Pragmatic Development in A Foreing Languge A Study of Greek FL Request

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1917--1947

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
Pragmatic development in a foreign language:

A study of Greek FL requests
Spyridoula Bella
University of Athens, Department of Linguistics, 15784 Athens, Greece
Received 7 April 2012; received in revised form 30 August 2012; accepted 31 August 2012
Abstract
This study investigates developmental patterns in the requestive behavior of foreign language learners of Greek. Drawing data from a
DCT it attempts to explore the head acts and external/internal modification devices that learners of three different proficiency levels (lower
intermediate, intermediate and advanced) employ when performing requests in one formal (+P, +D) and two informal ( P, D) situations.
The results suggest that although several aspects of the learners’ pragmatic competence develop with increasing proficiency, even the
advanced learners’ performance lags far behind native speakers in several respects. Furthermore, it is shown that these learners’
behaviors lend considerable support to both the developmental stages of pragmatic competence acknowledged in the relevant literature
(Ellis, 1992; Achiba, 2003) and to Bialystok's model regarding the acquisition of pragmatic competence. What is more, it lends a great deal
of cross-linguistic validity to earlier finding regarding the development of requests in the interlanguage of FL learners.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Pragmatic development; Interlanguage; Requests; Greek
1. Introduction
Ever since its emergence, the field of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) has been concerned with the documentation of
second and foreign language learners’ pragmatic competence, i.e. their ability to employ different linguistic means
appropriately when interacting in various target-language contexts (cf. Usó-Juan and Martínez-Flor, 2008:349).
Therefore, the production and appropriate use of target-language speech acts has been of focal interest in the field.
Nevertheless, whereas a substantial body of empirical research exists nowadays focusing on the production and
comprehension of speech acts by second and foreign language learners from diverse linguistic backgrounds and target
languages, the developmental aspect of L2 pragmalinguistic knowledge and sociopragmatic knowledge1 has been
neglected. That is, interlanguage pragmatics remains oriented mainly towards language use, rather than language
development. Yet, researchers of the field systematically call for more investigation into the processes of interlanguage
pragmatics acquisition (see e.g. Bardovi-Harlig, 1999; Kasper and Schmidt, 1996; Kasper and Rose, 2002).
The present study aims to contribute to the limited but growing body of research on pragmatic development by
examining how learners of Greek as a foreign language perform requests at different levels of proficiency.
Requests are one of the most well studied speech acts in the ILP literature, due both to their frequency of use and their
notorious face-threatening nature that renders them ideal candidates for the study of sociopragmatic competence in
E-mail address: sbella@phil.uoa.gr.

1
Pragmalinguistic knowledge refers to knowledge of the particular linguistic resources for formulating a speech act, whereas sociopragmatic
knowledge refers to knowledge of the contextual and social variables (status, social distance, etc.) that determine the appropriateness of the
pragmalinguistic choice (see Kasper, 1997:115--116; Usó-Juan, 2010:237).
0378-2166/$ -- see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.014
1918 S. Bella / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1917--1947
general and polite behavior in particular. Most relevant studies have focused on the strategies language learners opt for
when expressing requests as well as the mitigation devices they have at their disposal (see e.g. Al-Ali and Alawneh, 2010;
Barron, 2007; Bella, 2012a; Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1986; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2008, 2009; Faerch and Kasper,
1989; Hassall, 2001; Hill, 1997; House and Kasper, 1987; Jalifar, 2009; Marti, 2006; Trosborg, 1995). Fewer studies have
investigated the development of requests in the learners’ interlanguage (Achiba, 2003; Barron, 2003; Ellis, 1992; Félix-
Brasdefer, 2007; Flores Salgado, 2011; Göy et al., 2012; Hassall, 2003; Hill, 1997; Otcu and Zeyrek, 2008; Scarcella,
1979; Schauer, 2004, 2009; Woodfield, 2012). Furthermore, the range of target languages that have been considered is
relatively small. To date, there is not a single study on the development of the requestive behavior of learners of Greek.
This study seeks to fill this void and to motivate further research in regard to Greek interlanguage pragmatic development.
What is more, it aims to contribute to research with regard to the extent to which earlier findings on requests development
are valid cross-linguistically (cf. Hassall, 2003:1904).
Specifically, a cross-sectional design is adopted here in order to investigate developmental patterns of Greek FL
learners’ requests across three different proficiency levels: lower intermediate, intermediate and advanced. Based on
data drawn by means of a discourse completion test and supplemented by participants’ verbal reports, the study
examines the request strategies and mitigation devices that these learners employ when performing requests in informal
( P, D) and formal (+P, +D) situations. Against this backdrop it attempts to identify developmental patterns in regard to
the learners’ pragmatic competence.
The study begins by providing the basic facts about the speech act under examination and proceeds to review the
research on request development that has been the most influential to date. After presenting the method of the study
(section 3) and the way the data were analyzed (section 4), the study's results are presented in section 5. The discussion
section reviews the results in light of the relevant literature (section 6). Finally, the main findings are summarized in the
conclusions (section 7).
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Requests
Following Searle's (1969, 1975) classification of illocutionary acts, researchers let requests fall under the category of
directives, which are considered as attempts ‘‘to get the hearer to do an act which speaker wants hearer to do, and which
is not obvious that the hearer will do in the normal course of events or hearer's own accord’’ (Searle, 1969:66). On such
grounds, a request has been defined as a directive speech act in which the speaker asks the hearer to perform an action
which is very often for the exclusive benefit of the speaker (Trosborg, 1995). Therefore, requests are considered,
potentially damaging for the addressee's negative face, i.e. the individual's need to have his/her freedom of action
unimpeded (Brown and Levinson, 1987:61).2
According to Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), Sifianou (1992) and Trosborg (1995), requests consist of two main parts: the
core request or head act and the peripheral modification devices. The head act consists of the main utterance which has
the function of requesting and can stand by itself. Three main types of request head act realization are acknowledged in
the literature: direct (e.g. Clean up the kitchen! ), conventionally indirect (e.g. Could you clean up the kitchen?) and non-
conventionally indirect (e.g. The kitchen needs some cleaning).
In addition to variation in the directness level of a request, speakers can use request modification to mitigate its
illocutionary force. Modification items are optional and can be of two types: internal, which appear within the request act
itself, and external, which appear in the immediate linguistic context of the head act (see Blum-Kulka et al., 1989:17--19).
Internal modifiers are of two types: syntactic and lexical/phrasal. Syntactic modifiers comprise interrogative or conditional
structures, negation (e.g. can’t you clean up the kitchen?), non-obligatory use of past tense (e.g. I wanted to ask you to
clean up the kitchen), etc. Lexical/phrasal modifiers include devices such as politeness markers (‘please’), understaters
(e.g. Could you tidy up a bit?), cajolers (e.g. You know, it would be nice if you cleaned the kitchen today) etc. External
modification, on the other hand, appears in the form of supportive moves which either precede or follow the head act.
These involve reasons or explanations for the act (grounders), preparators (e.g. I’d like to ask you something. . .),
disarmers (e.g. I know you hate housework, but could you clean up a bit today?), etc.
2
Although most researchers define requests as (negative) face-threatening acts, it has been pointed out that certain requests can also threaten
the addressee's positive face. Economidou-Kogetsidis (2008) provides the example of a request/reminder for owed money in the Greek culture,
which could threaten the addressee's positive face ‘‘as it can not only cause embarrassment, but also be interpreted as a reprimand, disapproval
or even accusation towards the hearer’’ (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2008:114). Moreover, it has been stated often that certain kinds of requests can
be considered as enhancing the addressee's positive face at the same time as threatening his/her negative one (see e.g. Sifianou, 2010:34;
Turner, 1996:4).
S. Bella / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1917--1947 1919
Since these constitute the ‘‘means available for indexing politeness of speech acts’’ (Blum-Kulka, 2005 [1992]:266)
and taking into account both the basic social function of politeness and the nature of this speech act as an imposition,
efficient use of these devices is essential ‘‘so that the speakers’ requesting performance may be considered as
appropriate in a variety of situations’’ (Martínez-Flor and Usó-Juan, 2006:25).
The production of requests calls for a great deal of both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic expertise on the part of
the users, in order for successful interaction to be accomplished and potential unwelcome effects on the hearer to be
reduced or softened. In other words, the requester needs to possess both knowledge of the linguistic resources for
formulating a request in a particular language and knowledge of the contextual and sociocultural variables that render a
particular pragmalinguistic choice appropriate in a particular speech situation. Hence, requests may present inherent
difficulties for language learners, who need to know how ‘‘to perform requests successfully and to avoid the effect of being
perceived as rude, offensive or demanding’’ (Usó-Juan, 2010:237). Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the relevant
research has revealed major deviations between native and non-native speakers of different languages with regard to the
pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic choices involved in the performance of requests. Studies have shown differences
with respect to the amount and type of modification employed by native and non-native participants, as well as variation
depended on situational factors involved (Achiba, 2003; Barron, 2007; Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1986; Faerch and
Kasper, 1989; Hassall, 2001; Hill, 1997; House and Kasper, 1987; Kobayashi and Rinnert, 2003; Schauer, 2004;
Trosborg, 1995; Zhang, 1995).
2.2. Previous research
2.2.1. SL request development

The majority of studies examining SL request development have been cross-sectional. There are few longitudinal
studies focusing on request development (Achiba, 2003; Barron, 2003; Cole and Anderson, 2001; Ellis, 1992; Schauer,
2004, 2006, 2007, 2009), the majority of which examine development in the study abroad context (Barron, 2003; Cole and
Anderson, 2001; Schauer, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009). I will first report briefly on the latter and then turn to Achiba's (2003)
and Ellis's (1992) longitudinal studies.
Barron (2003) investigated the acquisition of requests, along with offers and refusals, among 33 Irish learners of
German studying abroad for 1 year in Germany. Her data were elicited by means of a DCT and were compared to data
from German native speakers. In regard to requests, Barron mainly focused on internal modification and, particularly, on
the politeness marker bitte (please).3 Her findings indicated an increase in the use of lexical/phrasal modifiers towards that
of the NSs during their sojourn. Nevertheless, no similar development was observed with respect to syntactic modification.
Cole and Anderson (2001) conducted a longitudinal study examining the pragmatic development of 35 Japanese high
school students in English request realization. Their data were obtained from a comparison of DCTs completed before
and after a ten-month homestay in New Zealand or Canada. The researchers observed a dramatic reduction of direct
requests after the stay-abroad period. More specifically, their results were found to provide ‘‘fairly strong evidence of a
developmental trend from direct requests accompanied by politeness markers to conventionally indirect requests using
modal auxiliaries’’ (Cole and Anderson, 2001:3).
Schauer (2004, 2006, 2007, 2009) conducted a longitudinal study into the request development of German learners of
English enrolled at a British university, using a multimedia elicitation task that contained 16 request scenarios
investigating different status and imposition conditions. The data were collected at three distinct times in the learners’ stay
in Great Britain: shortly after their arrival, in the middle of their stay, and shortly before their return to Germany. Concerning
request strategies, Schauer (2007, 2009) found that the learners’ sojourn in the target context had a positive impact: in the
final data collection session the learners did not use the direct strategies (imperatives and unhedged performatives) that
they had employed in the previous sessions. However, contrary to native speakers that dispreferred hedged
performatives in all scenarios, the learners continued to use this strategy in high imposition interactions. Schauer
attributed this to negative transfer from the learners’ L1 (see Schauer, 2009, 2010). In regard to internal and external
modifiers, Schauer's findings indicated that the learners’ use of these modifiers was strongly influenced by individual
learner differences. For example, while all learners were found to increase their internal modifier repertoire during their
sojourn, this did not seem to be the case for external modifiers (cf. Schauer, 2010:101). Furthermore, supporting Barron's
(2003) findings, Schauer's data suggested that lexical/phrasal modifiers are acquired earlier than syntactic ones.
Finally, in a very recent study, Woodfield (2012) employed open role-plays supplemented with qualitative data in the
form of retrospective interviews to examine the development of request modification strategies in eight graduate students
from Taiwan, Korea, Japan and China in a British University. The data were collected on three different occasions over
3
As Schauer observes, Barron's focus on internal modification is ‘‘unfortunate, as an investigation covering all aspects of requests [. . .] could
have provided interesting insights’’ (2010:100).
eight months and were compared to native speaker baseline data. In regard to internal modification, Woodfield's results
indicated a linear decrease in the overall frequency of internal modifiers in the learners’ request performance across the
three phases representing divergence from native speaker norms. It was also found that the learners preferred lexical/
phrasal internal modifiers over syntactic ones, especially in the first two phases of the investigation, thus supporting the
findings in Barron (2003) and Schauer (2009). In regard to external modification, learner frequencies were observed to
approximate the native speaker norm throughout the study. In addition, besides various instances of individual
development, non-native effects were observed in learner employment of grounders in phase 1, as well as lexical/
grammatical non-target forms in some learners’ production. Woodfield (2012:41) concludes that, in general, her findings
appear to support Dalmau and Gotor's contention that even advanced learners are not ‘‘pragmatically successful by
default; instead, they tend to show a complex and wide range of behavior, form divergence to convergence’’ (2007:209).
Although study-abroad studies have provided valuable insights on request development, the most influential
longitudinal studies to date have been Ellis's (1992) and Achiba's (2003), largely due to the fact that they attempted to
posit concrete stages of development.
Based on findings from his two-year longitudinal study of two beginning ESL learners (aged 10 and 11) in a classroom
setting, Ellis (1992) proposed a three-staged sequence for request development. In the first stage, learners were found to
convey pragmatic intent by means of highly context dependent request realizations. In the second stage, requests were
mainly realized through unanalyzed routines and direct requests used as formulas (imperatives and query preparatories),
while illocutionary force was conveyed through lexical means ( please, maybe, etc.). Finally, the third stage was
characterized by the gradual unpacking and productive use of the routines and formulas used in the previous stages as
well as the emergence of conventional indirectness. It was only at this final stage that social goals started to be overtly
marked by means of a quite restricted range of external and internal modification devices (e.g. reasons/explanation for the
request and the marker please). Ellis concludes his findings with a pessimistic assessment of the language classroom as
an environment for pragmatic competence (cf. Rose, 2000:30), since he maintains that the range of request strategies
achieved by the learners at the end of the observation period remained significantly more restricted than that of adult
native speakers.
The results of Achiba's (2003) study were a great deal more optimistic. Achiba examined the performance of requests
over a period of 17 months by a beginning ESL learner, his daughter Yao. Although Achiba's analysis largely overlaps with
Ellis's (1992), she puts forward four stages of request development with Yao's first stage analogous to Ellis's second
stage, and her second stage evocative of Ellis's third. Achiba's third stage, which she calls ‘pragmatic expansion’, was
illustrative of an increase of conventional indirectness and a wider range of pragmalinguistic forms expressing requestive
intent, while her fourth stage (fine-tuning) was characterized by an increase of syntactically mitigated forms to express
indirect requests. The latter two stages were not attested in Ellis's study and indicate more extended development in Yao's
request ability as compared to Ellis's learners. However, as Kasper and Rose (2002:135) astutely observe, Achiba's
findings can be attributed to the fact that Yao appears to have been more than an absolute beginner when observation
commenced.
Kasper and Rose (2002:140) combine Ellis's and Achiba's analyses into five stages summarized as follows:
1. Pre-basic (highly context-dependent, no syntax, no relational goals).

