Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the English Language Education Society of Japan
日本英語教育学会第 44 回年次研究集会論文集

Differentiation of Request Phrases in American Native Speakers andJapanese Learners of English―Would you…? Could you…? Can you…? Will you…?―
Joseph Robert Tabolt
Meikai University
E-mail: jrtabo03@gmail.com

Abstract This study employed a questionnaire to examine request differentiation in five Japanese advanced learners ofEnglish and five American native speakers. Differentiation in Japanese learners showed a clear relationship with social
distance and request imposition suggesting social indexing in request formulation. However, in the Americans there was noclear relationship. Instead, there was evidence for compliance-gaining strategies that relied on speaker perception of request
legitimacy, certainty of compliance and benefit to the hearer. These two modes of use are judged incompatible in the exchange
of interpersonal intentions.

Key words: pragmatics, requests, EFL, politeness, cross-cultural, speech acts

Differentiation of Request Phrases in American Native Speakers andJapanese Learners of English―Would you…? Could you…? Can you…? Will you…?―
テーボルト

ジョセフ

明海大学応用言語学研究科 〒279-0041

ロバート
千葉県浦安市明海１E-mail: jrtabo03@gmail.com
要旨

本調査はアンケートを通して日本人上級英語学習者 5 人とアメリカ人母語話者 5 人における英語リクエス

トの使い分けを検証した。日本人の使い分けでは社会的距離とリクエストの負荷度とに関連が見られ、社会的要素の指標化が裏付けられた。一方、アメリカ人の使い分けではその関係は見られなかった。代わりに、リクエストの正当性、承諾の見込み、聞き手への利益の３点に対し、話し手の想定に基づいたリクエスト承諾のストラテジーが裏付けられた。両者の使い分けはお互い対人的な意図を交わす上では合致しないと評価される。

キーワード： 語用論、依頼表現、EFL、ポライトネス、文化横断的、発話行為

Tabolt Joseph R, "Differentiation of request phrases in American native speakers and Japanese learners of English:
Would you...? Could you...? Can you...? Will you...?,"
日本英語教育学会第 44 回年次研究集会論文集, pp.51-59, 日本英語教育学会編集委員会編集, 早稲田大学情報教育研究所発行, 2015 年 3 月 31 日.
Copyright ©2014-2015 by Joseph R. Tabolt. All rights reserved.

usage of English modal requests between American

1. Introduction
Requests can be one of the most daunting tasks in usin ga foreign language. Two of Searle (1969)’s constitutive

native speakers and Japanese learners which it
found.

rules of requests are that “it is not obvious that
Hearer[hereon H] will do Act[hereon A]” and that “it

2. Research Backgroundcounts as a real attempt by Speaker[hereon S] to get H to
do A.”

Traditionally, cross -cultural research on requests has

In other words, making a request means

compared gross rates of usage of request forms without

convincing H to do something you want him/her to do thatpaying attention to how each learner actually intended

he/she wouldn’t otherwise do. As Brown and Levinson

their request to be understood.

(1987) pointed out, this is an inherent violation of

Blum-kulka, House, and Kasper (1989) presented one of

negative face and hence requires sensitive linguistic

the earliest attempts to compare requests cross -culturally.

choices.

They created 16 situations s ystematically varied by power,

In summary, a successful request requires 1) that H

social distance and imposition and examined what request

understand you’re making a request and 2) that H see somephrases were used in response to each situation in sevensatisfactory reason to go out of their way to comply. Thisdifferent languages. This produced a vast amount of data

often requires a thorough understanding of one’s socialon the types and forms of requ ests available in eachrelationship with H in terms of both power and intimacy

language and gave backing to a universal indirectness(distance) (Brown and Levinson 1987).

scale, first proposed b y Leech (1983). This study brought

These conditions are often difficult to satisfy even for

non-English languages into the picture and became anative speakers who, presumably, know the local societal

model for cross-cultural pragmatic and SLA research on

rules and, moreover, which of them apply to the current

requests for years to come. However, the claims weresituation and possess a comprehensive knowledge of thebased on form and offered little insight into how speakers

pragmatic functions of request phrases.

intended their phrases to be interpreted.

