибудь воспользоваться их телефоном, чтобы позвонить. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, у которого/которой вы попросили использовать его/её мобильник. 5. Вы хотите подать заявку на академическую программy, и Вы уже заполнили её, но Вам ещё нужно рекомендательное письмо от одного из ваших профессоров. Вы решили попросить его у одного профессора, который преподавал Вам в последнем семестре. Вы его плохо знаете, и общались только на занятии, но Вы получили вашу самую высокую оценку в его курсе. Сегодня понедельник. Вам необходимо получить рекомендательное письмо через семь дней - в следующий вторник. Напишите ему письмо по электронной почте с заблаговременной просьбой написать Вам это рекомендательное письмо к следующему вторнику. 6. Вы собирались пойти в кино сегодня вечером с другом/подругой, но что-то случилось и Вы вдруг не сможете пойти. Фильм начинается через час. Вы посылаете ему/ей смс, чтобы это сказать. Напишите смс. 7. Ваш близкий друг/ваша близкая подруга или возлюбленный/ая только, что постригся/постриглась, и он/она думает, что стрижка ему/ей хорошо идёт и хочет узнать ваше мнение. Вы думаете, что она ужасна. Напишите диалог между вами и ним/ней, в котором он/она спрашивает о вашем мнении и Вы отвечаете на его/её вопрос. 8. Ваш близкий друг/ваша близкая подруга спрашивает, сможет ли он/она занять у вас вашу новую машину для будущего мероприятия. Вам неудобно её дать, так как она

326

новая. Напишите диалог между вами и вашим другом/вашей подругой, в котором он/она просит, сможете ли вы одолжить вашу машину. 9. Вы заметили, что у вашего друга/вашей подруги есть хорошие туфли, и вы хотите узнать, где он/она их купил/а. Напишите диалог между вами и вашим другом/вашей подругой, в котором Вы узнаете, где он/она купил/а свои туфли. 10. Вы менеджер компании, в которой Вы уже долго работаете. Вы стали хорошими друзьями сo всеми работниками и даже очень близкими друзьями с некоторыми из них. Ваш хозяин Вам сказал, что Вам надо уволить одного из них, Андрея, который является вашим близким другом. Напишите диалог между вами и Андреем, в котором Вы скажите ему, что он освобождён от занимаемой должности. 11. Вы приехали в незнакомый город, как турист и ходите по улице. Вы ищете остановку автобуса, но кажется, что Вы потерялись. Вы видите какого-то прохожего, который подходит к Вам. Вы решаете спросить у его/её, как попасть на остановку автобуса. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, в котором Вы спросите, как попасть на остановку. 12. Вы на почте, чтобы посылать письмо, когда вы замечаете, что Вы забыли написать ваш адрес на конверте, но у Вас нет ручки. Вы видите, что у кого-то, стоявшего в очереди, есть ручка. Вы подходите к нему/ней, чтобы спросить, можете ли Вы использовать его/её ручку. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, в котором Вы просите одолжить у его/её ручку. 13. Вы на работе, и y Вас перерыв на обед. Вы заходите в ваше обычное место, чтобы купить что-то покушать. Сегодня, как всегда, есть тот же самый работник/та же самая работница. Напишите диалог между Вами и работником/работницей, у которого/которой Вы делаете покупку. Опрос Часть IB: Указания Опроса: Пожалуйста, поставьте ‘х’ рядом с соответствующим номером, чтобы уточнить, в какой степени следующие ситуации имеют возможность обидеть того, с кем Вы общаетесь или имеют возможность быть им неудобным. 1. Вы в отпуске в Сочи и Вам там очень нравится. Вы уже там 4 дня и Вам совсем не хочется домой. Днём Вы бываете на пляже и занимаетесь другими делами, которые Вам нравятся, и Вы регулярно ходите в рестораны. Один из ваших хороших друзей

327

посылает Вам письмо по электронной почте и спрашивает, как проходит отпуск. В ответ на это Вы ему/ей пишете: (Напишите ваш ответ по электронной почте) 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4 достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2. Вы в гостях у друга/подруги и вы общаетесь между собой, когда его/её четырехлетний ребёнок приходит к Вам, чтобы показать Вам то, что он/она нарисовал(a). Ребёнок начинает разговор с Вами, говоря, . Завершите диалог между Вами и ребёнком уже начатый, в котором ребёнок Вам показывает свой рисунок. Ребёнок: -Видишь то, что я нарисовал/а? 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