2. Formulaic (reliance on unanalyzed formulas and imperatives).
3. Unpacking (formulas incorporated into productive language use, shift to conventional indirectness).
4. Pragmatic expansion (addition of new forms to pragmalinguistic repertoire, increased use of mitigation, more complex
syntax).
5. Fine-tuning (fine-tuning of requestive force to participants, goals and contexts).
Turning to cross-sectional studies, one of the earliest efforts to examine second language learners’ request
development was Scarcella (1979). Collecting role play data from one beginning and one advanced group of ESL
learners, Scarcella attempted to track down the emergence and development of polite features in these learners’
requestive behavior. She found that, at odds with NSs whose use of indirectness formed a cline across status levels, both
learner groups exhibited minimal variation with respect to their use of indirectness according to interlocutor status.
Furthermore, her results indicated that increasing proficiency brought with it an increase in the learners’ use of lexical
internal modifiers and that, whereas these politeness features emerged quite early in acquisition, direct requests
(imperatives in particular) predominated and exhibited minimal variation in the performance of beginners. Based on these
findings, Scarcella argued that ‘‘the acquisition of politeness forms appears to precede the acquisition of the
sociolinguistic-interactional rules and mechanisms underlying the use and distribution of these forms’’ (1979:285).
Eliciting data by means of an interactive role play, Hassall (2003) investigated how Australian learners of Indonesian
perform requests in a number of situations compared to Indonesian native speakers. The non-native subjects of the study
were 20 learners of Indonesian whose proficiency ranged from lower to upper intermediate. His findings showed, among
other things, that the query preparatory was the strategy that predominated in both groups’ performance. Hassall also
observed that want statements emerged early in the learners’ performance and were used in inverse proportion to
language proficiency. Furthermore, higher proficiency appeared to bring with it an increase in the use of conventionally
indirect strategies, consistent with native language use. Similarly to want statements the use of non-conventionally
indirect requests (hints) exhibited high frequencies in the earlier learning stages which, however, declined with increasing
proficiency. With regard to this latter finding, Hassall (2003) consistent with Trosborg (1995), suggests that these early
learner hints may in fact be pseudo-hints, i.e. hints that lower level learners produce ‘‘because they have greater difficulty
in phrasing requests appropriately’’ (2003:1921), rather than because of a strategic preference for indirectness.
In general, Hassall's findings indicate that learners appear to have access to the same request strategies, but they
apply and distribute them differently. On these grounds, he claims that his results lend support to Bialystok's (1993) two-
dimensional model of pragmatic acquisition, i.e. that for adult learners the task of learning pragmatic knowledge is already
accomplished, since they can rely on already existing representations of pragmatic knowledge. However, unlike Bialystok
(1993), Hassall (2003) maintains that the development of control over attention in selecting knowledge is not necessarily
the sole most important task that learners have to face, since, according to his findings, the acquisition of new pragmatic
knowledge is also a major task for L2 learners. In the case of his study such knowledge included the appropriate
distribution of direct request strategies, the main target-like forms of internal modification and the selection of prefacing
moves prior to direct questions (cf. Kasper and Rose, 1999:90).
2.2.2. FL requests development

Similarly to SL requests, cross-sectional studies have constituted the prevailing tendency in the examination of the
development of FL requests. One of the first such studies is Trosborg's (1995) who investigated the development of
requests, complaints and apologies across three levels of Danish learners of English as a foreign language. In regard to
requests, her findings indicated an increase of conventional indirectness (in particular query preparatories) and of internal
and external modification devices with higher proficiency. However, Trosborg contents that even learners in the highest
proficiency group lagged far behind native speakers with regard to internal and particularly to external modification.
Another interesting finding, which, however, is at odds with most relevant research, was that direct requests also
increased with proficiency. Trosborg (1995) attributes this phenomenon to an avoidance strategy on the part of the
learners, maintaining that lower proficiency learners dispreferred direct requests out of fear of sounding impolite.
Nevertheless, as Kasper and Rose observe, ‘‘it is not clear why advanced learners would not have the same concerns’’
(2002:141).
Using data elicited by means of a DCT, Hill (1997) examined the request strategies used by Japanese EFL learners
across three proficiency levels. His results revealed a gradual increase in the use of conventionally indirect requests with
higher proficiency, with the advanced learners approximating closely to the performance of NSs in this respect. At the
same time higher frequencies of modification strategies were attested with increasing proficiency, although even the
advanced group appeared to still fall short on native speaker levels in this respect. Despite the evidence for development,
the learners in Hill's study were found to diverge from NSs in regard to the use of several microstrategies; for instance,
unlike NSs, they displayed a tendency to overuse want statements across all proficiency levels, while their use of
permission strategies though slightly on the rise remained largely underused and the increase of ability strategies
observed from low to intermediate did not continue at the advanced level. Therefore, according to Kasper and Rose
(1999:89), ‘‘one important lesson to be learned from Hill's study is that conflating individual strategies into
macrocategories may be deceiving unless the pattern displayed at macro level reproduces the patterns of the
subsumed strategies’’.
Another cross-sectional study of pragmatic development among three groups of primary school students in
Hong Kong, was conducted by Rose (2000). The data in this study was collected by means of a cartoon oral production
task designed to elicit requests, apologies and compliment responses. With respect to requests, his results consistent
with Hill's (1997), indicated an increase in the frequency of use of conventionally indirect requests with proficiency and
more frequent use of direct strategies among the lowest proficiency group. However, minimal levels of development were
attested in regard to internal and external modification as proficiency increased; specifically, a very restricted range of
external modifiers (mainly grounders) was found to be used solely among the most advanced learners of the sample.
Focusing on requests, Rose (2009) reports on the second phase of his study which this time involved secondary school
students in Forms 2, 4 and 6. This study provided evidence of pragmalinguistic development, particularly in the onset of
Form 6 participants’ pragmatic expansion stage. This development was reflected in the wider range of modals and
supportive moves used by these learners. Nevertheless, besides the increased occurrence of the politeness marker
please in requests to higher status hearers, there was little evidence of sociopragmatic development in the learners’
production.
In another cross-sectional study, Pinto (2005) examined requests produced by English learners of Spanish from four
different proficiency levels using data elicited by means of a DCT. His general results point to the fact that learners at all
levels faced more difficulties in areas of request production that differed between the L1 and the target language. What is
more, although the advanced learners’ performance was found to improve with proficiency, even these learners showed
signs of pragmatic transfer, in the sense that they appeared to rely heavily on their L1 pragmatic knowledge when
performing L2 requests. Furthermore, the use of direct requests did not decrease with proficiency and, therefore, there
was no evidence of development in this respect (cf. Félix-Brasdefer, 2007:258). Finally, a few conditional forms and an
overuse of the marker ‘‘please’’ were attested in the data of the advanced learners. Although this could be interpreted as
an effort to conform to the target norm, in general, increasing proficiency was not found to bring with it significant changes
with respect to internal modification.
Félix-Brasdefer (2007) examined the development of FL requests of American learners of Spanish across three
proficiency levels: beginning, intermediate and advanced. The data were elicited by means of an open role play for four
different requests situations and were analyzed for head acts and request perspective as well as external and internal
modification. Results indicated that beginners invariably displayed high frequencies of direct requests in all situations. The
main linguistic means of realization of these requests were statements of need, verbless requests, imperatives and
requests with an infinitive used as a main verb. However, a decline in direct requests and a matching preference for
conventional indirectness was observed in the intermediate and advanced levels in both formal and informal situations.
Furthermore, learners were found to increase their repertoire of external and internal modifiers with increasing proficiency;
for instance, an increase in the use of the conditional and the imperfect and a decrease in the use of the marker pro favor
(please) were noted in the performance of the higher proficiency learners. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Félix-Brasdefer
(2007:277), the frequency and variety of these mitigators still did not approximate norms of NSs of Spanish. Félix-
Brasdefer (2007) identifies the performance of his learners with four of the stages of request development: (1) pre-basic,
(2) basic (roughly corresponding to Kasper and Rose's (2002) formulaic stage), (3) unpacking of formulaic use, and 4.
pragmatic expansion. According to Félix-Brasdefer (2007:276), the first two stages were found in the data of beginning
learners and the last two were representative of the intermediate and advanced learners.
In another cross-sectional study, Flores Salgado (2011) analyzed the development of pragmalinguistic and
sociopragmatic competence of 36 Spanish EFL learners across three proficiency levels (basic, intermediate and
advanced) focusing on the speech acts of request and apology. The data of her study were drawn by means of a modified
version of Rose's (2000) oral production task. The learners’ performances were compared to those of 12 American
English native speakers in order for base-line cultural data to be attained. In regard to requests, Flores Salgado's main
findings confirm previous research to a great extent. With respect to head act choice it was shown that direct strategies
prevailed in early learners’ production, but declined with proficiency. In addition, it was found that basic learners often
opted for the imperative and added the marker por favor (‘please’) in order to mitigate the force of their requests.
Furthermore, basic learners employed simple supportive moves which became more elaborate as proficiency increased.
Despite their restricted pragmalinguistic means, these early learners ‘‘demonstrated an unconscious awareness that the
strategies of communicative action varied according to the context’’ (Flores Salgado, 2011:208). However, all proficiency
levels’ participants were found to use grammatical devices which were sometimes inappropriate for the context and to lack
certain pragmalinguistic means; for instance, as Flores Salgado contends, the past tense was almost never used as a
syntactic mitigator even by advanced learners. Furthermore, even advanced learners demonstrated a tendency towards
over-explicitness in the use of supportive move, which suggested inadequate sociopragmatic knowledge (see Flores
Salgado, 2011:212).
One of the main goals of Flores Salgado's research was to investigate the relationship between interlanguage
pragmatics and grammatical competence. In regard to this point, her findings can be summarized as follows: (a) basic
adult learners posses a previous pragmatic knowledge that allows them to use the linguistic structure available to them in
ways that satisfy the communicative demands of a social situation, (b) the knowledge of the relevant linguistic rules and
the knowledge of their appropriate use are essential conditions for the communication of linguistic action, and, (c) the
elementary knowledge of linguistic rules is a necessary condition for the realization of speech acts in a native-like manner.
Finally, in a very recent study, Göy et al. (2012), investigated the development of internal request modification of
beginner and upper intermediate Turkish learners of English. Their data were collected through role-plays involving
situations that varied in terms of power, social distance and imposition and were compared to native speaker baseline
data. The findings indicated a limited range of syntactic modifiers at beginner level and a slow increase in the complexity
and frequency of these modifiers at intermediate levels devices (see also Otcu and Zeyrek, 2008). Developmental
patterns were also observed in the employment of lexical/phrasal modification, with intermediate learners increasing their
repertoire of lexical/phrasal modifiers in comparison to beginners that relied mainly on the use of the marker ‘please’. No
clear correspondence between internal modification and social factors was observed.
Although research on pragmatic development in general, and request development in particular has already provided
valuable insights on L2 and FL learners’ developmental patterns, the range of target languages that have been
investigated remains quite limited. Moreover, most research has focused on the development of learners coming from one
single native linguistic background. The present study seeks to explore possible developmental patterns in Greek FL
requestive behavior based on data from learners with different linguistic backgrounds. Therefore, the study aims to
contribute to the range of target languages under study and provide information on more general patterns of request
development. The main research questions that guide the study are the following:
1. How do Greek FL learners employ request head acts across proficiency levels?
2. How do Greek FL learners modify their requests externally as proficiency increases?
3. What are the learners’ preferred means of internal modification as proficiency increases?
3. Method: participants and data collection procedures
3.1. Participants
A total of 200 subjects participated in the study: 50 native speakers of Greek (25 males and 25 females), all coming
from Athens (mean age: 23.4 years), and 150 non-native speakers (75 males and 75 females, mean age: 22.3) from
various L1 backgrounds (Ukranian (21), Bulgarian (18), Russian (17), Serbian (20), Polish (15), Spanish (14), Chinese
(15), Hebrew (13) and Turkish (17)).
The native speakers were all students at the University of Athens. The non-native speakers were learners of Greek,
who, at the time of the study, had just arrived in Athens in order to attend the six-week language courses supplied by the
University of Athens’ Programme of Summer Scholarships for Greek Studies. These learners were undergraduate
students whose previous training in Greek had taken place in their countries of origin, i.e. they were learners of Greek as a
foreign language. Their studies were directly or indirectly related to the Greek language and culture (classics, translation,
literature, etc.). The learner participants of this study were selected from classes of three different proficiency levels: lower
intermediate, intermediate and advanced (50 learners per group). These classes were especially created for the needs of
the summer program based on the results of a placement test that all learners of the program (a total of 500) had to sit just
before the beginning of the course. This test was designed following the guidelines of the Common European Framework
for the Teaching and Assessment of Languages (2001) and included grammar, reading, writing and listening components.
Along these lines, the competence of lower intermediate learners of this study corresponded roughly to the B1 level, of the
intermediate to the B2 level and of the advanced learners to C1 level, as described in the CEF. In TOEFL scores terms,
these levels would correspond roughly to 437--476 for B1, 477--547 for B2 and 548--587 for C1.
Before their participation all learners were asked to fill in a questionnaire regarding their age, gender, native language,
language instruction and prior experience of spending time in Greece. Their answers revealed that, in their majority, they
had received instruction focusing mainly on grammar and reading comprehension. None of them reported any kind of
special instruction in pragmatics.
Learners that had spent any amount of time in Greece before the research were excluded from the sample.
3.2. Data collection procedures
The main instrument for data collection was a discourse completion test (see Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) designed to elicit
speech acts in twelve different situations, eight of which were designed to elicit requests. The other four situations were
aimed to function as distractors: two situations designed to elicit apologies and another two designed to elicit request
refusals. The distractor situations were included so as to avoid a response set (where the respondents answer
mechanically using the same form for all the situations). For the present purposes, the production of the subjects in three
of the request situations was analyzed: in the first situation the subject's flat-mate had thrown a party the night before and
left the kitchen untidy. Therefore, the subject has to ask his/her flat-mate to clean it. In the second situation, the subject is
having lunch with a friend when she/he discovers that she/he has left their wallet at home. She/he should ask her/his friend
to pay for both their meals. Therefore, whereas the first situation can be considered ‘standard’ in the sense that the
requester has an obvious right to perform the request and the requestee seems to have the obligation to fulfill it,4 the
second one is ‘non-standard’, since neither the requester's right to ask nor the requestee's obligation to comply could be
taken for granted (see House, 1989).
4
One of the referees has pointed out that the ‘standard’ nature of this situation, cannot be taken for granted, since standard situations usually
involve low difficulty in performing the requestive act, while a request in this situation could be considered threatening for the addressee's positive
face and, therefore, not easy to perform. Although this is a valid observation, House (1989:106), who first introduced the distinction between
‘standard’ and ‘nonstandard’ situations, considers this particular situation ‘standard’. Moreover, both the DCT data, as well as the participants’
verbal reports in this study (see section 5.2), do not suggest that the respondents had any difficulties in performing the act. Therefore, I suggest
that this situation can be considered standard, especially when compared with the other two situations in focus.
Finally, in the third situation, the subject is a student who should go to his/her professor's office and ask for an extension
for her/his assignment. Thus, while the first two situations are symmetrical in the sense that they involve familiarity and no
power difference ( P, D), the third one is asymmetrical, since it involves distance and power (+P, +D) (see Brown and
Levinson, 1987; Scollon and Scollon, 2001:54--57). The description of the situations in the original DCT included
information on the social distance and relative power between the participants (see Appendix). Furthermore, although the
level of imposition for each request was not specifically mentioned in the DCT, it is expected that participants inferred the
weight of imposition from the contextual description (cf. Félix-Brasdefer, 2007:261).
The three situations can be summarized as follows:
Kitchen (Situation 1): The speaker asks his/her flat-mate to clean the kitchen ( Power, Distance)
Money (Situation 2): The speaker discovers that he/she has left her wallet at home asks his/her friend to pay for his/her
meal ( Power, Distance)
Extension (Situation 3): The speaker asks his/her professor for an assignment extension (+Power, +Distance)
The choice to examine both symmetrical and asymmetrical situations was based on the fact that, despite Economidou-
Kogetsidis (2009:81) contention that power asymmetrical situations are more demanding and difficult to handle for non-
native speakers, recent research on Greek learners’ production of speech acts has indicated that learners find it more
troublesome to express intimacy rather than formality (Bella, 2011, forthcoming). Therefore, I opted to also test this
hypothesis comparing two different symmetrical situations with an asymmetrical one.
Furthermore, although I agree with those who argue that natural data constitute the best source for analyzing
interactions (see, e.g. Kasper, 2000:318; Wolfson, 1981:9) there are at least two important limitations to the benefits of
ethnographic research on speech acts: first, contextual variables cannot be controlled and, second, the occurrence of a
particular speech act cannot be predicted (Gass and Houck, 1999:25). Furthermore, as Kasper (2000) points out, in
cases that the research focuses on a particular pragmatic element, e.g. a particular speech act, ‘‘it may take an
unreasonable amount of [authentic] data to obtain sufficient quantities of the pragmatic feature under study’’
(2000:320).5
Most of the studies investigating the development of language learners’ requestive behavior to date have elicited their
data by means of open role plays (see e.g. Félix-Brasdefer, 2007; Hassall, 2003; Scarcella, 1979). Although I agree with
Félix-Brasdefer that ‘‘DCTs cannot capture the dynamics of social (face-to-face interaction that allow us to examine
speech act sequences across multiple turns as role plays do’’ (2010:47), it has to be pointed out that role plays are a far
more time consuming data elicitation method than DCTs. Therefore, most of the studies thus far have based their
observations on a limited sample of language learners. In the present study I set off to examine request development
having access to a rather large sample of learners. However, the time I had at my disposal was quite limited, since it was
important that the data were collected prior to the learners’ study abroad experience. As Marti (2006:1843) puts it, ‘‘the
ease of comparing and the possibility of collecting large amounts of data in a short period of time still seem to be of
advantage in providing useful information about the types of semantic or verbal formulas that [. . .] speakers use or might
use’’.
Therefore, an open DCT was selected as a more adequate instrument for the present research purposes, since, unlike
authentic interactional data, it permits us to design contexts that are likely to elicit specific speech acts and, unlike role
plays, it allows for a larger sample of learners to be examined within a relatively short time span. Moreover, as Kasper
contents, when designed carefully, DCTs ‘‘are useful to inform about speakers’ pragmalinguistic knowledge of the
strategies and linguistic forms by which communicative acts can be implemented, and about their sociopragmatic
knowledge under which particular strategic and linguistic choices are appropriate’’ (2000:329). Furthermore, there has
been no conclusive evidence showing that the DCT is ineffective for collecting data on a wide range of linguistic
phenomena, that are, otherwise, difficult to observe in a systematic fashion (Billmyer and Varghese, 2000:518;
Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2008:117).
Nevertheless, data elicited by means of DCTs ‘‘can never be the same as authentic conversation’’ (Kasper, 2000:318).
As Félix-Brasdefer (2010) contents ‘‘although DCTs and role plays have been shown to be reliable and valid to a degree,
simulated data, oral or written, are mainly used for research purposes [. . .] and can hardly be equated to speech act data
drawn from natural discourse’’ (2010:53--54). Therefore, the findings of the study should be understood in view of the fact
that DCT data are brought into being for research purposes and, hence, they are subject to certain limitations.
In order to overcome these limitations to a certain extent, in the present study the DCT data were supplemented with
some retrospective verbal report data from the learner participants. As Woodfield (2010) contends, the combination of
5
For an extended discussion on pragmatic research methods and their suitability to different research questions in speech act research, see
Jucker (2009).
such data with a written elicitation instrument ‘‘may provide insights into learners’ perceptions of the sociocultural aspects
of the discourse situation (social status, social distance) which learners attend to while on task’’ (2010:22). Therefore, this
type of data can help the researcher ‘‘to better understand the rationale for the sociocultural choices that are made and for
the sociolinguistic forms that are selected in order to realize the given speech act’’ (Cohen, 1996:256).6 However, due to
the large sample of the participants in this study, it was impossible to run interviews with each and every one of them.
Therefore, the verbal report data come from interviews with a limited sample of 45 learners (15 from each proficiency
level). The specific way in which these data were elicited and analyzed is presented in the next section.
4. Data analysis
4.1. DCT data
In the present study requests were examined according to request type (head acts), external modification (supportive
moves) and internal modification (syntactic and lexical/phrasal).
Following the classification originally presented in Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), request head acts were codified according
to three degrees of directness: (1) direct; (2) conventionally indirect (CI); and (3) non-conventionally indirect (NCI). The
third level of directness contained only one strategy: hint (e.g. H koyςínα εínαi polύ bρv μikh ‘The kitchen is very dirty’.
Direct and conventionally indirect requests, on the other hand, comprised various substrategies that included the
following:
1. Direct
- Mood derivable (e.g. Kαθάρiσε αμέσως thn koyςínα! ‘Clean up the kitchen immediately!’)
- Performative (e.g. Sας ςhtάω μiα μikρή pαράtασh ‘I am asking you for a small extension’)
- Obligation statement (e.g. Pρέpεi opωσdήpotε nα kαθαρíσεiς thn koyςínα ‘You must definitely clean up the kitchen’)
- Need/Want statement (e.g. Xρεiάςoμαi μiα pαράtασh giα thn ερgασíα αytoύ toy εjαμήnoy ‘I need an extension for
this term's assignment’)
2. Conventionally indirect
- Query preparatory-permission (e.g. Qα μpoρoύσα nα pάρω μiα pαράtασh μiας εbdoμάdας giα nα tεlεiv σω thn
ερgασíα μoy; ‘Could I take one week's extension to finish my assignment?’)
- Query preparatory-ability (e.g. Mpoρεíς nα plhρv σεiς kαi θα σoy dv
σω tα lεwtά αρgótερα; ‘Can you pay and I will
pay you back later’)
- Query preparatory with present indicative (no modal) (Plhρv nεiς εσύ tv
ρα kαi nα tα bρoύμε μεtά; (Can you)
paypresent indicative and we’ll sort this out later’)
- Suggestory formula (Dεn kαθαρíςεiς lígo thn koyςínα; ‘(Why) don’t you clean up the kitchen a bit?’)
From the strategies presented above, the query preparatory with present indicative and the permission strategy were
added to the original classification (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) to fit the Greek data. Query preparatories with present
indicative without a modal are typical means of performing requests in Greek, especially in solidarity contexts (Sifianou,
1992; Bella, 2012a). The permission strategy, on the other hand, appeared mainly in the extension situation (and to a
lesser degree) in the money situation. Although it is also considered a form of query preparatory, it does not question the
hearer's ability to comply with the request, but asks for the hearer's permission for the speaker to perform the act (see
Hassall, 2003:1910). Therefore, in contrast to ability query preparatories, it is speaker oriented.
In regard to external modification, the categories of my classification scheme are based on those by Blum-Kulka et al.
(1989), Trosborg (1995) and Schauer (2007) and include the following:
- Preparator (e.g. Moy kάnεiς μiα xάρh; ‘Can you do me a favour?’).