In contrast,

learners both lack knowledge of interpersonal functions

Hill (1997), following in this tradition, attempted an

and bring their own culture’s sense of appropriateness into

appraisal of English request strategy usage in Japanesethe picture.

university students b y comparing their choices with those

For successful communication, it is essential that S beof Irish native speakers (NSs). He found that while theable to accuratel y portray his/her interpersonal intentions,level of Japanese learners reflected positivel y on

be they in opposition to the culture or not. For learners,

usage rate of the three directness levels indicated bythis would require an awareness of the interpersonal

Blum-kulka,

implications of the English phrases the y employ.

unconventionally indirect),

In following, this study attempts to delineate theetal(1989),(direct,

distribution

of

their

indirect,
specific

request types was very different from native speakers

intentions of both Japanese learners and American native(hereonspeakers of English. Focusing on both groups as distinct

differentiation between the modal verb requests on somebut valid speaker communities is expected to be a steplevel, it parted from that of native speakers, using “would”

toward an objective comparison of their differences andmuch more and “could” much less.

constructive steps toward global, not American, English
education.
First,

NS).

For

instance,

while

the y

displayed

However, this type of study can only tell us that grosstrends are different, which would likely be the case even

I will discuss

potential universalities

in two different cultures of the same native language likebrought up in the literature. Then I will discuss

England and USA. In reality, the appropriateness of a

specific studies contrasting native speakers andrequest strategy varies depending on the subjective

Japanese learners. Following this, I will offer

assessment of the situation and the goals of the individual

definitions of the concepts necessary for targeting

speaker, making it nearly impossible to deem an y given

the area of research and point out some gaps inform “incorrect.”research on request behavior thus far. After this, I

On the other hand, there is a type of error about which

will attempt to explicate the current understanding

learners need to be educated. For example, research hasof usage of the modal requests. Finally, I will

shown that “please,” can make requests seem insistentdescribe this study and discuss the differences independing

51

on

the

context.

House(1989)

showed“standardness” was a prerequisite of its acceptable use. If

explanations cannot satisfactorily account for their usage

S thinks it’s only natural that H clean the table, he/she

in native speech. Hence, in order to attain a base ofmight politely request, “Can you please wipe the table?”comparison for the learners’ usage, this study also

but if, on the other hand, H thinks this is a big imposition

attempts to delimit the pragmalinguistic force intended by“please” will sound push y and perhaps offensive. This isAmerican native English speakers and to offer questions

an example of “sociopragmatic failure” (Thomas, 1983)

that would be useful in arriving at these choices.

and, due to the idiosyncrasy of individual expectations, isabundant even in NS speech.

Specifically, the research questions are as follows:1.

Conversely, if S were to use “please” not as a result ofdifferentiation of “can/could/will/would” in requests

perceived “standardness” but as a simple display ofdeference, it would be “pragmalinguistic failure,” which is

Do social distance and request imposition influencein Japanese non-native speakers of English?

2.

the result of a mismapping of form and pragmatic force

Do social distance and request imposition influence
differentiation of the modal verbs in requests inand can be classified as an error. Pragmalinguistic failure

American native speakers of English?

is “caused by the difference of the linguistic encoding of3.

pragmatic force” (Thomas, 1983: 99). This is the type of

4. Are the influencing factors different between Japanese

failure of which learners must be made aware. However,this type of discrepancy would be extremely difficult to

What other variables influence differentiation?
and English speakers ?

5.

determine based on a comparison of gross usage rates.

Is the differentiation in both groups communicatively
compatible?

