A Cross-Cultural Study of Modality in the Speech Act of Asking for Permission
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1205.05Keywords:
modality, lexico-modal marker, politeness, asking for permissionAbstract
This paper is concerned with a cross-cultural study of modality expressions in asking for permission by Vietnamese and English speakers. The study involved 209 Canadian and Vietnamese informants with the use of a Discourse Completion Task questionnaire. A total of 3000 utterances were chosen for analysis to gain insights into the frequency and types of lexico-modal markers manifested in the two languages. It is found that hearer-oriented verbal style tends to be dominant in Vietnamese while the speaker-oriented strategy is more favored in English. Vietnamese speakers tend to employ direct strategies with a dominant use of appealers which sounds intimate to the hearer. English speakers, by contrast, incline to conventionally-indirect strategies such as Can I, Could I, etc. It is also evident that Vietnamese speakers frequently use politeness markers when they communicate with the older, but they hardly use them for their peers. English speakers, however, use politeness markers for all partners with a slight variation. Another noteworthy similarity is that both Canadian and Vietnamese women modalize their language than men.
References
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.
Bach, K & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. USA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Blum-Kulka, S. et al. (1989). Cross - cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. New Jersey: Ablex publishing Corporation.
Brown, P & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Downing, A. & Locke, P. (2006). English grammar: a university course. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
Ekawati, R. (2019). Power in Indonesian presidential speeches: an analysis of linguistic modality. Discourse and interaction, 12(1), pp.5-28, DOI https://doi.org/10.5817 /DI2019-1-5.
Fairclough. N. (2001). Language and power. London: Longman
Fairclough. N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Holmes, J. (1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman
Kramsch, C. (2000). Language and Culture. Oxford: Cambridge University Press
Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Porter, E. (1995). Questionnaire design. DeaKin University.
Radden, G. & Dirven, R. (20017). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing company.
Saville-Troike. M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Ltd.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siti, J. & Sulis T. (2020). Power in Indonesian presidential speeches: an analysis of linguistic modality, LiNGUA, 15/2, pp. 238-252.
Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), pp. 147-167.
Von Wright, G. H. (1951). An Essay on Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Winter, S. & Gardenfor, P. (1995). Linguistic Modality as Expressions of Social Power. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 18(02):1101-8453, DOI:10.1017/S0332586500000147