- Grounder (e.g. Kαθάρiσε thn koyςínα giαtí θα έρθoyn oi gonεíς μoy αpócε ‘Clean up the kitchen because my parents
are coming tonight’).
- Disarmer (e.g. Jέρω óti εíσαi koyρασμέnoς, αllά pρέpεi nα kαθαρíσoyμε thn koyςínα, ‘I know you are tired but we
have to clean up the kitchen’).
- Imposition minimizer (e.g. Qα σoy εpiσtρέcω tα xρήμαtα αύρio opωσdήpotε, ‘I will definitely pay you back tomorrow’).
- Promise of reward (e.g. Qα σoy dv σω tα lεwtά αύρio kαi θα σε kεράσω ki έnα potó! ‘I will return the money tomorrow
and I will buy you a drink!).
6
See also Cohen (2004:321), Félix-Brasdefer (2008:64).
- Apology (e.g. Xíliα σyggnv

μh poy σto ςhtάω, αllά jέxασα to poρtowóli μoy ‘A thousand apologies for asking, but I
left my wallet’).
- Considerator (e.g. An έxεiς bέbαiα lεwtά pάnω σoy, αlliv
ς nα pάω σthn tράpεςα, ‘If you have enough money of
course, or else I could go to the bank’).
Finally, internal modification was examined according to both syntactic and lexical/phrasal means.
The categories of my classification scheme for syntactic modifiers are based on Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Trosborg
(1995), with some modifications to fit the Greek data. The main categories of syntactic modifiers found in the data are the
following:
- Negation (e.g. Dεn θα μpoρoύσαtε nα μoy dv σεtε μiα μikρή pαράtασh; ‘Couldn’t you give me a short extension?’).
- Subjunctive (e.g. Mήpως nα kαθαρíσεiς lígo thn koyςínα; ‘(Would you) maybe clean[subjunctive] the kitchen a bit?’)
- Conditional (e.g. Qα ήθεlα μiα μikρή pαράtασh giα thn ερgασíα, αn gínεtαi. ‘I would like a small extension for the
assignment, if this is possible’)
- Past tense (e.g. ‘Hθεlα nα σας ςhtήσω μiα pαράtασh giα thn ερgασíα μoy. ‘I wanted to ask you for an extension for
my assignment’).
- Present indicative (e.g. Kαθαρíςεiς lígo thn koyςínα; ‘[Can you] clean up [present indicative] the kitchen a bit?’).
For the classification of lexical/phrasal modifiers this study adopted a slightly modified version of Barron's (2007)
classification to fit the Greek data. This classification includes the following categories:
Understaters (e.g. lígo ‘a little’, kάpως ‘a bit’)

Politeness marker (pαραkαlv ‘please’)
Subjectivizers (e.g. wobάμαi ‘I am afraid’, noμíςω ‘I think’, wαntάςoμαi ‘I guess’)
Downtoners (íσως ‘perhaps’, μήpως ‘maybe’, αplv ς ‘just’)
Cajolers (jέρεiς ‘you know’, kαtαlαbαínεiς ‘you understand/ you see’)
Solidarity markers (e.g. diminutives, endearments, first name+ possessive pronoun, ρε, μωρέ)
The statistical analysis of the data was carried out using version 19 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
Descriptive statistics were used to compute the frequency of head act and external/internal modification strategies for
each group across the different situations. The statistical tests used to examine the data were one-way ANOVAs. Post hoc
analyses were carried out using the Scheffe test. Effect sizes were measured as partial h2. For all analyses in the study,
the alpha level was set at .05.
Besides the researcher, the data were coded by a second coder, a colleague from the Department of Linguistics,
Faculty of English Studies. The second coder's coding coincided with the researcher's in 99% for refusal strategies, 97%
for external modification and 98% for internal modification. The discrepancies noted were discussed by the two coders
and a consensus was reached. The results of the analysis are presented in the next section.
4.2. Verbal report data
The interviews with the learners started immediately after the completion of the DCT and was completed two hours
later. The researcher focused on the three situations under examination and mainly posed fixed questions guided by
Ericsson and Simon's (1993:198) four types of statements in the verbalization process: intentions, cognitions, planning
and evaluation (cf. Woodfield, 2010:9). The main questions were:
1. What did you notice about the situation?