While this point has been acknowledged at least since
the above-quoted Thomas (1983)’s seminal paper on

3. Research Method

pragmatic failure, there has been little research into the

3.1. Participants

systematic (mis)mapping of pragmatic force in l earners,

The participants included 5 American native speakers ofperhaps due to the difficulty in determining the intentions

English and 5 Japanese learners. This survey was intendedof individuals. Instead research has focused on Japanese

as a case study so numbers were small and eachlearners as a group (or perhaps several demographicallyparticipant’s data were examined individually. English

divided groups such as ESL vs. EFL) under the false

proficiency was not a major concern of the study but it

pretense that each situation has a single most -suitable

was ensured that the y knew the target request phrases.

phrase. In reality, there cannot be a single “correct” phrase
for a situation, only a phrase which is most compatible

Figure 1. Participant information

with the situational assessment of the speaker.
In this sense, the understanding of the pragmalinguisti c
properties

underlying

evennativespeakeruse

isinadequate. For instance, in regards to the request aspectof modal verbs, English dictionaries and English -Japanesedictionaries alike list “would” and “could” as mere “polite”
or “indirect” alternatives of “will” and “can.” Somesources even suggest that “would” and “will” are notrequests but polite commands and that their usage isrestricted to S’s of higher power (Kashino, 2002: 98).
Modality research treats

them asfrozen pragmaticparticles of politeness, apart from normal modal usage indeclarative sentences (Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech,G.,&

Svartvik,J.,1985).

Meanwhile,

pragmatics

literature treats them indistinctly as “conventionallyindirectrequests”(Blum-kulka,1989).

Even

recentresearch in discourse analysis ( Curl and Drew, 2008) has
grouped all four modals together as serving one function.
However, as this study will attempt to show, th ese

523.2. Materials

possible for them to indicate that they would use all of the

All the participants were sent a URL to fill out aquestionnaire

viacomputer

or

smart

phone

using

phrases equally or, in contrast, none of the phrases at all(see appx. for sample).

SurveyMonkey®. This is an online survey service which is

By addressing their preferences regarding all four ofcapable of creating questionnaires using multiple -choice,these syntactically interchangeable request phrases rather

scalar,than forcing a singular choice in each situation we canfreeresponse

questions,

etc.

and

collecting

observe not only what they think is appropriate but what

responses via the internet.
Each survey was completed in one session of between

they think is inappropriate. In this way the research

10 and 30 minutes. The American data were collected overmethod differs from standard DCTs which ask for a single

two months and the Japanese data were collected a month

best answer and ignore the alternatives.
It should be made clear that this study does not address

later over a week, both in 2013.
The questionnaire was designed to test the effects ofthe speaker’s actual usage but their knowledge of usage. It

social distance, defined as the level of intimacy between

is the assumption that if they have the necessary

the speakers, and request imposition, two of the threeknowledge, applying it to usage is a matter of practice.

universal factors in predicting politeness specified byAdditionally, the perceived constituencies (Curl and

Brown and Levinson (1987). The third, social power, wasDrew, 2008) or obstacles to compliance (Gibbs, 1985)

deemed too dissimilar between USA and Japan to a ccounthave been shown to be cognitively active in request phrase

for

in

this

its

aim

to

determine

choice. Therefore, participants were asked to describe

understandings

and

not

societal

what they would suppose the reason to be if they werestud ypragmalinguistic

given

differences. For example, even in casual conversation

refused.

between teacher and student, in Japan a unilateral

They were also asked to assess the situation on aquestion-answer style is preferred while in the US as afour-point scale for (1) their legitimacy in making thetwo-way discussion is preferred (Ueno, 2014). Therefore,

request, (2) the difficulty of the request for the hearer, (3)the requestees were designed to be unmarked in boththe hearer’s obligation to comply and (4) the likeliness ofcultures in terms of interpersonal power.

compliance. These characteristics were extracted from

A total of four situations were divided into two groups.

cross-cultural

pragmatics

and

human

communication

One group controlled for request imposition (hereon

literature (House, 1989; Cody et al, 1994; Wilson et al,+/-imp) while varying the social distance (hereon +/-dis).