3. Вы на работе и вспоминаете, что Вы забыли накормить вашу собаку перед тем, как Вы ушли сегодня утром. Напишите смс вашему соседу/вашей соседке по комнате или члену семьи, которая/который ещё дома, чтобы попросить, сможет ли он/она собаку накормить. Напишите ваш смс. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4. Вы договорились с другом/подругой о том, что вы сегодня встретитесь, но Вы пришли на 30 минут позже и его/её нет. Вы также забыли ваш мобильник. Вы решили попросить у кого-нибудь воспользоваться их телефоном, чтобы позвонить. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, у которого/которой вы попросили использовать его/её мобильник. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

5. Вы хотите подать заявку на академическую программy, и Вы уже заполнили её, но Вам ещё нужно рекомендательное письмо от одного из ваших профессоров. Вы решили попросить его у одного профессора, который преподавал Вам в последнем семестре. Вы его плохо знаете, и общались только на занятии, но Вы получили вашу самую высокую оценку в его курсе. Сегодня понедельник. Вам необходимо получить рекомендательное письмо через семь дней - в следующий вторник. Напишите ему

328

письмо по электронной почте с заблаговременной просьбой написать Вам это рекомендательное письмо к следующему вторнику. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

6. Вы собирались пойти в кино сегодня вечером с другом/подругой, но что-то случилось и Вы вдруг не сможете пойти. Фильм начинается через час. Вы посылаете ему/ей смс, чтобы это сказать. Напишите смс. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

7. Ваш близкий друг/ваша близкая подруга или возлюбленный/ая только, что постригся/постриглась, и он/она думает, что стрижка ему/ей хорошо идёт и хочет узнать ваше мнение. Вы думаете, что она ужасна. Напишите диалог между вами и ним/ней, в котором он/она спрашивает о вашем мнении и Вы отвечаете на его/её вопрос. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

8. Ваш близкий друг/ваша близкая подруга спрашивает, сможет ли он/она занять у вас вашу новую машину для будущего мероприятия. Вам неудобно её дать, так как она новая. Напишите диалог между вами и вашим другом/вашей подругой, в котором он/она просит, сможете ли вы одолжить вашу машину. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

9. Вы заметили, что у вашего друга/вашей подруги есть хорошие туфли, и вы хотите узнать, где он/она их купил/а. Напишите диалог между вами и вашим другом/вашей подругой, в котором Вы узнаете, где он/она купил/а свои туфли. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

329

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

10. Вы менеджер компании, в которой Вы уже долго работаете. Вы стали хорошими друзьями сo всеми работниками и даже очень близкими друзьями с некоторыми из них. Ваш хозяин Вам сказал, что Вам надо уволить одного из них, Андрея, который является вашим близким другом. Напишите диалог между вами и Андреем, в котором Вы скажите ему, что он освобождён от занимаемой должности. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4 достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

11. Вы приехали в незнакомый город, как турист и ходите по улице. Вы ищете остановку автобуса, но кажется, что Вы потерялись. Вы видите какого-то прохожего, который подходит к Вам. Вы решаете спросить у его/её, как попасть на остановку автобуса. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, в котором Вы спросите, как попасть на остановку. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

12. Вы на почте, чтобы посылать письмо, когда вы замечаете, что Вы забыли написать ваш адрес на конверте, но у Вас нет ручки. Вы видите, что у кого-то, стоявшего в очереди, есть ручка. Вы подходите к нему/ней, чтобы спросить, можете ли Вы использовать его/её ручку. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, в котором Вы просите одолжить у его/её ручку. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

13. Вы на работе, и y Вас перерыв на обед. Вы заходите в ваше обычное место, чтобы купить что-то покушать. Сегодня, как всегда, есть тот же самый работник/та же самая работница. Напишите диалог между Вами и работником/работницей, у которого/которой Вы делаете покупку. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

Часть II: Анкету участника опроса Информация Участника Указание: Пожалуйста, отвечайте на следующие вопросы.

330

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

Имя и фамилия: ________________________________________________________ Возраст: _____________________

Пол:

мужской

женский

Место рождения (город и страна): ___________________________________________________________________________ Постоянное местожительствo (город и страна): ___________________________________________________________________________ Родной Язык: ______________________________________________________________________ Язык, на котором Вы говорите дома: ___________________________________________________________________________ Образование: _____________________________________________________________________ Вы когда-нибудь жили за границей более, чем 2 года?