2. How difficult did you find it to answer?
3. What were you paying attention to?
4. Were you satisfied with your answer?
Additionally, following Jourdenaisn's (2001:357) exhortation that researchers should avoid leading questions and
instead ask ‘‘focused yet open-ended questions’’ some data-driven questions were added in the interviews, in order to
prompt learners to elaborate on their answers. Examples of such questions included ‘‘You said situation X was particularly
difficult for you. Can you say more about that?’’, or ‘‘You said you felt you were ‘abrupt’ in situation X. Why do you say
that?’’.
The main answers and results for each group of learners are presented in section 5.2.
[(Fig._1)TD$IG] S. Bella / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1917--1947 1927
Fig. 1. Overall distribution of request strategies by type and by group for all participants in each group over all three situations.
5. Results
This section presents the main findings of the DCT with respect to the research questions posed in the study, as well as
the verbal report data that were elicited by means of the interviews.
5.1. DCT results
5.1.1. Head acts

The first research question put forward in this study concerned the use and development of request head acts across
proficiency levels.
Fig. 1 displays the overall results for the three types of requests for each group in all three situations, and Table 1 shows
the overall distribution of direct (D), conventionally indirect (CI) and non-conventionally indirect (NCI) requests in each
situation for native speakers and for each proficiency level of learners. Results for each situation include the frequency of
requests (n) and the percentage (%) used in each situation. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for
frequency of strategy use by the four groups. The abbreviations Ls1, Ls2 and Ls3 stand for lower intermediate,
intermediate and advanced learners respectively.
As shown in Fig. 1 native speakers preferred CI strategies in all three situations (69.5%, n = 114). In contrast,
Ls1 strongly favored direct strategies (59.2%, n = 90) and employed considerably less CI strategies (15.1%, n = 23).
However, this tendency appeared to decline as proficiency increased, with a parallel increasing preference
for conventional indirectness on the part of Ls2 (58.4%, n = 101) and Ls3 (73.7%, n = 112). The differences between
Ls1 and the other three groups with respect to the use of both direct and CI strategies was found to be statistically
significant (F(3, 196) = 14.81, p < 0.05, h2 = 0.36 for direct strategies and F(3, 196) = 88.9, p < 0.05, h2 = 0.5
for CI).
On the contrary, no statistically significant differences were observed between NSs and the advanced learner group
(Ls3) in this respect: (F(3, 196) = 14.81, p = 0.99 for direct strategies, F(3, 196) = 88.9, p = 0.97 for CI, F(3, 196) = 18.91,
p = 0.67 for NCI) (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations).
Another point worth noting with regard to the overall distribution of head acts by the four groups is the increased
preference for NCI strategies by Ls1 (25.7%, n = 39). In this respect, Ls1 differed significantly from NSs (4.9%, n = 8) as
well as from all other learner groups (F(3, 196) = 18.91, p < 0.05, h2 = 0.55). That is, the frequency of use of NCI
decreased significantly as proficiency increased with NCI representing only 2.9% (n = 5) and 0.7% (n = 1) of the total
strategies used by Ls2 and Ls3 respectively.
It appears then, that at least two significant changes occurred and remained constant among the more advanced
levels: a transition from directness to conventional indirectness and a significant decline in the frequency of use of non-
conventionally indirect strategies.
As shown in Table 1, no evidence of situational variation can be drawn from the use of head acts by the Ls1
participants. These learners displayed a striking preference for direct requests in all three situations irrespective of degree
1928
Table 1
Distribution of head acts (request strategies) by situation over three situations by NSs and three proficiency levels of learners.
Head acts Situation 1-kitchen Situation 2-money Situation 3-extension
NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3 NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3 NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
S. Bella / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1917--1947

Mood derivable 8 15.4 2 3.9 22 40.7 11 22 12 21.1 2 4 4 7.1 3 5.7 1 1.8 1 2 4 8 1 2
Performative 0 0 1 2 4 7.4 0 0 2 3.5 2 4 5 8.9 4 7.5 10 18.2 3 5.9 6 12 5 10
Obligation statement 7 13.5 11 21.6 3 5.5 8 16 0 0 11 22 1 1.8 1 1.9 1 1.8 7 13.7 1 2 5 10
Need/want statement 0 0 17 33.3 1 1.9 0 0 0 0 15 30 1 1.8 1 1.9 1 1.8 18 35.3 2 4 1 2
Total direct 15 28.9 31 60.8 30 55.5 18 38 14 24.6 30 60 11 19.6 9 17 13 23.6 29 56.9 13 26 12 24
Query preparatory 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.7 0 0 9 16.1 5 9.4 23 41.8 0 0 4 8 17 34

-- permission
Query preparatory 10 19.2 4 7.8 22 40.7 30 60 19 33.3 9 18 31 55.3 36 67.9 15 27.3 10 19.6 30 60 20 40
-- ability
Query preparatory 11 21.2 0 0 0 0 1 2 18 31.6 0 0 2 3.6 1 1.9 3 5.5 0 0 2 4 1 2
with present
indicative
(no modal)
Suggestory formula 14 26.9 0 0 1 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total CI 35 67.3 4 7.8 23 42.6 31 62 38 66.7 9 18 42 75 43 81.1 41 74.6 10 19.6 36 72 38 76
Hint 2 3.8 16 31.4 1 1.9 0 0 5 8.8 11 22 3 5.4 1 1.9 1 1.8 12 23.5 1 2 0 0

Total NCI 2 3.8 16 31.4 1 1.9 0 0 5 8.8 11 22 3 5.4 1 1.9 1 1.8 12 23.5 1 2 0 0
Total HA 52 100 51 100 54 100 50 100 57 100 50 100 56 100 53 100 55 100 51 100 50 100 50 100
Table 2
Means and standard deviations in the use of Direct, CI and NCI by the four groups in the three situations.
Group Direct CI NCI
NS Mean 0.82 2.30 0.16

Std. deviation 1 0.54 0.46
Ls1 Mean 1.80 0.46 0.78
Std. deviation 0.7 0.88 0.95
Ls2 Mean 1.08 1.98 0.1
Ls3 Mean 0.78 2.24 0.02
of formality and (non)-standardness. The need/want statement and the obligation statement were the direct strategies that
exhibited the highest frequencies in these learners’ data in all three situations.
Examples of the use of these strategies by these learners are shown in (1a--c):
(1) Ls1 (use of Want statements)

(a) Pαραkαlv θέlω xρóno giα thn ερgασíα pερiσσótερo [. . .]
‘Please I want more time for the assignment’
(b) Qέlω nα plhρv σεiς εσύ pαραkαlv polύ [. . .]
‘I want you to pay please [very much]’7
(c) Pρέpεi kαθαρíσεiς thn koyςínα. . .polύ bρv μikh!
‘You must clean up the kitchen. . .very dirty!’
However, Ls1 participants’ consistent effort to mitigate the effects of these direct requests by means of the marker
pαραkαlv (please) can be taken as an indication of sociopragmatic awareness on their part. That is, these learners seem
to acknowledge the potential inappropriateness of directness in their requests and try to soften its illocutionary force by
using an explicit means of politeness. The use of the marker pαραkαlv (please) will be discussed further in the following
sections.
As mentioned above, one interesting finding with regard to Ls1 performance was the seeming preference of these
learners for NCI requests. Examples (2a--c) are indicative of the way NCI requests were used in these learners’ data:
(2) Ls1 use of NCI requests

(a) H koyςínα εínαi polύ xάliα!
‘The kitchen is in a very big mess!’
(b) Dεn μpoρv nα plhρv nω. Dεn έxω lεwtά kαθóloy.
‘I can’t pay. I don’t have any money.’
(c) Dεn jέρω ti kάnω με αytή ερgασíα. Eínαi polύ dύσkolh, dεn έxω v ρα.
‘I don’t know what to do with this assignment. It is very difficult, I do not have time’
In none of the examples above is a request actually stated. Rather, what these learners appear to do is hinting to their
wishes with regard to the different situations. The role of hints in these learners’ data and their potential implications for
their pragmatic competence will be discussed in section 6.
Whereas, as noted above, the learners in this study appeared to prefer indirect strategies as proficiency increased,
the behavior of Ls2 in the kitchen situation shapes a noteworthy exception in this respect. As shown in Table 1, these
learners were found to still favor direct strategies in this situation (n = 30) and differed considerably from the NSs
(n = 15) and the advanced learners (n = 18) in this respect. However, contrary to Ls1, intermediate learners’ preferred
direct strategy appeared to be the mood derivable, i.e. the imperative (see example 3b). No such preference on their
part was noted in the money and extension situations. In these situations they appeared to conform closely to native
speakers’ norms and opt for CI strategies, and so did their Ls3 counterparts. These differences are displayed in
examples (3--5):
7
pαραkαlv (‘please’) in Greek functions as a full verb and, therefore, can be modified by adverbials.
(3) [kitchen situation]

(a) NS: Dεn kαθαρíςεiς lígo thn koyςínα, bρε8 Giv ρgo; [. . .]
‘[Why] don’t you clean up the kitchen (vre) Giorgo?
(b) Ls2: Mαρíα, kαθάρiσε thn koyςínα pαραkαlv [. . .]
‘Maria, clean up the kitchen please’
(c) Ls3: Mpoρεíς nα kαθαρíσεiς thn koyςínα; [. . .]
‘Can you clean up the kitchen?’
(4) [money situation]

(a) NS: Vx,9 jέxασα nα pάρω lεwtά μαςí μoy! Plhρv nεiς εσύ kαi nα σtα dv σω μεtά;
‘Och, I forgot to take money with me. [Can you] pay[present indicative] and I will give you
[the money] later’
(b) Ls2: Noμíςω jέxασα to poρtowóli μoy σto σpíti. Mpoρεíς nα plhρv σεiς kαi giα μέnα Li;
‘I think I have left my wallet at home. Can you pay for me Lee?’
(c) Ls3: Tv ρα kαtάlαbα óti dεn pήρα μαςí μoy kαθóloy lεwtά. Mpoρεíς nα plhρv σεiς giα toyς dύo;
‘I have just realized that I did not take any money with me. Can you pay for both of us?’
(5) [extension situation]

(a) NS: [. . .] Dεn noμíςω óti θα μpoρέσω nα tεlεiv σω thn ερgασíα εgkαíρως. Mpoρv nα pάρω μiα μikρή
pαράtασh; [. . .]
‘I don’t think I will be able to finish the assignment on time. Can I get a small extension?’
(b) Ls2: Kύρiε, μpoρεítε nα μoy dv σεtε pαράtασh giα thn ερgασíα μoy; [. . .]
‘Sir, can you give me an extension for my assignment?’
(c) Ls3: [. . .] Mήpως θα μpoρoύσαtε nα μoy dv σεtε μερikές μέρες pαράtασh [. . .]
‘Could you perhaps give me a few days’ extension?’
Although no other striking differences were observed among the NSs and the learner groups in the three situations in
regard to levels of (in)directness some differences concerning the use of individual substrategies are worth mentioning
here. The most noteworthy concerns the considerable frequencies of use of the query preparatory with present indicative
as well as the suggestory formula by the NSs in the kitchen situation and, in the case of the query preparatory with present
indicative, also in the money situation. Example (6a--c) is indicative of the use of these strategies by native speakers:
(6) NSs
(a) Bρε10 Kvσtα, kαθαρíςεiς lígo thn koyςínα; [. . .]
(vre) Kosta, [can you] clean up[present indicative] the kitchen a bit?’
(b) Mήpως nα kαθάρiςες lígo thn koyςínα, giαtí gínεtαi xαμóς; [. . .]
‘[Could you] perhaps clean up[subjunctive] the kitchen a bit? It's in a mess’
(c) Vραíα! To poρtowóli μoy έμεinε σpíti! Plhρv nεiς εσύ kαi giα toyς dyo μας, αn μpoρεíς;
‘Great! My wallet is back at home! Pay[present indicative] for both of us, if you can’
However, these particular substrategies are almost completely absent from the data of all three learner groups. This
finding reflects the possibility that their acquisition and appropriate sociopragmatic use is particularly delayed.
Finally, an interesting finding concerns the use of the Permission strategy by the groups under examination. As shown
in Table 1, this strategy is used quite frequently by the NSs in the extension situation (41.8%, n = 23). However, it is
completely absent from the lower intermediate learners’ data (0%) and highly infrequent in the intermediate learners’ data
(8%, n = 4). Yet, its increased frequency in the advanced learners’ requests in the extension situation (34%, n = 17) could
be considered a sign of development. That is, advanced learners seem to have acquired its form and sociopragmatic
function at this proficiency level and use it in an almost native-like fashion in this formal situation. Example (7a--b) is typical
of the use of this strategy by native speakers:
8
bρε is an untranslated item expressing solidarity.
9
Exclamation expressing frustration in this case.
10
See footnote 2.
476 459
500
393
450
400
350
300
250 186
200
150
100
50
0
NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3
Fig. 2. Overall distribution external modifiers by group for all participants in each group over all three situations.
(7) NSs
(a) [. . .] Eíμαi ypερbolikά woρtωμέnoς αytó to εjάμhno kαi wobάμαi óti dεn θα μpoρέσω nα εíμαi
σynεpής με thn pρoθεσμíα giα thn ερgασíα. Mήpως θα μpoρoύσα nα pάρω μiα μikρή pαράtασh, αn
dεn σας dhμioyρgv μεgάlo pρóblhμα;
‘I have too much to do in this term and I am afraid I will not be able to keep the deadline for the assignment.
Could I perhaps be allowed a small extension, if it is not a big problem for you?’
(b) Kύρiε kαθhghtά, ήθεlα nα σας ρωtήσω, αn θα ήtαn dynαtón nα pάρω pαράtασh lígωn hμερv n giα thn
ερgασíα μoy [. . .]
‘Professor, I would like to ask you, if it would be possible for me to take a few days extension for my
assignment’
As shown in the examples, one main characteristic of the permission strategy in this situation is the speaker-oriented
request perspective. Although request perspective lies outside the scope of the present study, the emergence of a
speaker-oriented perspective in the permission strategy by NSs is noteworthy, since it might have repercussions for the
underuse of this strategy by lower level learners. These possible repercussions will be discussed in the following section.
5.1.2. External modification