1998; Meyer, 2002). As a possible intervening variable,

The other group controlled for dis while varying the imp.

these data were intended as a supplementary aid for

The type request goal was also varied between the groups

explanation and not a main variable.

(see figure 2 below or appx. for the full situations).

4. Results and Discussion
Figure 2. Situational distribution of variables

4.1. Drink money from a friend (-imp, -dis)
All of the native speakers marked they would definitel yuse “could” for the drink money situation while four ofthem gave “can” a lower mark and three of them (AI, AJ,
AC) even gave negative marks to “can.” This is in great
contrast to the Japanese who all gave a higher score to“can” compared with the other situations, presumably due
to its low overall difficulty. The Japanese may be trying toencode “friendship” by using a less formal form, but thisEach situation provided a description of the situation

method is clearly not favored by the native speakers. To

followed by a request phrase, such as “______ you get thatthe contrary, by willingly lowering themselves to abook for me?” and the participants were asked to rate eachdeferential position with the past forms, they could beof “can,” “could,” “will,” and “would” on a 4 point Likert

thought to be employing a strategy of “consideration” or,scale, represented by “definitely wouldn’t use,” “probably

in plain terms, “being nice.”wouldn’t use,” “probably would use,” and “definitely
would use” (see appendix). Consequently, it would be53

4.2. Electric bill money from friend (+imp,

for “could” in the “drink money” request.
According to Leech (1983), “will you…?” questions the-dis)
In the situational assessment, both Japanese andhearer’s wishes and as such effectivel y offers no choice ofAmericans clearly marked this situation as the mostrefusal as he/she would have to explicitly put his own

difficult according to legitimacy, difficulty, likelihood andwishes above the hearer’s. This is true in some situations,obligation. Accordingly, all of the Japanese participants

but similar to the ambiguity of “can,” the same property ofchose “would” as most acceptable, and four of them as thea word can be utilized in different ways.

identical

For example, AJ indicated that the hearer would be

acceptability for would and could for the other three“being an idiot” not to get the book for her in her response

situations gave “could” a lower acceptability rating forto reason for refusal, which suggests that she views it as athis one only. Even JT, who gave negative acceptability togiven that the hearer will comply. In this case, rather thanwould/will in the other three situations, chose “would” asquestion ability, which is evident (the reason for asking issingle most acceptable for this situation. This is evidence

that the friend can reach and the speaker cannot), she canthat “would” represents the most “polite” option forquestion his willingness and thus allow the hearer aJapanese learners.

chance to manifest “good will.” A question used to reach

singlemost

acceptable.

JO,

who

showedIn contrast, the native speakers showed great variety: athis choice might be “Would the speaker want to comply?”

combination of “can” and “could,” a combination of

Following this suggestion, the fact that AI didn’t rate

“would” and “could,” two “would” -s and even a “can”“will” or “would” as acceptable here might be explained(AI). There was no evidence for any singula r mostby his perceived reasons for refusal, which, in contrast

appropriate (polite) option.

with the other native speakers who all focused on the

The use of “can” in the +imp situation calls to mind thathearer’s situation, showed concern for being personally“can” is semantically more ambiguous than “could” in“disliked” by the hearer.

interrogatives. “Could” can onl y be interpreted as a

4.4. Location of batteries from store clerk(+dis, -imp)

request unless combined with an “if” statement, but “ca n”
can be interpreted as a question of ability (Leech