Да

Нет

Если да, где и как долго? _________________________________________________________

Russian survey for those residing in the United States: Дорогой Участник/Дорогая Участница: Это исследование сделано, чтобы узнать, как люди используют разные средствами коммуникации. Вам будут представлены разные ситуации, после которых Вас попросят написать диалог, электронную почту или смс в ответ на ситуацию. Участие в исследованием добровольное. Если Вы почувствуете неудобство в продолжение исследования, в любой момент Вы можете прекратить ваше участие без определённых обязательств, и ваши ответы не будут включены в данные исследования. Заполняя и возвращая настоящий опрос и анкету участника, Вы соглашаетесь быть включённым/включённой в исследование. Если у Вас есть какие-нибудь вопросы по поводу этого исследования или анкеты участника опроса, пожалуйста, обращаетесь к Эллен Бункер по телефону: 607-351-3497 или по электронной почте: [email protected] или к Доктору Коллинсу: [email protected]. Если у Вас есть вопросы или сомнения по поводу кого-то, кто не имеет отношения к участникам исследования, пожалуйста, обращайтесь к Сандре Мэдовс в Офис Ответственных Методoв Исследования Университета Штата Огайо по телефону: 614-688-4792 или 1-

331

800-678-6251 или по почте: The Ohio State University, 300 Research Administration Building, 1960 Kenny Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1063. Имена участников не будут включены в публикацию результатов исследования. Вместo этого, каждой анкете будет предписан номер. Список имён и соответственные номера будут храниться у Эллен Бункер. Чтобы закончить опрос и анкету, требуется приблизительно 45 минут. Часть IA Указания Опроса: Пожалуйста, отвечайте на следующие ситуации обычным способом, как Вы отвечали бы в настоящей жизни. Нет определённого минимума слов и нет ограничения во времени. 1. Вы в отпуске в Сочи и Вам там очень нравится. Вы уже там 4 дня и Вам совсем не хочется домой. Днём Вы бываете на пляже и занимаетесь другими делами, которые Вам нравятся, и Вы регулярно ходите в рестораны. Один из ваших хороших друзей посылает Вам письмо по электронной почте и спрашивает, как проходит отпуск. В ответ на это Вы ему/ей пишете: (Напишите ваш ответ по электронной почте) 2. Вы в гостях у друга/подруги и вы общаетесь между собой, когда его/её четырехлетний ребёнок приходит к Вам, чтобы показать Вам то, что он/она нарисовал(a). Ребёнок начинает разговор с Вами, говоря, . Завершите диалог между Вами и ребёнком уже начатый, в котором ребёнок Вам показывает свой рисунок. Ребёнок: -Видишь то, что я нарисовал/а? 3. Вы на работе и вспоминаете, что Вы забыли накормить вашу собаку перед тем, как Вы ушли сегодня утром. Напишите смс вашему соседу/вашей соседке по комнате или члену семьи, которая/который ещё дома, чтобы попросить, сможет ли он/она собаку накормить. Напишите ваш смс. 4. Вы договорились с другом/подругой о том, что вы сегодня встретитесь, но Вы пришли на 30 минут позже и его/её нет. Вы также забыли ваш мобильник. Вы решили попросить у кого-нибудь воспользоваться их телефоном, чтобы позвонить. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, у которого/которой вы попросили использовать его/её мобильник.

332

5. Вы хотите подать заявку на академическую программy, и Вы уже заполнили её, но Вам ещё нужно рекомендательное письмо от одного из ваших профессоров. Вы решили попросить его у одного профессора, который преподавал Вам в последнем семестре. Вы его плохо знаете, и общались только на занятии, но Вы получили вашу самую высокую оценку в его курсе. Сегодня понедельник. Вам необходимо получить рекомендательное письмо через семь дней - в следующий вторник. Напишите ему письмо по электронной почте с заблаговременной просьбой написать Вам это рекомендательное письмо к следующему вторнику. 6. Вы собирались пойти в кино сегодня вечером с другом/подругой, но что-то случилось и Вы вдруг не сможете пойти. Фильм начинается через час. Вы посылаете ему/ей смс, чтобы это сказать. Напишите смс. 7. Ваш близкий друг/ваша близкая подруга или возлюбленный/ая только, что постригся/постриглась, и он/она думает, что стрижка ему/ей хорошо идёт и хочет узнать ваше мнение. Вы думаете, что она ужасна. Напишите диалог между вами и ним/ней, в котором он/она спрашивает о вашем мнении и Вы отвечаете на его/её вопрос. 8. Ваш близкий друг/ваша близкая подруга спрашивает, сможет ли он/она занять у вас вашу новую машину для будущего мероприятия. Вам неудобно её дать, так как она новая. Напишите диалог между вами и вашим другом/вашей подругой, в котором он/она просит, сможете ли вы одолжить вашу машину. 9. Вы заметили, что у вашего друга/вашей подруги есть хорошие туфли, и вы хотите узнать, где он/она их купил/а. Напишите диалог между вами и вашим другом/вашей подругой, в котором Вы узнаете, где он/она купил/а свои туфли. 10. Вы менеджер компании, в которой Вы уже долго работаете. Вы стали хорошими друзьями сo всеми работниками и даже очень близкими друзьями с некоторыми из них. Ваш хозяин Вам сказал, что Вам надо уволить одного из них, Андрея, который является вашим близким другом. Напишите диалог между вами и Андреем, в котором Вы скажите ему, что он освобождён от занимаемой должности. 11. Вы приехали в незнакомый город, как турист и ходите по улице. Вы ищете остановку автобуса, но кажется, что Вы потерялись. Вы видите какого-то прохожего, который подходит к Вам. Вы решаете спросить у его/её, как попасть на остановку автобуса. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, в котором Вы спросите, как попасть на остановку.