This subsection presents the findings in relation to research question 2, i.e. the means that learners employ to
externally modify their requests across proficiency levels.
Fig. 2 displays the overall results for external modifiers for each group in all three situations, and Table 3 shows the
overall distribution of external modifiers in each situation for native speakers and for each proficiency level of learners.
As shown in Fig. 2, Ls2 participants used the highest number of external modifiers overall (M = 9.6, sd = 1.75) followed
by Ls3 (M = 9.02, sd = 1.51) and NSs (M = 7.88, sd = 2.71). Ls1 exhibited the lowest frequency of external modifier use
(M = 3.74, sd = 2.57). This difference between Ls1 and the rest of the groups proved to be statistically significant (F(3,
196) = 72.17, p < 0.05). Another statistically significant difference in the frequency of use of external modification was
attested between Ls2 and Ls3, on the one hand, and NSs, on the other, with the former using considerably more modifiers
than the latter.
As indicated in Table 3, the variety of modifiers used by the learners increased with proficiency. However, all groups
preferred grounders and preparators to externally modify their requests in all situations. Yet, in contrast to NSs and the more
advanced learner groups, Ls1 showed a marked preference for apologies, especially in Situations 2 (41.4%, n = 29) and 3
(52.5%, n = 42). Besides differences in the overall use of external modifiers, some interesting differences aroused among the
groups in regard to both frequency and type of modifiers employed, especially in situations 2 (money) and 3 (extension).
In the money situation (situation 2), both Ls2 and Ls3 were found to provide considerably more external modification
than Ls1 but also than NSs. Examples (8--11) are indicative of the quantitative and qualitative differences in the use of
external modifiers among the four groups in this situation.
1932
Table 3
Distribution of external modifiers by situation over three situations by NSs and three proficiency levels of learners.
External modifiers Situation 1-kitchen Situation 2-money Situation 3-extension
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Preparator 17 23.6 8 22.2 7 17.1 15 26 28 20.3 6 8.6 33 17.4 30 16.1 22 12 3 3.7 28 11.5 38 17.8
Grounder 32 44.4 18 50 20 48.8 29 50 50 36.2 25 35.7 72 37.9 69 36.9 88 48.1 34 42.5 102 41.6 81 37.8
Disarmer 11 15.3 1 2.8 6 14.6 2 3.4 1 0.7 0 0 10 5.3 13 7 19 10.4 0 0 25 10.2 29 13.6
Imposition minimizer 2 2.8 0 0 0 0 4 6.9 21 15.2 3 4.3 23 12.1 24 12.8 16 8.7 0 0 27 11 25 11.7
Promise of reward 10 13.9 4 11.1 8 19.5 5 8.6 13 9.4 7 10 17 8.9 18 9.6 0 0 0 0 9 3.7 4 1.9
Apology 0 0 5 13.9 0 0 2 3.4 11 8 29 41.4 24 12.6 15 8 17 9.3 42 52.5 39 15.9 17 7.9
Considerator 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.7 14 10.2 0 0 11 5.8 18 9.6 21 11.5 1 1.3 15 6.1 20 9.3
Total modifiers 72 100 36 100 41 100 58 100 138 100 70 100 190 100 187 100 183 100 80 100 245 100 214 100
(8) NSs
Vx,11 nα σoy pω[preparator]. Noμíςω óti pαράthσα to poρtowóli μoy σto σpíti[grounder] kαi dεn έxω lεwtά εpάnω
μoy[grounder]. Plhρv nεiς εσύ kαi nα tα bρoύμε μεtά;[imposition minimizer]
‘Och, I need to tell you something[preparator]. I think I left my wallet at home[grounder] and I have no money at all with
me[grounder]. [Can you] pay[present indicative] we will sort it out later[imposition minimizer]’
(9) Ls1
Stoyan, jέxασα to poρtowóli μoy[grounder]. Syggnv μh[apology]. Pρέpεi nα plhρvσεiς pαραkαlv . Syggnv μh
polύ12 gi’ αytó[apology].
‘Stoyan, I forgot my wallet[grounder]. I am sorry[apology]. You must pay please. I am very sorry about that[apology].’
(10) Ls2
Mαρíα θέlω kάti nα ςhtήσω[preparator]. ginε kάti άσxhμo[preparator]. Jέxασα σto σpíti to poρtowóli
μoy[grounder], dεn jέρω pvς, kαi dεn έxω άllα lεwtά μαςí μoy[grounder]. Soy ςhtάω σyggnv μh[apology], μpoρεíς nα
plhρvσεiς εσύ giα to wαghtó μoy; Dεn έxω kαi thn kάρtα μoy[grounder]. Qα σoy dvσω tα lεwtά αύρio
opωσdήpotε[imposition minimizer].
‘Maria, I want to ask you for something[preparator]. Something bad happened[preparator]. I left my wallet at
home[grounder], I don’t know how I did this, and I don’t have any money with me[grounder]. I apologize[apology]. Can
you pay for my lunch? I don’t even have my credit card[grounder]. I will definitely give you the money
tomorrow[imposition minimizer].’
(11) Ls3
Pω, pω ti έpαθα! [preparator] Dεn έxω μαςí μoy to poρtowóli[grounder]. Jέxασα μήpως nα to bάlω σthn tσάntα
μoy kαi dεn pήρα μαςí μoy lεwtά[grounder]. Tv ρα έxεi klεíσεi kαi h tράpεςα noμíςω[grounder]. Moy kάnεiς μiα
xάρh; [preparator] Mpoρεíς nα plhρv σεiς εσύ, αn έxεiς xρήμαtα, kαi θα σε plhρv σω αύρio[imposition minimizer].
Xíliα σyggnv μh![apology]
‘Po, po[exclamation], I am in trouble! [preparator] I don’t have my wallet[grounder]. I probably forgot to put it in my bag and I
didn’t take any money with me[grounder]. And I think the bank is closed now[grounder] (Can you) do me[present indicative]
a favor?[preparator] Can you pay, if you have the money, and I will pay you back tomorrow[imposition minimizer]
As shown in (8), after one preparator (Vx, nα σoy pω ‘och, I need to tell you something) and a couple of grounders
(Noμíςω óti pαράthσα to poρtowóli μoy σto σpíti kαi dεn έxω lεwtά εpάnω μoy ‘I think I left my wallet at home and I have
no money at all with me’) the native speaker proceeds to state his request, which is followed by an imposition minimizer (nα tα
bρoύμε μεtά ‘we will sort it out later’). Example (9), in contrast, is typical of the lower intermediate levels in this situation that
appeared to use fewer modifiers and to rely heavily on grounders and apologies. As shown in the example, the head act (an
obligation statement mitigated by the politeness marker) is preceded by a grounder (jέxασα to poρtowóli μoy) and an
apology (Syggnv μh ‘I am sorry’) and followed by another apology (Syggnv μh polύ gi’ αytó ‘I am very sorry about that’).
A different picture emerged in the case of the intermediate and advanced learners, as indicated in examples (10) and
(11) respectively. Their contributions appeared to be particularly lengthy, when compared to those of the NSs and Ls1,
and are comprised of many co-existing external modification devices (preparators, grounders, imposition minimizers and
apologies). Therefore, although these learners qualitatively conform more closely to the native speaker norm than Ls1 do,
they also diverge significantly in terms of the number of external modifiers that they feel is necessary in this situation.
With respect to Situation 3 (extension), Ls1 appeared to rely once more on grounders and apologies, as indicated in
example (13). Ls2 were found to use more external modifiers in this than any other situation, and considerably more, not
only than Ls1, but also than NSs and Ls3. Example (14), is typical of their performance in this situation. As shown in the
example, the learner uses 10 different modification devices that both precede and follow the head act (Qα μpoρoύσαtε
σας pαραkαlv nα μoy dvσεtε pαράtασh lígες μέρες; ‘Could you please give me a few days extension?’). These devices
are mainly comprised of grounders, preparators and apologies. Therefore, their preference for type of modifiers were
similar to those of both NSs and advanced learners (Ls3), although the latter groups also exhibited slightly higher
11
See footnote 3.
12
The utterance σyggnv μh polύ is grammatically and pragmatically incorrect in Greek. Whereas it is translated as ‘I am very sorry’, which is
perfectly acceptable in English, σyggnv μh is in fact a noun meaning ‘apology’ and, therefore, it cannot be qualified by the adverb polύ (much, a
lot). However, it is a very common mistake made by learners of Greek who tend to treat σyggnv μh like εyxαρiσtv ‘thank you’, which being a verb
can very well collocate with the adverb polύ.
frequencies in the use of the considerator and slightly lower in the use of apologies in this situation (see examples 12 and
15 respectively). However, the excessive use of external modifiers by Ls2 participants marked their contributions as
particularly verbose in this situation.
(12) NSs
Kαlhμέρα σας kύρiε kαθhghtά, μpoρv nα σας αpασxolήσω giα lígo[preparator]; Pρókεitαi giα thn ερgασíα
αytoύ toy εjαμήnoy[preparator]. Jέρω óti εínαi σhμαntikές oi pρoθεσμíες[considerator], αllά dyσtyxv ς εíxα
kάpoiα oikogεnεiαkά pρoblήμαtα[grounder] kαi dεn noμíςω óti θα pρolάbω nα thn tεlεiv σω εgkαíρως[grounder].
Mήpως θα μpoρoύσα nα έxω μiα μikρή pαράtασh, έσtω giα μiα εbdoμάdα;
‘Good morning professor, can I take some of your time?[preparator] It's about this term's assignment[preparator]. I
know deadlines are important[considerator], but unfortunately I had some family problems[grounder] and I don’t think I
will manage to finish it on time[grounder]. Could I perhaps have a small extension, even for a week?’
(13) Ls1
Gεiα σας, σyggnv μh pάρα polύ[apology]. Tv ρα kαtάlαbα dεn έxω kαθóloy xρóno giα thn ερgασíα[grounder]. xω
μεgάlo pρóblhμα[grounder] kαi θέlω pαράtασh pαραkαlv .
‘Hello, I am very very sorry[apology]. I just realized that I don’t have any time at all for the assignment[grounder]. I have
a big problem[grounder] and I want an extension please’
(14) Ls2
Kαlhμέρα σας kαθhgήtρiά μoy kαi σyggnv μh poy εnoxlv [apology]. Mpoρv nα ρωtήσω kάti[preparator]; Qέlω nα
kάnεtε giα μέnα μiα xάρh[preparator]. Dεn έxω αρkεtó xρóno giα thn ερgασíα[grounder]. Doylεύω polύ[grounder] kαi
ήμoyn άρρωσth giα pollές μέρες[grounder]. Noμíςω dε θα pρolαbαínω nα tεlεiv σω gρήgoρα[grounder]. Qα
μpoρoύσαtε σας pαραkαlv nα μoy dv
σεtε pαράtασh lígες μέρες; Syggnv μh poy ςhtάω[apology], αllά αlήθεiα
dεn εíxα kαθóloy xρóno[grounder]. Qα pρoσpαθήσω polύ nα tεlεiv σω ótαn μoy pεítε[promise of reward].
‘Good morning my professor. I am sorry to bother you.[apology] Can I ask you something?[preparator] I want you to do
me a favor.[preparator] I don’t have enough time for the assignment[grounder]. I work a lot[grounder] and I was ill for a
long time[grounder]. I think I don’t have time to finish it quickly[grounder]. Could you please give me a few days
extension? I apologize for asking[apology], but I really didn’t have any time[grounder]. I will try hard to finish whenever
you tell me[promise of reward].’
(15) Ls3
Kyρíα kαθhgήtρiα θα ήθεlα nα σας μilήσω giα thn ερgασíα μoy[preparator]. Eíxα pollές ερgασíες σε αytó to
εjάμhno[grounder] kαi εpεidή εíμαi jέnoς εínαi dύσkolo[grounder]. Dεn θέlω nα σας bάlω σε dύσkolh
θέσh[considerator], αllά θα ήtαn dynαtó nα μoy dv σεtε lígo xρóno pαραpάnω;
‘(Mrs) Professor I would like to talk to you about my assignment. I had too many assignments this semester and
because I am a foreigner it is difficult. I don’t want to cause you any embarrassment, but would it be possible for you
to give me some more time?’
5.1.3. Internal modification

Research question 3 concerned the strategies by means of which learners modify their requests internally as proficiency
increases. Both syntactic and lexical/phrasal internal modifiers were examined and the findings are presented below:
5.1.3.1. Syntactic modification. Fig. 3 displays the overall results for syntactic modifiers for each group in all three
situations, and Table 4 shows the overall distribution of syntactic modifiers in each situation for native speakers and for
each proficiency level of learners.
As shown in Fig. 3, Ls1 displayed the lowest frequencies in the use of syntactic modifiers (M = 1.66, sd = 1.22). This
difference between Ls1 and the rest of the groups proved to be statistically significant (F(3, 196) = 39.43). No significant
differences were attested in terms of the frequency of use of syntactic modifiers among the rest of the groups. NSs
(M = 3.70, sd = 1.12) produced similar frequencies of syntactic modifiers with both Ls2 (M = 3.66, sd = 0.98) and Ls3
(M = 3.72, sd = 1.14).
In terms of situational variation, all learner groups displayed increasing frequencies of syntactic modifier use over the
three situations. That is they all used the highest number of modifiers in the extension situation and the lowest in the
kitchen situation. Conditional clauses emerged for the first time in the Ls2 participants’ performance in all situations and
continued to comprise a most preferred means of syntactic modification in the advanced learners’ data. However, as
184 183 186
200
180
160
140
120 83
100
80
60
40
20
0
NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3
Fig. 3. Overall distribution of syntactic modifiers by group for all participants in each group over all three situations.
[(Fig._4)TD$IG]
272
300
250
185
200 162
118
150
100
50
0
NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3
Fig. 4. Overall distribution of lexical modifiers by group for all participants in each group over all three situations.
indicated in Table 4, neither negation nor the present indicative, which were employed frequently by the native speakers in
the two familiarity situations, made an appearance in the learners’ data irrespective of proficiency level.
5.1.3.2. Lexical/phrasal modification. Fig. 4 displays the overall results for lexical modifiers for each group in all three
situations, and Table 5 shows the overall distribution of lexical modifiers in each situation for native speakers and for each
proficiency level of learners.
As shown in Fig. 4 NSs employed the largest number of lexical/phrasal modifiers overall (M = 5.44, sd = 1.03). This
difference between NSs and all three learner groups was statistically significant (F(3, 196) = 48.38). Also statistically
significant in terms of frequency of use of lexical modifiers turned out to be the difference between Ls1, on the one hand,
and two more advanced groups, on the other, with Ls1 using considerably less modification devices than the other two
learner groups (Ls1: M = 2.36, sd = 1.79, Ls2: M = 3.24, sd = 1.09, Ls3: M = 3.68, sd = 1.2). No statistically significant
difference was attested between Ls2 and Ls3 in this respect.
As exhibited in Table 5, Ls1 learners relied almost exclusively on the politeness marker in order to mitigate their
requests in all three situations. A similar observation can be made in regard to the use of the marker in the
performance of Ls2. Although these learners used more and more diverse lexical devices in order to mitigate their
requests, they were still found to rely heavily on the politeness marker in this respect. On the contrary, NSs were
attested to disprefer the politeness marker especially in the two familiarity situations. In both the kitchen and the
money situations, NSs were found to invest mainly in solidarity markers, understaters and downtoners. These latter
strategies, however, especially solidarity markers, appeared to be comparatively underused by the learner groups.
Finally, Ls3 exhibited limited use of the politeness marker approximating NSs more closely in this respect. Yet, they
fell short of NSs in regard to both the amount and variety of modifiers they employed. Examples (16a--d) from the
money situation and (17a--d) from the extension situation are indicative of the four groups’ behavior regarding lexical
modifiers:
1936
Table 4
Distribution of syntactic modifiers by situation over three situations by NSs and three proficiency levels of learners.
Syntactic modifiers Situation 1-kitchen Situation 2-money Situation 3-extension
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Negation 14 28.6 0 0 1 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subjunctive 8 16.3 7 35 12 27.3 8 18.6 10 14.1 5 19.2 9 15 11 19.6 10 15.6 3 8.1 9 11.4 8 10.2
Conditional clause 15 30.6 2 10 16 36.3 14 32.6 22 31 3 11.6 28 46.7 20 35.7 21 32.8 3 8.1 30 38 29 37.2
Past tense 4 8.2 11 55 15 34.1 20 46.5 24 33.8 18 69.2 21 35 23 41.1 30 46.9 31 83.8 38 48.1 40 51.3
Present indicative 8 16.3 0 0 0 0 1 2.3 15 21.1 0 0 2 3.3 1 1.8 3 4.7 0 0 2 2.5 1 1.3
Total modifiers 49 100 20 100 44 100 43 100 71 100 26 100 60 100 56 100 64 100 37 100 79 100 78 100
Table 5
Distribution of lexical modifiers by situation over three situations by NSs and three proficiency levels of learners.
Lexical modifiers Situation 1-kitchen Situation 2-money Situation 3-extension
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Understater 21 29.2 3 9.4 5 12.2 12 26.1 15 15.2 1 2.6 2 3.6 6 8.8 17 16.8 7 14.3 11 16.9 15 21.1
Subjectivizer 4 5.6 0 0 2 4.9 2 4.4 11 11.1 0 0 9 16 13 19.1 29 28.7 3 6.1 7 10.8 13 18.3
Downtoner 13 18 5 15.6 8 19.5 10 21.7 24 24.2 6 15.8 14 25 18 26.5 27 26.7 2 4.1 12 18.5 20 28.2
Cajoler 5 6.9 1 3.1 3 7.3 5 10.9 9 9.1 3 7.9 2 3.6 5 7.4 16 15.9 2 4.1 5 7.7 8 11.3
Politeness marker 2 2.8 19 59.4 16 39 7 15.2 8 8.1 23 60.5 24 42.9 10 14.7 12 11.9 35 71.4 29 44.6 15 21.1
Solidarity marker 27 37.5 4 12.5 7 17.1 10 21.7 32 32.3 5 13.2 5 8.9 16 23.5 0 0 0 0 1 1.5 0 0
Total modifiers 72 100 32 100 41 100 46 100 99 100 38 100 56 100 68 100 101 100 49 100 65 100 71 100
1937
(16) [money situation]