With little difference in imposition between this

1983:121). Thus, AI ma y have intended “can” as a request

situation and the book shelf situation, both being -imp

“grounder,” making it higher than “could” on Leech’s

requests

indirectness scale. This type of strategy might be chosen if

formulation would be indicative of the cognitive presencethespeaker

asked

him/herself,

“Is

my

requestforaction,clear

differencesinrequestof social distance in modal verb choice. The Americans all

reasonable?”chose “can” as most acceptable for the store situation

4.3. Book from shelf from friend (-dis, -imp)

despite the social distance. Meanwhile, three of theBeing as the dis. and imp. are both negative just as inJapanese differentiated with the shelf request, choosingthe "drink money" situation, similar choices might bechose “would” or “could” or both or giving lower ratings

expected, and indeed each Japanese participant made theto “will” or “can.” It seems safe to sa y that the Japanesesimilar top choices for both situations, either “can” orare giving consideration to their social distance with the“could.” However, there were differences in the secondary

clerk, but it is hard to believe that the Americans arechoices of three of the participants, in general showing thechoosing “can” for its “less polite” function due to apresent modals as less appropriate than in the “drink

greater social distance.

inInstead, since this was the only situation whereperception of this request, perhaps due to the goal type

Americans judged there to be obligation on the listener’s

being H’s action rather than a token. Prior research haspart, it can be surmised that making an unambiguous

shown the cognitive presence of goal type in request

request with “could” or “would” ( and hence stepping down

formulation (Cody, Canary and Smith 1994; Meyer, 2002;

to a reverential status) seemed unnecessary so they op ted

Wilson and Leatham, 1998).

for the more pragmalinguistically ambiguous option, “can.”money”

request.

Thissuggestssome

difference

Meanwhile, the Americans, excepting for AI, showedThus, the ambiguity of "can" lends itself to more than one

a general rise in preference for “would” and “will .” Threestrategy. This also evinces that the nature of the requestof the five chose “would” as their top choice and one

takes precedence over social distance in native request

chose “will.” This is in stark contrast to their prefe rence

formulation. These decisions might be reached via: “Is54compliance self-evident?”

as 1988 (Takatsuka, 1988). However, there were too few

4.5. Dynamic Use

participants in this study to make any strong claims.

In all four situations, native speakers appear t oHowever, while the values assigned to each lexical ite mconstruct different roles for these modals depending onvary between these two groups, the basic standards oftheir perceived situation. As other researchers havedifferentiation, social distance and request imposition,

pointed out, the idea that a form is intrinsically “moreappear to be equally active.

polite” than another relies on extracting it from its context

This

trend

ma y

not

be

entirely

definitionsaandresultofeducation .

For(Curl & Drew, 2008:132). As was seen, the same semantic

incorrect/insufficientambiguity of “can you…?” can be used to mask the request

example, Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., &both because the speaker is afraid to make it or because

Ogino, T. (1986) introduced the Japanese cultural concept

they don’t deem it worthy to step down to a deferentialof "wakimae," wherein the speaker firstly cons iders theirrole as the y would in a plain request. “Will you…?” can besocial standing relative to the hearer. The social indexing

used as Leech suggests to make a polite command or, as inseen in the Japanese in this study is suggestive of its

AJ, to allow the speaker to show their good will and “lookinvolvement.

good.”
As such, defining these dynamically-charged phrases inany linear order, although not entirely incorrect, has not

5. Conclusion
 Do dis and imp influence differentiation of these

non-native

usage in native speech. Their roles change depending onphrases inspeakers?

the situation and the goals of S, s o the y are dynamic.

Lookingthebeen and will not be instrumental in understanding their

4.6. Modal pairingatspeakers

straightforward

andnativerelationships

ofdifferentiation with the variables in Japanese users, andCompared to a mere 4/20 in the native speakers, 14/20

the lack of any such relationships in the native speakers, itof the situations in the Japanese participants showed

is at least safe to say that native speaker s do not rely on

pairing, with two of the modals as “acceptable” and two as

distance or imposition variables singularly to choose“unacceptable.” There were basically two t ypes of paring:

between these phrases and that, to the contrary, Japanese

stem word (can/could, will/would) and tense (could/would,

learners do.
 What other variables influence differentiation andwill/can).

are they different between the two groups?