333

12. Вы на почте, чтобы посылать письмо, когда вы замечаете, что Вы забыли написать ваш адрес на конверте, но у Вас нет ручки. Вы видите, что у кого-то, стоявшего в очереди, есть ручка. Вы подходите к нему/ней, чтобы спросить, можете ли Вы использовать его/её ручку. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, в котором Вы просите одолжить у его/её ручку. 13. Вы на работе, и y Вас перерыв на обед. Вы заходите в ваше обычное место, чтобы купить что-то покушать. Сегодня, как всегда, есть тот же самый работник/та же самая работница. Напишите диалог между Вами и работником/работницей, у которого/которой Вы делаете покупку. Опрос Часть IB: Указания Опроса: Пожалуйста, поставьте ‘х’ рядом с соответствующим номером, чтобы уточнить, в какой степени следующие ситуации имеют возможность обидеть того, с кем Вы общаетесь или имеют возможность быть им неудобным. 1. Вы в отпуске в Сочи и Вам там очень нравится. Вы уже там 4 дня и Вам совсем не хочется домой. Днём Вы бываете на пляже и занимаетесь другими делами, которые Вам нравятся, и Вы регулярно ходите в рестораны. Один из ваших хороших друзей посылает Вам письмо по электронной почте и спрашивает, как проходит отпуск. В ответ на это Вы ему/ей пишете: (Напишите ваш ответ по электронной почте) 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2. Вы в гостях у друга/подруги и вы общаетесь между собой, когда его/её четырехлетний ребёнок приходит к Вам, чтобы показать Вам то, что он/она нарисовал(a). Ребёнок начинает разговор с Вами, говоря, . Завершите диалог между Вами и ребёнком уже начатый, в котором ребёнок Вам показывает свой рисунок. Ребёнок: -Видишь то, что я нарисовал/а? 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

334

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

3. Вы на работе и вспоминаете, что Вы забыли накормить вашу собаку перед тем, как Вы ушли сегодня утром. Напишите смс вашему соседу/вашей соседке по комнате или члену семьи, которая/который ещё дома, чтобы попросить, сможет ли он/она собаку накормить. Напишите ваш смс. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4 достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4. Вы договорились с другом/подругой о том, что вы сегодня встретитесь, но Вы пришли на 30 минут позже и его/её нет. Вы также забыли ваш мобильник. Вы решили попросить у кого-нибудь воспользоваться их телефоном, чтобы позвонить. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, у которого/которой вы попросили использовать его/её мобильник. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

5. Вы хотите подать заявку на академическую программy, и Вы уже заполнили её, но Вам ещё нужно рекомендательное письмо от одного из ваших профессоров. Вы решили попросить его у одного профессора, который преподавал Вам в последнем семестре. Вы его плохо знаете, и общались только на занятии, но Вы получили вашу самую высокую оценку в его курсе. Сегодня понедельник. Вам необходимо получить рекомендательное письмо через семь дней - в следующий вторник. Напишите ему письмо по электронной почте с заблаговременной просьбой написать Вам это рекомендательное письмо к следующему вторнику. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

6. Вы собирались пойти в кино сегодня вечером с другом/подругой, но что-то случилось и Вы вдруг не сможете пойти. Фильм начинается через час. Вы посылаете ему/ей смс, чтобы это сказать. Напишите смс. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