(a) NSs: [. . .] μήpως nα plήρωnες εσύ bρε Giωρgάkh μoy, giαtí noμíςω óti thn pάthσα kαi dεn pήρα
lεwtά μαςí μoy [. . .]
‘[Could you] perhaps pay[subjunctive] vre13 (my) Giorgaki[diminutive], because I think I screwed up and I didn’t
take any money with me’
(b) Ls1: Pρέpεi nα plhρv σεiς, σε pαραkαlv . Jέxασα to poρtowóli μoy σto σpíti.
‘You must pay please. I forgot my wallet at home’
(c) Ls2: Anton, μήpως θα μpoρoύσες nα plhρv σεiς εσύ pαραkαlv polύ; [. . .]
‘Anton, could you perhaps pay please [very much]14?’
(d) Ls3: Jέρεiς dεn pήρα μαςí μoy to poρtowóli μoy kαi, σoy ςhtάω σyggnv μh, αllά μάllon pρέpεi nα
plhρvσεiς kαi giα μέnα [. . .]
‘You know, I didn’t take my wallet and, I apologize, but you must probably pay for me too’
(17) [extension situation]

(a) NSs: [. . .] wobάμαi óti dεn θα pρolάbω nα tεlεiv σω thn ερgασíα μoy, αn dεn μoy dv σεtε μiα μikρή
pαράtασh kαi ήθεlα nα σας ρωtήσω μήpως θα ήtαn εύkolo nα έxω μíα εbdoμάdα pαραpάnω; [. . .]
‘[. . .] I am afraid I will not have time to finish my assignment if you don’t give me a small extension and I
would like to ask you if I could perhaps have one more week’
(b) Ls1: Qέlω nα pω óti dεn έxω αρkεtó xρóno giα thn ερgασiα μoy. Pαραkαlv , θα ήθεlα pαράtασh αpó
εσάς.
‘I want to say that I don’t have enough time for my assignment. Please, I would like an extension from you’
(c) Ls2: [. . .] Sας pαραkαlv μήpως θα μpoρoύσαtε nα μoy dv σεtε pαράtασh giα lígες μέρες μóno; [. . .]
‘Could you please give me an extension, just for a few days?’
(d) Ls3: [. . .] Noμíςω óti dεn θα pρolάbω nα tεlεiv σω kαi θα ήθεlα, αn dεn έxεtε pρóblhμα, nα pάρω μiα
μikρή pαράtασh.
‘I think I will not manage to finish and I would like to take an extension, if this is not a problem for you’
With respect to situational variation, all groups under examination were found to use lexical modification increasingly
over the situations, i.e. they employed the lowest frequencies of lexical modifiers in the kitchen situation and the highest in
the extension situation. This reflects sociopragmatic awareness on the part of the learners, which will be discussed in
section 6. The next section presents the main results of the analysis of the learners’ verbal report data.
5.2. Verbal report results
The verbal report data elicited by means of the procedure described in 4.2 are presented here for each learner group
according to the answers that the respondents provided to the interview questions.
Lower intermediate learners (Ls1) reported that they felt that all three tasks were difficult for them to tackle. They,
specifically, pointed out that the grammar and vocabulary they possessed was inadequate for them to provide ‘proper’
answers. They also admitted that in certain cases they had to borrow words from the original situation descriptions. Ls1#9
report below is indicative15:
It was difficult. . .I don’t know, there were many things that I would say in my language but I could not translate in
Greek. Many times I used the same words as in the text that was given to me. I didn’t know how to do it.
Furthermore, all learners of this group reported that they ‘knew’ they had to be more polite in Situations 2 (money) and 3
(extension). They justified this by alluding, in their majority, to the weight of the imposition in the case of Situation 2 and to
the hierarchical relationship of the participants in the case of Situation 3. For instance, Ls1#3 reported that:
. . .well, here. . .here I am asking for money. Well, it is not easy to ask for money. . .it makes you feel embarrassed
and maybe you make the other person feel bad as well. There may be problems with this. You have to be careful,
polite. [. . .] And here it is your professor you speak to. I mean, you have to be very polite to a professor, especially if
you ask for something.
13
See footnote 3.
14
See footnote 2.
15
Due to space limitations, I provide only the English translations of the participants’ answers, which were originally stated in Greek.
Moreover, while most of this group's respondents reported that they were quite satisfied with their answers in the
kitchen situation, no similar feelings were expressed in relation to their answers in Situations 2 and 3. Ls1#5 report is very
revealing in this respect:
(In relation to her answer in Situation 2): You see, I don’t like it. . .I think I say to little. . .I have to explain more. . .but I
don’t know. . .the words didn’t come. . .
(In relation to her answer in Situation 3): I was polite here, I knew, I had to be very polite because of the
professor. . .but I don’t think I did it right. . .I kept saying ‘please’. . .I used ‘please’ in the other exercises too. . .so how
is that different?
Finally, more than half of these learners mentioned that they felt that their responses, especially in Situations 2 and 3
sounded rather ‘abrupt’. However, they pointed out that they were not sure about how they could improve their answers.
Intermediate learners (Ls2), on the other hand, reported that they faced the greatest difficulties with Situation 2. Ls2#11
statement is indicative:
I was not sure how to do this properly in Greek. It is very difficult to ask someone to pay for you. But then. . .it is a
friend, not a stranger. How polite should I have been? I can’t be sure.
At the same time, these learners reported that Situation 3 (extension) was the easiest for them to handle. They stated
that they have learnt ‘this kind of talk’ in class and they know how to speak to a superior in Greek. They also expressed
satisfaction with their answers in Situation 1. Ls2#1 characteristically reported that:
I am not worried I did it wrong. It was easy. I did not have to be very polite. . .it was a friend I was talking to and the
kitchen being dirty was his fault after all. So I said Clean up the kitchen!’. Isn’t that the way Greeks speak to people
they know well?
Along lines similar to Ls2, advanced learners (Ls3) agreed that the money situation was the one most difficult for them
to tackle. They expressed explicit concerns about the balance between politeness and friendliness in the Greek culture.
Ls3#6 characteristically mentioned that:
This is always a problem for me. When I meet with Greek friends back home (Russia), they sometimes say that I
speak to them ‘as if they are strangers’. I am never sure what to do and this was more difficult because I had to ask for
money.
Moreover, although these respondents found that, in general, their answers to Situations 1 and 3 were ‘good’, though
not completely satisfactory, four of them pointed out that they assumed that Greeks would state these requests
‘differently’. Ls3#9, for instance, mentioned that:
I think my answers are OK. I am not sure about this one (pointing to her answer in Situation 2), but those other ones
are probably OK. I can’t say I am very satisfied, I know I don’t really sound Greek, they have all these different
ways. . .I understand them but I do not always know how to use them.
To sum up, several general conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of the participants’ verbal reports:
1. The learners, irrespective of proficiency level noticed and paid attention to the contextual parameters of the situation
(power, social distance etc.) and to matters of politeness.
2. Lower intermediate learners faced the most difficulties in handling the DCT situations. Besides appropriateness and
politeness, they were found to be concerned about issues of vocabulary and grammar.
3. All learner groups had important difficulties in handling Situation 2 (money).
4. All learner groups showed sociopragmatic awareness, but concerns about mapping sociopragmatic meaning to form
seemed to increase with increasing proficiency.
Besides the actual DCT findings, all the above will be taken into consideration in the discussion to follow.
6. Discussion
This section discusses the findings according to the three main research questions posited in the beginning of the
study which concern the use and development of head acts, external modification and internal modification in the learner's
interlanguage. Subsection 6.2 discusses the findings in the light of developmental stages already observed in the relevant
literature. The discussion involves group-level analyses of the developmental patterns observed and takes into
consideration the learners reports.
6.1. Use and development of pragmalinguistic means
6.1.1. Request head acts

This study investigated the development of requests among adult learners of Greek as a foreign language across three
proficiency levels (lower intermediate, intermediate and advanced) in one formal (+P, +D) and two informal ( P, D)
situations.
With respect to choice and development of request head acts (research question1) it was found that lower intermediate
learners exhibited a marked preference for direct requests in all three situations. This provides support for Félix-
Brasdefer's (2007:274) claim that learners ‘‘have only a limited competence in situational variation in the initial stages of
FL development’’. However, the tendency towards directness appeared to decline as proficiency increased with the two
more advanced learner groups displaying increasing frequencies of CI requests and approximating closely to the native
speakers’ behavior in this respect. This finding is consistent with previous research (Félix-Brasdefer, 2007; Hassall, 2003;
Hill, 1997; Rose, 2000) according to which the frequency of use of CI strategies increases with proficiency, while the
preference for direct strategies appears to be typical of the lower proficiency groups’ performance. It is possible then that,
after the more advanced stages of development, learners manage to acquire the linguistic means that allow them to be
conventionally indirect and eliminate the ‘abruptness’ of their requests that, according to their verbal reports, bothered
them in the previous stages.
Another finding, which seems to be in line with some previous studies (Hassall, 2003; Trosborg, 1995), concerns the
comparatively frequent use of NCI strategies by Ls1. It was shown here that this tendency also declined with proficiency,
with Ls2 and Ls3 hardly ever using such strategies to form their requests. Therefore, the results of this study reinforce
Trosborg's conviction that these early NCI requests are not chosen strategically to serve indirectness, but they probably
have a compensatory function, in the sense that they are employed in order to balance early learners’ lack of proper
pragmalinguistic means16 (cf. Hassall, 2003:1921; Trosborg, 1995:228--233). This is also confirmed by this study's lower
level learners’ reports, according to which due to lack of adequate linguistic means they had to resort in repeating part of
the situation description.
Despite the decrease observed here in the frequency of use of direct strategies by Ls2 and Ls3, a marked preference
for the mood derivable (imperative) was attested in the intermediate learners’ performance in the kitchen situation. That is,
even though these learners were found to opt out of the overwhelming use of want statements attested in the lower
intermediate learners’ data, they still expressed their requests directly in the kitchen situation, choosing, however, a
different substrategy, i.e. the imperative.
A feasible explanation for the emergence and frequent use of the imperative in the intermediate learners’ performance
could lie in the morphological complexity of the imperative in Greek, which renders its use difficult for learners of lower
proficiency levels. Specifically, the imperative is inflected for both person and number and exhibits progressive and non-
progressive aspectual forms. Therefore, syllabi and teaching textbooks are liable to identify it with the intermediate level
and, even when this is not the case, teachers tend to avoid it until they are certain that learners are grammatically
equipped enough to ‘‘absorb’’ it. It is possible then, that for these learners the imperative is a newly acquired form whose
use is encouraged by the informal and standard nature of the kitchen situation. Nevertheless, the fact that it is avoided by
these same learners in the rest of the situations reveals sociopragmatic awareness on their part.
Finally, although both NSs and the two more advanced learner groups were found to opt for CI strategies overall, some
differences between NSs and these learners were attested in regard to the choice of CI substrategies. Specifically, as
already mentioned, NSs frequently chose to express their requests by means of the query preparatory with present
indicative as well as negative-interrogative suggestory formulas. This comes hardly as a surprise, since both strategies
are considered typical of Greek native speakers’ requests in familiarity situations (see e.g. Bella, forthcoming; Sifianou,
1992; Kallia, 2005). Specifically, according to Sifianou (1992:140), the present indicative in Greek ‘‘is one of the
conventionalized, most frequent means of request’’. This is probably due to the fact that, as opposed to the past or future
tense and the subjunctive, which distance the speaker from the act, the present indicative expresses closeness and
involvement. Therefore, its use conforms to the solidarity politeness usually displayed by Greeks in interactions between
familiar or equal status interlocutors (see Sifianou, 1992:137--140).
With regard to phrasing requests as suggestions, on the other hand, both Trosborg (1995) and Kallia (2005) contend
that this kind of phrasing renders requests less threatening, since ‘‘by presenting a request by means of a suggestory
formula the speaker makes his/her request more tentative and plays down his/her own interest as a beneficiary of the
action’’ (Trosborg, 1995:201). Therefore, it could be claimed that the main function of this strategy is the expression of
solidarity on the part of the NSs (cf. Bella, 2012a).
16
Hassall (2003) uses the term pseudo-hints to refer to these strategies.
Nevertheless, these particular strategies were hardly ever attested in the intermediate (Ls2) and advanced (Ls3)
learners’ data.17 This, as already mentioned, probably suggests that the pragmalinguistic forms and sociopragmatic
functions of these strategies are not acquired by learners of Greek even in the advanced levels. Two possible interrelated
explanations could be put forward with regard to this finding: the first concerns the fact that these strategies are typical of
familiarity situations and oral production. Since FL learners’ opportunities to be exposed to this kind of input are
considerably limited, it is unlikely that they will have the chance to notice them and understand their sociopragmatic
functions. Second, previous research has pointed out (see Bella, 2012a) that, although very common in Greek requests,
these particular strategies’ form and functions are not adequately highlighted in textbooks for teaching Greek as a second/
foreign language. Therefore, these learners’ opportunities to acquire them and use them appropriately are limited, in view
of the fact that textbooks are the main source of input for foreign language learners.
A final difference with respect to microstrategies concerned the disproportionate use of the permission strategy among
the four groups. It was mentioned in the results section that this strategy emerged with considerable frequency in the NSs
data in the extension situation. This can easily be interpreted if one alludes to the power difference and the high imposition
that are inherent in this particular situation, rendering it ideal for the use of the Permission strategy. The fact that this
strategy was found to be uncharacteristic of both lower intermediate and intermediate learners’ data, can be taken to
reveal intrinsic difficulties in its acquisition and proper use by earlier learners. This difficulty may be connected, among
other things, to the speaker-oriented perspective by means of which this strategy is usually expressed in Greek. Yet, this
particular request perspective appears to be the one used most infrequently among native speakers in everyday
situations (see Bella, forthcoming). Therefore, the possibility that FL learners notice this strategy and use it appropriately is
quite limited, due both to lack of adequate input and to teaching materials indifference with regard to subtle sociopragmatic
distinctions, such as request perspective. However, it appears that advanced learners find themselves more prepared to
notice and use this strategy appropriately in situations like the extension situation. This may be considered both a sign and
a consequence of development. That is, having developed a more elaborate linguistic competence, advanced learners
feel more secure in drawing on more subtle components of their universal pragmatic knowledge, like the ones
presupposed by the permission strategy.
6.1.2. External modification