Two of the five Japanese, JO and JY, showed blatanttense pairing with a general preference for the past modals

Native speakers constructed different roles for thesein all situations. JO was the only participant in this study

modals depending on their perceived situation. This

with significant experience abroad and his reasons forperception ma y be represented by the following questions :refusal all centered on metalinguistic concern for rudeness, Aretaughtas“polite.”Thus,ratherthanchange Isstrategies

experience
employed,abroadma yhave

encouraging greaterchangedthe Willmaketherequest?

complianceself-evident?

(certainty

of

the

speakerwanttocomply?

(hearerthedifferentiationincommunicatively compatible?

bothgroupsbenefit)caution in

general.

tocompliance)

understanding of the pragmalinguistic properties of themodals,entitled(legitimacy)

which could explain his strong bias for past modals , which
are

you

 Is

Three of the five, JT, JN and JS, showed stem word
pairing, within which two patterns were observed: 1) a n

The differentiation in either group stems from different

overall preference for can/could with would/will asfactors so the answer is no. F or example, if a native speaker

inappropriate and 2) would/will for +imp.,+dist. andhears a “Can you…?” which was intended to demarcate

can/could for -imp, -dist.

friendship by a Japanese learner, he/she is more apt to takeConsidering the age differences of the stem word

it as a choice to not bother with a “nice” form. While inpairing group (21-23) with the tense pairing group (37 -38), practical terms this may not cause any serious consequences,
this difference ma y owe to changes in English education it is a clear gap in intended meaning.
materials in Japan. Shifts in attitudes toward each modal

Learners should at minimum be made aware that theverb in Japanese English education were i ndicated as earlyconsiderations dealt with in forming requests vary from55

Requests. In J.P. Forgas (Ed.) Language and Social
Situations (pp. 99–110). New York: Springer-verlag.
[8] Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., & Ogino, T.
(1986). Universals of linguistic politeness. Journalof Pragmatics, 10, 347–371.
[9] Hill, T. (1997). The development of pragmaticcompetence in an EFL context. (Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation). Temple University Japan.
[10]House, J. (1989). Politeness in English and German:
The functions of please and bitte. In S. Blum-kulka, J.
House,&
G.
Kasper
(Eds.),Cross-cultural
pragmatics: Requests and apologies. (pp. 96–119).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
[11]Kashino, Kenji. (2002). Eigo Jodoshi no Goho (Howto use English helping verbs). Tokyo: Kenkyuusha.
[12]Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New
York: Longman Inc.
[13]Meyer, J. (2002). Contextual influences on the
pursuitofsecondarygoals
inrequestmessages. Communication
Monographs, 69(3),189–203.
[14] Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1985). A comprehensive grammar of English
language. London: Longman Group Limited.
[15]Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in thephilosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
[16]Takatsuka, N. (1988). Chuugakkou kyouiku ni okeru
kihonteki shidou jikou no kentou (1): irai kinou wo
motsu Will you~? [Examining Basic English
education items in Junior High School (1): Will
you~? as a request]. Okayama Japan: Okayama
Daigaku Kyouiku Gakubu Kenkyuu Shuuroku, 77,
213-222.
[17]Thomas, J. (1983). Cross -cultural pragmatic
failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
[18]Ueno, K. (2014, March). Amerika-jin to Nihon-jin noshitsumon koui: guro-baru jinzai wo ikusei suru eigo
kyouiku no tame ni. [Question behavior in Americanand Japanese people: toward an English educationthat raises global citizens.] In Y. Harada (Chair),Nihon eigo kyouiku gakkai dai44kai nenji kenkyuu
shuukai: “guro-baru jinzai ikusei” wo kangaeru.
Symposium conducted at The English Language
Education Society of Japan, Waseda University.
[19] Wilson, S. R., Aleman, C. G., & Leatham, Geoff B.
(1998). Identity implications of influence goals: arevised analysis of face -threatening acts andcompliancewithsame -sex
friends. Human
Communication Research,25(1), 64–96.

their own. As connectionist theory posits (Ellis, 2012),
input can only be absorbed after the relevant stimuli are
made apparent.