7. Ваш близкий друг/ваша близкая подруга или возлюбленный/ая только, что постригся/постриглась, и он/она думает, что стрижка ему/ей хорошо идёт и хочет узнать ваше мнение. Вы думаете, что она ужасна. Напишите диалог между вами и

335

ним/ней, в котором он/она спрашивает о вашем мнении и Вы отвечаете на его/её вопрос. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4 достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

8. Ваш близкий друг/ваша близкая подруга спрашивает, сможет ли он/она занять у вас вашу новую машину для будущего мероприятия. Вам неудобно её дать, так как она новая. Напишите диалог между вами и вашим другом/вашей подругой, в котором он/она просит, сможете ли вы одолжить вашу машину. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

9. Вы заметили, что у вашего друга/вашей подруги есть хорошие туфли, и вы хотите узнать, где он/она их купил/а. Напишите диалог между вами и вашим другом/вашей подругой, в котором Вы узнаете, где он/она купил/а свои туфли. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

10. Вы менеджер компании, в которой Вы уже долго работаете. Вы стали хорошими друзьями сo всеми работниками и даже очень близкими друзьями с некоторыми из них. Ваш хозяин Вам сказал, что Вам надо уволить одного из них, Андрея, который является вашим близким другом. Напишите диалог между вами и Андреем, в котором Вы скажите ему, что он освобождён от занимаемой должности. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

11. Вы приехали в незнакомый город, как турист и ходите по улице. Вы ищете остановку автобуса, но кажется, что Вы потерялись. Вы видите какого-то прохожего, который подходит к Вам. Вы решаете спросить у его/её, как попасть на остановку автобуса. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, в котором Вы спросите, как попасть на остановку. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

336

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

12. Вы на почте, чтобы посылать письмо, когда вы замечаете, что Вы забыли написать ваш адрес на конверте, но у Вас нет ручки. Вы видите, что у кого-то, стоявшего в очереди, есть ручка. Вы подходите к нему/ней, чтобы спросить, можете ли Вы использовать его/её ручку. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, в котором Вы просите одолжить у его/её ручку. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

13. Вы на работе, и y Вас перерыв на обед. Вы заходите в ваше обычное место, чтобы купить что-то покушать. Сегодня, как всегда, есть тот же самый работник/та же самая работница. Напишите диалог между Вами и работником/работницей, у которого/которой Вы делаете покупку. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3

4

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

Часть II: Анкету участника опроса Информация Участника Указание: Пожалуйста, отвечайте на следующие вопросы. Имя и фамилия: __________________________________________________________________ Возраст: _____________________

Пол:

мужской

женский

Место рождения (город и страна): ___________________________________________________________________________ Постоянное местожительствo (город и страна): ___________________________________________________________________________ Родной Язык: ______________________________________________________________________

Язык, на котором Вы говорите дома (Уточните, если Вы говорите на другом языке с разными людьми дома): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 337

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Как часто Вы говорите по-русски на работе? Подчеркните ответ. никогда

иногда

часто

всегда

Образование: Образование, полученное в России? Возраст во время иммиграции в США? _______________________________________ Вы жили в другой стране год или более, кроме в США или в России (да или нет)? __________________ Если да, где и как долго? _________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Посещали ли Вы Россию со времени иммиграции? (да или нет)________________ Если да, сколько раз или как часто? _______________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Как часто у Вас контакт с русскими, живущими в России по телефону, по электронной почте, по скайпу или в чате (то есть по переговорам) в интернете? Подчеркните ответ. никогда

иногда

часто

всегда

Какое средство коммуникации употребляете более часто? Подчеркните ответ. по телефону

по электронной почте/файсбуку

338

по скайпу

в чате в интернете

Вы относитесь больше к русской или американской культуре или к обеим? Подчеркните ответ. к русской