With regard to external modification (research question 2), the lowest frequencies of modifiers were attested in the
lower intermediate learners’ data. These learners relied heavily on grounders in all three situations and they displayed
high frequencies of apologies in the higher imposition situations (money (41.4%), extension (52.5%)). This can be taken
as an indication of sociopragmatic awareness on their part. That is, lacking native-like means to externally modify their
requests in higher imposition situations, these learners retreated to formulaic apologies. Native speakers on the other
hand were found to disprefer this strategy, with the exception of the extension situation, where a larger number of
apologies was attested. This confirms claims according to which in Greek society members of the same in-group ‘‘find no
obvious reason for [. . .] apologizing, unless for something they conceive of as very serious’’ (Sifianou, 1992:42).
Grounders and preparators were largely the preferred means for modification for all learner groups. However, one of
the most remarkable findings with respect to external modification involves the overuse of external modifiers attested in
the performance of intermediate learners (Ls2) in situations 2 and 3. However, this finding hardly comes as a surprise.
Previous research findings assert that the overwhelming use of external modification, especially in high imposition
situations, is a rather common phenomenon in the intermediate (and often also in advanced) learners’ speech act
performance (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1986; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2008, 2009; Faerch and Kasper, 1989; Hassall,
2001). Several reasons for this over-suppliance in external modifiers have been identified in the relevant literature. The
most frequently cited reason is related to the nature of external modifiers, in the sense that these particular devices ‘‘derive
their politeness value precisely from their propositional meaning and illocutionary force (to justify, praise, minimize, etc.)’’
(Faerch and Kasper, 1989:239). Due to this fact, external modifiers appear to satisfy the learners’ concern for clarity and
propositional explicitness (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1986:177; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009:103; Hassall, 2003:1904;
Faerch and Kasper, 1989:54).
A second reason for the overwhelming use of external modifiers by learners can be found in the fact that ‘‘external
modifiers do not require knowledge of native-like use and they simply involve the construction of a new, often syntactically
simple clause. As such, external modifiers tend to be syntactically less demanding and pragmalinguistically less complex’’
(Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009:102).18 It appears then, that the use of these modifiers demands neither particularly high
linguistic competence nor too much processing effort. Furthermore, it could be claimed that the learners of this study have
17
See Flores Salgado (2011) for similar findings in regard to the use of the suggestory formula by Mexican learners of English.
18
See also Hassall (2001:274) for a similar observation.
used excessive external modification as a form of compensation for the lack of adequate internal (especially lexical/
phrasal) modification attested in their requestive behavior (cf. Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Hassall, 2001).
What is particularly interesting, however, is that the verbal reports of the lower intermediate level learners in this study,
reveals that these learners may be, in some sense, ‘predisposed’ to oversupply external modifiers as soon as they reach
the intermediate stage. Specifically, as shown in section 5.2, lower intermediate learners report that they ‘felt they had to
say more’ in order to be ‘more polite’. It could be suggested then, that as proficiency increases, learners feel compelled to
oversupply their newly acquired linguistic means in order to ‘fill a gap’ that they notice in their performance during the initial
stages of development.
6.1.3. Internal modification