6. Limits and future researchThis study looked at onl y five individuals in each groupand so no claims for data replicability can be made. Even
within the Japanese, there was evidence of two distinctgroups divided in use b y age. There was also incongruencein gender distribution between the Japanese and Americangroups which may have influenced the results. In futurestudies, along with more participants, uniform gender
treatment will also be necessary. In addition, this study only
measures the participants’ knowledge and cannot make an yclaims about performance.
In addition, data to judge the intensions of use waslargely insufficient. In future studies, reflective informationfrom the participants would be instrumental. It is also
possible that the absolute level of i mposition and social
distance varied cross -culturally so future studies will
benefit from additional survey into this possibility.

References[1] Blum-kulka, S. (1989). Conventional Requests. In
Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies.
(pp. 37–70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishin g
Corporation.
[2] Blum-kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.).
(1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests andApologies.
Norwood,
NJ:
Ablex
Publishin g
Corporation.
[3] Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some
universals in language use(Reissue.). Cambridge :Cambridge University.
[4] Cody, M. J., Canary, D. J., & Smith, S. W. (1994).
Compliance gaining goals: an inductive analysis ofactors’ goal types, strategies and successes. In J.A.
Daly & J.A. Wiemann (Eds.) Strategic interpersonalcommunication (pp. 33–90). Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
[5] Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency andaction:acomparison
of
two
forms
of
requesting. Research on language and social
interaction, 41(2), 129–153.
[6] Ellis, R. (2012). The study of second language
acquisition (Second). Oxford: Oxford Universit y
Press.
[7] Gibbs, R. (1985). Situational Conventions and56

7. Appendix
7.1. Situations

7.2. Questionnaire Sample

57

7.3. Survey Answers
2 (Definitely would use)

1 (Probably would use)

-2 (Definitely wouldn’t use)

-1 (Probably wouldn’t use)

Would
Could
Will
Can

Change
-2
-2
-2
2

Would
Could
Will
Can

Change
-2
1
-1
1

Would
Could
Will
Can

Change
-1
2
-1
1

Would
Could
Will
Can

Change
1
1
-1
-1

Would
Could
Will
Can

Change
1
1
1
1

JS
Bill
2
2
2
-2
JT
Bill
2
1
-2
-1
JN
Bill
2
-1
1
-1
JO
Bill
2
-1
-2
-2
JY
Bill
1
1
-1
-1

Shelf
-1
-1
1
1

Batteries
1
1
-2
-2

Would
Could
Will
Can

Change
-1
2
-2
-2

-1
2
-2
1

Batteries
-1
2
-2
1

Would
Could
Will
Can

Change
-1
2
-1
-2

1
2
-1
-1

Batteries
2
-1
1
-1

Would
Could
Will
Can

Change
2
2
-1
1

1
1
-1
-1

Batteries
1
1
-2
-2

Would
Could
Will
Can

Change
2
1
1
-1

1
1
1
1

Batteries
1
1
1
1

Would
Could
Will
Can

Change
1
2
2
2

Shelf

Shelf

Shelf

Shelf

58

AI
Bill
-2
-1
-2
2
AJ
Bill
2
-2
-1
-2
AA
Bill
2
2
-1
-1
AC
Bill
2
1
-1
-1
AD
Bill
1
2
-1
2

Shelf
-2
2
-2
-2

Batteries
1
2
-2
2

-1
-2
2
-2

Batteries
-2
-1
-2
2

2
1
-1
1

Batteries
-1
1
-1
2

2
2
1
1

Batteries
-1
-1
1
2

2
2
2
2

Batteries
-1
2
1
2

Shelf

Shelf

Shelf

Shelf