к американской

к обеим

Отказываюсь ответить

Russian survey for those residing in the United States and offered a gift card: Дорогой Участник/Дорогая Участница: Это исследование сделано, чтобы узнать, как люди используют разные средствами коммуникации. Вам будут представлены разные ситуации, после которых Вас попросят написать диалог, электронную почту или смс в ответ на ситуацию. Участие в исследованием добровольное. Если Вы почувствуете неудобство в продолжение исследования, в любой момент Вы можете прекратить ваше участие без определённых обязательств, и ваши ответы не будут включены в данные исследования. Заполняя и возвращая настоящий опрос и анкету участника, Вы соглашаетесь быть включённым/включённой в исследование. Если у Вас есть какие-нибудь вопросы по поводу этого исследования или анкеты участника опроса, пожалуйста, обращаетесь к Эллен Бункер по телефону: 607-351-3497 или по электронной почте: [email protected] или к Доктору Коллинсу: [email protected]. Если у Вас есть вопросы или сомнения по поводу кого-то, кто не имеет отношения к участникам исследования, пожалуйста, обращайтесь к Сандре Мэдовс в Офис Ответственных Методoв Исследования Университета Штата Огайо по телефону: 614-688-4792 или 1800-678-6251 или по почте: The Ohio State University, 300 Research Administration Building, 1960 Kenny Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1063. Чтобы быть участником этого исследования, Вы должны иммигрировать в Америку не до 18 лет, не закончить среднюю школу в Америке и прожить в Америке как минимум 2 года. Также необходима для вас произвести опрос по-русски (или написать латинскими или русскими буквами). Если Вы выполните все обязательства, и пришлёте обе части: часть первую и вторую этого опроса, Вы получите $10.00 gift card (гифт кард). Если Вы только представляете первую часть исследования, Вы получите компенсацию $4.00. Если Вы только представляете первую часть исследования, Вы получите компенсацию $2.00. Обе $4.00 и $2.00 компенсации будут сделано в виде gift card (гуфт кард). Пожалуйста, включите ваш адрес для того, чтобы была прислана gift card (гуфт кард), которая будет послана по почте в течении 2 недель с момента получения опроса. Имена участников не будут включены в публикацию результатов исследования. Вместo этого, каждой анкете будет предписан номер. Список имён и соответственные номера будут храниться у Эллен Бункер. Чтобы закончить опрос и анкету, требуется приблизительно 45 минут.

339

Часть IA Указания Опроса: Пожалуйста, отвечайте на следующие ситуации обычным способом, как Вы отвечали бы в настоящей жизни. Нет определённого минимума слов и нет ограничения во времени. 1. Вы в отпуске в Сочи и Вам там очень нравится. Вы уже там 4 дня и Вам совсем не хочется домой. Днём Вы бываете на пляже и занимаетесь другими делами, которые Вам нравятся, и Вы регулярно ходите в рестораны. Один из ваших хороших друзей посылает Вам письмо по электронной почте и спрашивает, как проходит отпуск. В ответ на это Вы ему/ей пишете: (Напишите ваш ответ по электронной почте) 2. Вы в гостях у друга/подруги и вы общаетесь между собой, когда его/её четырехлетний ребёнок приходит к Вам, чтобы показать Вам то, что он/она нарисовал(a). Ребёнок начинает разговор с Вами, говоря, . Завершите диалог между Вами и ребёнком уже начатый, в котором ребёнок Вам показывает свой рисунок. Ребёнок: -Видишь то, что я нарисовал/а? 3. Вы на работе и вспоминаете, что Вы забыли накормить вашу собаку перед тем, как Вы ушли сегодня утром. Напишите смс вашему соседу/вашей соседке по комнате или члену семьи, которая/который ещё дома, чтобы попросить, сможет ли он/она собаку накормить. Напишите ваш смс. 4. Вы договорились с другом/подругой о том, что вы сегодня встретитесь, но Вы пришли на 30 минут позже и его/её нет. Вы также забыли ваш мобильник. Вы решили попросить у кого-нибудь воспользоваться их телефоном, чтобы позвонить. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, у которого/которой вы попросили использовать его/её мобильник. 5. Вы хотите подать заявку на академическую программy, и Вы уже заполнили её, но Вам ещё нужно рекомендательное письмо от одного из ваших профессоров. Вы решили попросить его у одного профессора, который преподавал Вам в последнем семестре. Вы его плохо знаете, и общались только на занятии, но Вы получили вашу самую высокую оценку в его курсе. Сегодня понедельник. Вам необходимо получить рекомендательное письмо через семь дней - в следующий вторник. Напишите ему письмо по электронной почте с заблаговременной просьбой написать Вам это рекомендательное письмо к следующему вторнику.

340

6. Вы собирались пойти в кино сегодня вечером с другом/подругой, но что-то случилось и Вы вдруг не сможете пойти. Фильм начинается через час. Вы посылаете ему/ей смс, чтобы это сказать. Напишите смс. 7. Ваш близкий друг/ваша близкая подруга или возлюбленный/ая только, что постригся/постриглась, и он/она думает, что стрижка ему/ей хорошо идёт и хочет узнать ваше мнение. Вы думаете, что она ужасна. Напишите диалог между вами и ним/ней, в котором он/она спрашивает о вашем мнении и Вы отвечаете на его/её вопрос. 8. Ваш близкий друг/ваша близкая подруга спрашивает, сможет ли он/она занять у вас вашу новую машину для будущего мероприятия. Вам неудобно её дать, так как она новая. Напишите диалог между вами и вашим другом/вашей подругой, в котором он/она просит, сможете ли вы одолжить вашу машину. 9. Вы заметили, что у вашего друга/вашей подруги есть хорошие туфли, и вы хотите узнать, где он/она их купил/а. Напишите диалог между вами и вашим другом/вашей подругой, в котором Вы узнаете, где он/она купил/а свои туфли. 10. Вы менеджер компании, в которой Вы уже долго работаете. Вы стали хорошими друзьями сo всеми работниками и даже очень близкими друзьями с некоторыми из них. Ваш хозяин Вам сказал, что Вам надо уволить одного из них, Андрея, который является вашим близким другом. Напишите диалог между вами и Андреем, в котором Вы скажите ему, что он освобождён от занимаемой должности. 11. Вы приехали в незнакомый город, как турист и ходите по улице. Вы ищете остановку автобуса, но кажется, что Вы потерялись. Вы видите какого-то прохожего, который подходит к Вам. Вы решаете спросить у его/её, как попасть на остановку автобуса. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, в котором Вы спросите, как попасть на остановку. 12. Вы на почте, чтобы посылать письмо, когда вы замечаете, что Вы забыли написать ваш адрес на конверте, но у Вас нет ручки. Вы видите, что у кого-то, стоявшего в очереди, есть ручка. Вы подходите к нему/ней, чтобы спросить, можете ли Вы использовать его/её ручку. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, в котором Вы просите одолжить у его/её ручку. 13. Вы на работе, и y Вас перерыв на обед. Вы заходите в ваше обычное место, чтобы купить что-то покушать. Сегодня, как всегда, есть тот же самый работник/та же самая

341

работница. Напишите диалог между Вами и работником/работницей, у которого/которой Вы делаете покупку.

Опрос Часть IB: Указания Опроса: Пожалуйста, поставьте ‘х’ рядом с соответствующим номером, чтобы уточнить, в какой степени следующие ситуации имеют возможность обидеть того, с кем Вы общаетесь или имеют возможность быть им неудобным. 1. Вы в отпуске в Сочи и Вам там очень нравится. Вы уже там 4 дня и Вам совсем не хочется домой. Днём Вы бываете на пляже и занимаетесь другими делами, которые Вам нравятся, и Вы регулярно ходите в рестораны. Один из ваших хороших друзей посылает Вам письмо по электронной почте и спрашивает, как проходит отпуск. В ответ на это Вы ему/ей пишете: (Напишите ваш ответ по электронной почте) 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

2. Вы в гостях у друга/подруги и вы общаетесь между собой, когда его/её четырехлетний ребёнок приходит к Вам, чтобы показать Вам то, что он/она нарисовал(a). Ребёнок начинает разговор с Вами, говоря, . Завершите диалог между Вами и ребёнком уже начатый, в котором ребёнок Вам показывает свой рисунок. Ребёнок: -Видишь то, что я нарисовал/а? 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

3. Вы на работе и вспоминаете, что Вы забыли накормить вашу собаку перед тем, как Вы ушли сегодня утром. Напишите смс вашему соседу/вашей соседке по комнате или члену семьи, которая/который ещё дома, чтобы попросить, сможет ли он/она собаку накормить. Напишите ваш смс. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

342

4 достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4. Вы договорились с другом/подругой о том, что вы сегодня встретитесь, но Вы пришли на 30 минут позже и его/её нет. Вы также забыли ваш мобильник. Вы решили попросить у кого-нибудь воспользоваться их телефоном, чтобы позвонить. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, у которого/которой вы попросили использовать его/её мобильник. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

5. Вы хотите подать заявку на академическую программy, и Вы уже заполнили её, но Вам ещё нужно рекомендательное письмо от одного из ваших профессоров. Вы решили попросить его у одного профессора, который преподавал Вам в последнем семестре. Вы его плохо знаете, и общались только на занятии, но Вы получили вашу самую высокую оценку в его курсе. Сегодня понедельник. Вам необходимо получить рекомендательное письмо через семь дней - в следующий вторник. Напишите ему письмо по электронной почте с заблаговременной просьбой написать Вам это рекомендательное письмо к следующему вторнику. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

6. Вы собирались пойти в кино сегодня вечером с другом/подругой, но что-то случилось и Вы вдруг не сможете пойти. Фильм начинается через час. Вы посылаете ему/ей смс, чтобы это сказать. Напишите смс. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

7. Ваш близкий друг/ваша близкая подруга или возлюбленный/ая только, что постригся/постриглась, и он/она думает, что стрижка ему/ей хорошо идёт и хочет узнать ваше мнение. Вы думаете, что она ужасна. Напишите диалог между вами и ним/ней, в котором он/она спрашивает о вашем мнении и Вы отвечаете на его/её вопрос. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4 достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

8. Ваш близкий друг/ваша близкая подруга спрашивает, сможет ли он/она занять у вас вашу новую машину для будущего мероприятия. Вам неудобно её дать, так как она

343

новая. Напишите диалог между вами и вашим другом/вашей подругой, в котором он/она просит, сможете ли вы одолжить вашу машину. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

9. Вы заметили, что у вашего друга/вашей подруги есть хорошие туфли, и вы хотите узнать, где он/она их купил/а. Напишите диалог между вами и вашим другом/вашей подругой, в котором Вы узнаете, где он/она купил/а свои туфли. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

10. Вы менеджер компании, в которой Вы уже долго работаете. Вы стали хорошими друзьями сo всеми работниками и даже очень близкими друзьями с некоторыми из них. Ваш хозяин Вам сказал, что Вам надо уволить одного из них, Андрея, который является вашим близким другом. Напишите диалог между вами и Андреем, в котором Вы скажите ему, что он освобождён от занимаемой должности. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

11. Вы приехали в незнакомый город, как турист и ходите по улице. Вы ищете остановку автобуса, но кажется, что Вы потерялись. Вы видите какого-то прохожего, который подходит к Вам. Вы решаете спросить у его/её, как попасть на остановку автобуса. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, в котором Вы спросите, как попасть на остановку. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

12. Вы на почте, чтобы посылать письмо, когда вы замечаете, что Вы забыли написать ваш адрес на конверте, но у Вас нет ручки. Вы видите, что у кого-то, стоявшего в очереди, есть ручка. Вы подходите к нему/ней, чтобы спросить, можете ли Вы использовать его/её ручку. Напишите диалог между Вами и незнакомым/незнакомой, в котором Вы просите одолжить у его/её ручку. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2 некоторые возможности

3 умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

344

4 достаточные

возможности

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

13. Вы на работе, и y Вас перерыв на обед. Вы заходите в ваше обычное место, чтобы купить что-то покушать. Сегодня, как всегда, есть тот же самый работник/та же самая работница. Напишите диалог между Вами и работником/работницей, у которого/которой Вы делаете покупку. 1 минимальные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

2

3

некоторые возможности

умеренные возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

4

5 великие возможности, чтобы обидеть или быть неудобным

достаточные

возможности

Часть II: Анкету участника опроса Информация Участника Указание: Пожалуйста, отвечайте на следующие вопросы. Имя и фамилия: __________________________________________________________________ Возраст: _____________________

Пол:

мужской

женский

Место рождения (город и страна): ___________________________________________________________________________ Постоянное местожительствo (город и страна): ___________________________________________________________________________ Родной Язык: ______________________________________________________________________

Язык, на котором Вы говорите дома (Уточните, если Вы говорите на другом языке с разными людьми дома): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Как часто Вы говорите по-русски на работе? Подчеркните ответ. никогда

иногда

часто 345

всегда

Образование: Образование, полученное в России? Возраст во время иммиграции в США? _______________________________________ Вы жили в другой стране год или более, кроме в США или в России (да или нет)? __________________ Если да, где и как долго? _________________________________________________________

Посещали ли Вы Россию со времени иммиграции? (да или нет)________________ Если да, сколько раз или как часто? _______________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Как часто у Вас контакт с русскими, живущими в России по телефону, по электронной почте, по скайпу или в чате (то есть по переговорам) в интернете? Подчеркните ответ. никогда

иногда

часто

всегда

Какое средство коммуникации употребляете более часто? Подчеркните ответ. по телефону

по электронной почте/файсбуку

по скайпу

в чате в интернете

Вы относитесь больше к русской или американской культуре или к обеим? Подчеркните ответ. к русской

к американской

к обеим

346

Отказываюсь ответит

347