In the present study internal modification was examined in regard to both syntactic and lexical/phrasal modifiers. With
respect to syntactic modification, even though all learner groups exhibited some sociopragmatic awareness using, just
like NSs, the highest number of modifiers in the extension and the lowest in the kitchen situation, it was pointed out in the
results section that Ls1 participants displayed significantly lower frequencies of syntactic modifiers than both NSs and the
more advanced learner groups. This finding is easily explained by these learners’ low grammatical competence. Since the
adequate use of syntactic modification presupposes a certain extent of grammatical knowledge, it is only natural that
these learners were found to lack such devices. Their sole most frequent means of syntactic modification was the use of
past tense in non-obligatory contexts. This finding runs contrary to Flores Salgado's (2011) results that showed that the
use of the past tense as a syntactic mitigator was rare even in the advanced learners’ data. However, it comes hardly as a
surprise for learners of Greek, since the majority of textbooks expose learners to such uses of the past tense quite early
teaching them as polite formulas (e.g. θα ήθεlα ‘I would like’, θα μpoρoύσες ‘could you’, etc.). Therefore, these learners
retreat to formulaic uses of this device19 and overuse it, since they probably (and rightly) consider it a safe way to achieve a
politeness effect. The emergence of conditionals in the performance of intermediate and its consistent appearance in the
data of the advanced learners constitutes the most obvious sign of development in terms of syntactic modification.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that no statistically significant differences were attested among the NSs and the two more
advanced learner groups with respect to amount of syntactic modifiers, the learners’ repertoire of syntactic modification
devices turned out to be considerably more limited than that of the NSs.
The most striking differences among the groups under examination, however, involved the frequencies and types of
lexical/phrasal modifiers. Specifically, it was shown that NSs differed significantly from all learner groups in this respect,
employing considerably more lexical devices in order to mitigate their requests. This result corroborates previous
research findings according to which, language learners are lacking in the use of lexical/phrasal mitigators (Barron, 2007;
Bella, 2011; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Faerch and Kasper, 1989; Trosborg, 1995). As Trosborg (1995:429) explains,
the ‘‘optional’’ nature of these mitigators makes them more difficult to acquire. Furthermore, researchers postulate that the
internal modification of speech acts by means of lexical/phrasal mitigators presents inherent difficulties for learners, since
it is likely to increase the complexity of the pragmalinguistic structure (Trosborg, 1995:428--429), as well as the processing
effort required for its production (Hassall, 2001:271). An additional reason for the learners’ observed difficulty to use
lexical/phrasal modifiers is that, although the need for these modifiers to enter pedagogic grammars and for teachers to be
aware of their important sociopragmatic functions has long been emphasized (see Faerch and Kasper, 1989:234), syllabi
and textbooks for teaching Greek as a second/foreign language hardly pay any attention to them.
However, some development among learner groups was observed in this respect, since both Ls2 and Ls3 were found
to use significantly more lexical modifiers than Ls1, but still fell short on NSs in this respect.
Besides the general shortage in lexical/phrasal mitigators exhibited by the learners of the present study, several points
regarding the type of mitigators preferred by the four groups are worth commenting upon.
First, in both familiarity situations (kitchen and money, P, D) NSs strongly highlighted the positive politeness
orientation of Greek society using an impressive amount of solidarity markers. It seems that for these speakers the optimal
means of mitigating their requests in these symmetrical situations is to indicate common ground through extensive use of
diminutives, nicknames and endearment terms as well as solidarity particles (ρε, μωρέ, etc.). The striking statistically
significant differences between NSs and the learner groups with respect to the use of solidarity markers point to the fact
that learners have not managed to master the appropriate use of these markers. A similar observation can be made in
relation to the use of each and every other category of lexical/phrasal modifiers by the learners in this situation.
Another point that is worth highlighting involves the overuse of the politeness marker pαραkαlv (‘please’), which was
dispreferred by NSs in the familiarity situations, but was notably overused by Ls1 and Ls2 learners. In this respect, the
behavior of these learners confirms previous research findings according to which language learners tend to overuse this
politeness marker in their requests irrespective of context (Barron, 2007; Bella, 2012a; Blum-Kulka and Levenston, 1987;
19
On the issue of formula use in L2 pragmatic development, see Bardovi-Harlig (2006).
Faerch and Kasper, 1989; House and Kasper, 1987). One possible explanation for the overuse of the politeness maker
involves its extra-sentential status; that is, the learners can simply add it to the beginning or the end of an utterance with
the intention to sound polite.
A further explanation can be found in the politeness marker's double function as illocutionary force indicator and
transparent mitigator. According to Faerch and Kasper, language learners ‘‘tend to adhere to the conversational principle
of clarity, choosing explicit, transparent, unambiguous means of expression [. . .]. These qualities are explicitly fulfilled by
the politeness marker in comparison with alternative lexical/phrasal downgraders’’ (1989:233). In the case of the NSs,
however, the use of the politeness marker is markedly avoided in familiarity situations. This finding comes as no surprise,
since it is in line with previous research results that have indicated that the politeness marker pαραkαlv (‘please’) is
perceived as more of a formality than a politeness marker in the Greek culture (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2008; Sifianou,
1992).20 However, it seems that even in the extension situation, which is by nature formal, the marker was used relatively
infrequently by the NSs (11.9%). It seems that these NSs consider other types of lexical/phrasal modifiers (mainly
downtoners, understaters and subjectivizers) as more appropriate for the internal modification in this particular situation.
Although Ls3 were also found to lag far behind NSs in relation to the appropriate use of lexical/phrasal modifiers in all
situations, no oversuppliance of the politeness marker was observed in their performance. It could be argued that, in their
case, in spite of the fact that increased level of proficiency has not brought with it any dramatic effects regarding the
development of lexical/phrasal modification competence, it has aided them to notice NSs’ moderate use of the politeness
marker and conform to the target-language norm in this respect.
Nevertheless, the fact that all learner groups’ showed evidence of situational variation employing increasing numbers
of modifiers with increasing imposition reveals sociopragmatic awareness on their part irrespective of proficiency level.
6.2. Developmental stages and sociopragmatic competence
Although definite claims with respect to concrete developmental stages can by no means be made here, it appears
that, in general, the performance of the learners examined in this study ranges from the basic/formulaic to the unpacking
and up to the pragmatic expansion stage. Specifically, the performance of lower intermediate learners (Ls1) appeared to
exhibit most of the phenomena generally attributed to the basic/formulaic stage, i.e. a preference for directness (especially
want statements) and formulaic use of mitigators like apologies and the politeness marker pαραkαlv (please).21
Intermediate (Ls2) and advanced learners’ (Ls3) performance, on the other hand, was found to display the main
characteristics of the unpacking and the pragmatic expansion stages: a shift to conventional indirectness, emergence of
new pragmalinguistic forms, more complex syntax and increased use of mitigation.
Moreover, the findings of this study provide support to Kasper and Rose's (2002:174) claim that early learners tend to
rely on the pragmatic mode, when performing action in the L2, since they have not yet acquired the grammatical sources
available to more expert speakers. In this study, the lower intermediate learners’ marked effort to employ their limited
linguistic means in order to mitigate their requests by means of external (usually formulaic) and internal modification in
accordance to level of imposition lends support to this claim. This suggests that interlanguage phenomena, such as the
lower proficiency level learners’ seeming preference for directness (or non-conventional indirectness) can more safely be
attributed to the well documented early learners’ concern for clarity (cf. Koike, 1989) as well as their low grammatical
competence which forces them to confine themselves to the limited linguistic means they have at their disposal. This
conclusion is reinforced by this study's learner reports that verify that, although they are aware of the sociopragmatic
parameters involved in each situation, they do not possess the means to perform according to these parameters in a
native-like manner. In this sense, interlanguage pragmatic development seems to proceed in a way similar to
interlanguage development in general. That is, language learners make do with the means they have at their disposal
forming at the same time their own rules in regard to form-function mappings, until new linguistic elements that will allow
them to reform such mappings enter their interlanguage system.
Against this backdrop it can be claimed that the findings of this study lends support to Bialystok's (1993) two-
dimensional model of language use and proficiency, according to which, adult learners can rely on a broad basis of
20
This observation is reinforced by Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2008, 2009) finding that Greek learners of English tend to underuse the politeness
marker please, when performing requests in English. Quite rightly, I believe, Economidou-Kogetsidis attributes this phenomenon to transfer from
the learners’ native language (Greek), since the Greek pαραkαlv (‘please’) is less extensively used than its English equivalent ( please) (see
Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2008, 2009; Sifianou, 1992).
21
It has to be mentioned, however, that no definite claims can be made here in regard to the exact nature and development of these formulas. As
Bardovi-Harlig (2006:21) puts it, ‘‘since formula use is likely to be idiosyncratic in both child first language acquisition and adult second language
acquisition, cross-sectional accounts, which compare different learners at different learners of proficiency, cannot address questions of how
formulas develop’’.
universal and L1 pragmatic knowledge, when acquiring L2 pragmatics, so that their main task is to achieve control over
existing knowledge. For instance, as shown above, intermediate and, in certain cases, advanced levels appeared to face
important difficulties when tackling familiarity situations such as the kitchen and the money situation. Specifically, it was
shown that, whereas they have most of the pragmalinguistic repertoire of the L2 at their disposal, they find it difficult to map
them appropriately to specific sociopragmatic functions. The use of the imperative in the kitchen situation as well as the
overuse of external modifiers and the marker pαραkαlv (please) in the money situation on the part of intermediate
learners (Ls2) and, to some extent, advanced learners (Ls3), can be considered indicative of the problem. Indeed, it
appeared that familiarity, non-standard situations, like the money situation, can be particularly troublesome for FL
learners. This conclusion is strongly reinforced by the learners’ verbal reports. On the contrary, the extension situation,
which is by nature formal, was found to be the one in terms of which both intermediate and advanced learners
approximated more closely to native speaker norms. This can be explained by the fact that, more often than not, teaching
practices and materials equate politeness with formality and therefore devote considerably more space and time to
teaching structures appropriate for formal situations (see also Bella, 2011, 2012a). Therefore, in the case of Situation 3,
they seem to have aided learners to employ appropriate means for the expression and modification of their requests. This
is possibly why this study's intermediate and advanced learners have found it comparatively ‘easy’ to respond to this
situation and, in all probability, this is what they mean when they say that they have learnt in class the kind of language that
is appropriate for this situation (see section 5.2). Therefore, Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2009:81) claim that power
asymmetrical situations are more demanding and difficult to handle for non-native speakers is not verified by the findings
of this study (see also Bella, forthcoming).
However, it was shown here that besides achieving control over pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge, the
learners must also acquire some unfamiliar sociopragmatic distinctions like the ones presupposed by the money situation,
as well as new pragmalinguistic conventions like the appropriate use of suggestory formulas, negation and present
indicative. Moreover, although the low frequencies of certain internal modification strategies (subjunctive, subjectivizers,
solidarity markers) are indicative of individual variation, it appears that, in general, the mastery over lexical/phrasal
modifiers constitutes a rather complicated task for learners of all proficiency levels.22
In view of the above it could be claimed that the support lent to Bialystok's (1993) model is only partial. Yet, I don’t
believe this is the case, since Bialystok (1993) never claimed that the development of more analyzed representations is
not an issue for adult learners. All she maintains is that it constitutes a comparatively minor task (see Bialystok, 1993:53--
54). The findings of this study combined with verbal report findings according to which many learners of Greek do not even
wish to incorporate certain native linguistic elements, such as solidarity markers, into their interlanguage (see Bella,
forthcoming), prompt me to agree with this contention.
Before concluding the discussion section, it has to be pointed out that this study was subject to certain limitations. One
of them concerns the shortcoming of the DCT elicitation method that were discusses in section 3. Yet, it must be pointed
out that, since the results of this study are at a great extent consistent with the ones of previous research that has relied on
role-play data, they could be taken as evidence for the validity of both elicitation techniques.
In addition, although this study attempted to compensate for some of the DCT's shortcomings by supplementing them
with verbal report data, it has to be pointed out that this technique is also subject to limitations. In general, verbal report
data, especially retrospective ones, are subject to memory limitations (see e.g. Woodfield, 2010). Moreover, the
interviews conducted in this study were small-scale, elicited from a limited number of participants. Therefore, the evidence
drawn from them needs to be further confirmed by more cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Finally, certain
drawbacks can be tracked in the cross-sectional design which was adopted here; the most obvious of these drawbacks is
that such a design cannot possibly track the development of the same learners over time (cf. Félix-Brasdefer, 2007:279).
Further longitudinal studies are required for safer conclusions in regard to Greek FL learners’ development of requestive
patterns to be reached.
7. Conclusions
This study attempted to investigate developmental patterns in the performance of FL learners of Greek when making
requests in different situations. Overall, some effects of development were observed with increasing proficiency both in
regard to main requests strategies (head acts) as well as different request modification devices. Specifically, consistent
with previous studies, it was found that increasing proficiency brings with it a movement from directness to conventional
indirectness and a more extended repertoire of both external and internal modification devices.
22
Despite its importance for the understanding of pragmatic development (see e.g. Taguchi, 2012; Woodfield, 2012), the issue of individual
learner variation will not be further addressed in the present study, mainly due to the large number of participants.
Furthermore, it was shown that, at least as far as the learners of this study were concerned, pragmatics precedes
grammar in the development of interlanguage. That is, lower proficiency learners seem to rely initially on a pragmatic
mode to express illocutionary intent making use of their universal and, possibly, L1 sociopragmatic knowledge.
Nevertheless, it appeared that the development of grammatical competence is essential to the development of native-like
pragmatic performance, since sociopragmatic function often requires rather sophisticated grammatical and lexical means
to be expressed (cf. Flores Salgado, 2011). Furthermore, it was claimed here that the mapping of appropriate
pragmalinguistic forms to specific sociopragmatic functions is a quite complicated task even for advanced language
learners. Against this backdrop, it was suggested that the findings of this study lend a great deal of support to Bialystok's
model of pragmatic acquisition.
Moreover, the findings of this study appeared to attribute considerable cross-linguistic validity to claims regarding the
observed stages of pragmatic development. However, it is suggested here that any claims with regard to pragmatic
acquisition stages should be made with caution, not least because, as Hassall (2003:1923) contends ‘‘a pluricausal
explanation for ILP phenomena is the most convincing one’’ (cf. Kasper, 1992; Takahashi, 1996). For instance, different
situational factors, possible effects of L1 transfer, which were beyond the scope of the present study, as well as the
different forms of instruction language learners receive, can be causal factors that possibly affect the learners’
development and blur the boundaries of developmental stages.
Finally, an obvious implication of this study concerns the need for systematic teaching of sociopragmatic phenomena
to FL learners (see also Bella, 2009, 2012b), whose performance and development suffers the consequences of the lack
of adequate authentic input and opportunities for interaction with native speakers.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Jonathan Culpeper for his useful suggestions, as well as the two anonymous referees for their
helpful and insightful comments.
Appendix. Request situations under examination (translation from the original Greek DCT)23
1. Kitchen ( P, D)
Your flat mate, who is also a very close friend of yours, has thrown a party last night. She/he has left the kitchen very untidy
after the party. You expect visitors tonight and you ask her/him to clean it.
You say:
2. Money ( P, D)
You are out to lunch with a close friend of yours. You have already ordered when you discover that you have left your
wallet at home. You ask your friend to pay for your meal.
You say:
3. Extension (+P, +D)
You are a University student. You must write an assignment for the current semester, but you realize that you do not have
enough time. You decide to go to your professor's office, your relationship with whom is strictly academic (you have only
interacted in class), and ask for an extension.
You say:
References
Achiba, Machicko, 2003. Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics. Multilingual Matters, Clevendon.
Al-Ali, Mohammed, Alawneh, Rami, 2010. Linguistic mitigating devices in American and Jordanian students’ requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 7,
311--339.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: a research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics.
Language Learning 49, 677--713.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, 2006. On the role of formulas in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Félix-Brasdefer, C., Alwiya, O.
(Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 11. National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, pp.
1--28.
Barron, Anne, 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. John Benjamins,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
23
Due to space limitations, I provide only the English translations of the situation descriptions, which were originally presented in Greek.
Barron, Anne, 2007. ‘‘Ah no honestly we’re okay’’: learning to upgrade in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics 4, 129--166.
Bella, Spyridoula, 2009. Invitations and politeness in Greek: the age variable. Journal of Politeness Research 5, 243--271.
Bella, Spyridoula, 2011. Mitigation and politeness in Greek invitation refusals: effects of length of residence in the target community and intensity
of interaction on non-native speakers’ performance. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 1718--1740.
Bella, Spyridoula, 2012a. Length of residence and intensity of interaction: modification in L2 requests. Pragmatics 22, 1--39.
Bella, Spyridoula, 2012b. Pragmatic awareness in a second language setting: the case of L2 learners of Greek. Multilingua 31, 1--33.
Bella, Spyridoula, forthcoming. Kαθάρiσε αμέσωz thn koyzínα pαραkαlv !: Aitήμαtα μαθhtv n thz Ellhnikήz ωz jέnhz glv σσαz [Clean up the
kitchen immediately please!: Requests by learners of Greek as a foreign language]. To be published in the Proceedings of the 20th
International Symposium of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (ISTAL 20), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of English,
Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 1--3 April 2011.
Bialystok, Ellen, 1993. Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.),
Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 43--59.
Billmyer, Kristine, Varghese, Manka, 2000. Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: effects of enhancing discourse completion tests.
Applied Linguistics 21, 517--552.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, 2005 [1992]. The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In: Watts, R., Ide, S., Ehlich, R. (Eds.), Politeness in
Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 255--280.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Levenston, Edward, 1987. Lexical-grammatical pragmatic indicators. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9, 155--
170.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Olshtain, Elite, 1986. Too many words: length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
8, 165--180.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Julianne, Kasper, Gabrielle, 1989. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cohen, Andrew, 1996. Developing the ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 253--267.
Cohen, Andrew, 2004. Assessing speech acts in a second language. In: Boxer, D., Cohen, A. (Eds.), Studying Speaking to Inform Second
Language Learning. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, pp. 302--327.
Cole, Simon, Anderson, Aaron, 2001. Requests by young Japanese: a longitudinal Study. The Language Teacher Online 25 (8), Retrieved from
the World Wide: http://www.jaltpublications.org/tlt/articles/2001/08/anderson (06.06.12).
Dalmau, Maria Sabaté, Gotor, Hortènsia Currell, 2007. From ‘‘Sorry very much’’ to ‘‘I’m ever so sorry’’: acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by
Catalan learners of English. Intercultural Pragmatics 4, 287--315.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, 2008. Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage requests production: the case of Greek learners of English.
Journal of Politeness Research 4, 111--138.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, 2009. Interlanguage request modification: the use of lexical/phrasal downgraders and mitigating supportive
moves. Multilingua 28, 79--112.
Ellis, Rod, 1992. Learning to communicate in the classroom: a study of two learners requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14, 1--23.
Ericsson, Anders, Simon, Herbert, 1993. Protocol Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Faerch, Claus, Kasper, Gabrielle, 1989. Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In: Blum-Kulka, S., House, J.,
Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, New Jersey, pp. 221--247.
Félix-Brasdefer, César, 2007. Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: a cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural
Pragmatics 4, 253--286.
Félix-Brasdefer, César, 2008. Politeness in Mexico and the United States. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Félix-Brasdefer, César, 2010. Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays and verbal reports. In: Martínez-Flor, A., Usó-
Juan, E. (Eds.), Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp.
41--56.
Flores Salgado, Elizabeth, 2011. The Pragmatics of Requests and Apologies: Developmental Patterns of Mexican Students. John Benjamins,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Gass, Susan, Houck, Noël, 1999. Interlanguage Refusals: A Cross-cultural Study of Japanese-English. Mouton de Gruyter, New York.
Göy, Elif, Deniz, Zeyrek, Bahar, Otcu, 2012. Developmental patterns in internal modification of requests: a quantitative study on Turkish learners
of English. In: Economidou-Kogetsidis, M., Woodfield, H. (Eds.), Interlanguage Request Modification. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/
Philadelphia, pp. 51--86.
Hassall, Timothy, 2001. Modifying requests in a second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL) 39,
259--283.
Hassall, Timothy, 2003. Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1903--1928.
Hill, Thomas, 1997. The Development of Pragmatic Competence in an EFL Context. Doctoral Dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.
House, Juliane, 1989. Politeness in English and German: the functions of please and bitte. In: Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-
cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, New Jersey, pp. 96--119.
House, Juliane, Kasper, Gabrielle, 1987. Interlanguage pragmatics: requesting in a foreign language. In: Lörscher, W., Rainer, S. (Eds.),
Perspectives in Language Performance. Narr., Tübingen, pp. 1250--1288.
Jalifar, Alireza, 2009. Request strategies: cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native speakers. English Language
Teaching 2, 46--61.
Jourdenais, Renée, 2001. Cognition, instruction and protocol analysis. In: Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 354--375.
Jucker, Andreas, 2009. Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: the case of compliments. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 1611--
1635.
Kallia, Alexandra, 2005. Directness as a source of misunderstanding: the case of requests and suggestions. In: Lakoff, R., Ide, S. (Eds.),
Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 217--234.
Kasper, Gabrielle, 1992. Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8, 203--231.
Kasper, Gabrielle, 1997. The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. In: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. (Eds.), Beyond Methods.
McGraw Hill, Indiana, pp. 113--136.
Kasper, Gabrielle, 2000. Data collection in pragmatics research. In: Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.), Culturally Speaking. Continuum, London, pp. 316--
341.
Kasper, Gabrielle, Rose, Kenneth, 1999. Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19, 81--104.
Kasper, Gabrielle, Rose, Kenneth, 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Blackwell, University of Michigan.
Kasper, Gabrielle, Schmidt, Richard, 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 149--
169.
Kobayashi, Hiroe, Rinnert, Carol, 2003. Coping with high imposition requests: high vs. low proficiency EFL students in Japan. In: Martínez-Flor, A.,
Usó-Juan, E., Fernández-Guerra, A. (Eds.), Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching. Universitat Jaume 1, Castelló, pp.
161--184.
Koike, Dale, 1989. Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: speech acts in interlanguage. Modern Language Journal 73, 279--289.
Marti, Leila, 2006. Indirectness and politeness in Turkish-German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1836--
1869.
Martínez-Flor, Alicia, Usó-Juan, Esther, 2006. Learners’ use of request modifiers across two University ESP disciplines. Ibérica 12, 23--41.
Otcu, Bahar, Zeyrek, Deniz, 2008. Development of requests: a study of Turkish learners of English. In: Puetz, M., Neff Van Aertselaer, J. (Eds.),
Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 265--300.
Pinto, Derrin, 2005. The acquisition of requests by second language learners of Spanish. Spanish in Context 2, 1--27.
Rose, Kenneth, 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22,
27--67.
Rose, Kenneth, 2009. Interlanguage development in Hong Kong, phase 2. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 2345--2364.
Scarcella, Robin, 1979. On speaking politely in a second language. In: Yorio, C., Perkins, K., Schachter, J. (Eds.), On TESOL ‘79: The Learner in
Focus. TESOL, Washington, DC, pp. 275--287.
Schauer, Gila, 2004 May. you speak louder maybe? Interlanguage pragmatic development in requests. In: Foster-Cohen, S.H., Sharwood-Smith,
M., Sorace, A., Ota, M. (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 4. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 253--273.
Schauer, Gila, 2006. The development of ESL learners pragmatic competence: a longitudinal investigation of awareness and production. In:
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Félix-Brasdefer, C., Omar, A.S. (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning. Second Language Curriculum Centre,
University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI.
Schauer, Gila, 2007. Finding the right words in a study abroad context: the development of German learners’ use of external modifiers in English.
Intercultural Pragmatics 4, 193--220.
Schauer, Gila, 2009. Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: The Study Abroad Context. Continuum, London.
Schauer, Gila, 2010. Study abroad and its effect on speech act performance. In: Martínez-Flor, A., Usó-Juan, E. (Eds.), Speech Act Performance:
Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 91--108.
Scollon, Ron, Scollon, Suzanne, 2001. Intercultural Communication. Blackwell, Oxford.
Searle, John, 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Searle, John, 1975. Indirect speech acts. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, pp.
59--82.
Sifianou, Maria, 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sifianou, Maria, 2010. Linguistic politeness: laying the foundations. In: Locher, M.A., Graham, S.L. (Eds.), Interpersonal Pragmatics. Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 17--41.
Taguchi, Naoko, 2012. Context, Individual Differences and Pragmatic Competence. Multilingual Matters, Bristol.
Takahashi, Satomi, 1996. Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 189--223.
Trosborg, Anne, 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Turner, Ken, 1996. The principal principles of pragmatic inference: politeness. Language Teaching 29, 1--13.
Usó-Juan, Esther, 2010. Requests: a sociopragmatic approach. In: Martínez-Flor, A., Usó-Juan, E. (Eds.), Speech Act Performance: Theoretical,
Empirical and Methodological Issues. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 237--256.
Usó-Juan, Esther, Martínez-Flor, Alicia, 2008. Teaching learners to appropriately mitigate requests. ELT Journal 62, 349--357.
Wolfson, Nessa, 1981. Invitations, compliments and the competence of the native speakers. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 25, 7--22.
Woodfield, Helen, 2010. What lies beneath?: verbal report in interlanguage requests in English. Multilingua 29, 1--27.
Woodfield, Helen, 2012. ‘‘I think maybe I want to lend the notes from you’’: development of request modification in graduate learners. In:
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M., Woodfield, H. (Eds.), Interlanguage Request Modification. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 9--49.
Zhang, Yanyin, 1995. Indirectness in Chinese requesting. In: Kasper, G. (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language. University
of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, pp. 69--118.

Pragmatic Development in A Foreing Languge A Study of Greek FL Request

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Pragmatic Development in A Foreing Languge A Study of Greek FL Request

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1917--1947

Pragmatic development in a foreign language:

Keywords: Pragmatic development; Interlanguage; Requests; Greek

E-mail address: sbella@phil.uoa.gr.

2.2. Previous research

2.2.1. SL request development

1. Pre-basic (highly context-dependent, no syntax, no relational goals).

2.2.2. FL requests development

3. Method: participants and data collection procedures

3.2. Data collection procedures

4.1. DCT data

- Preparator (e.g. Moy kάnεiς μiα xάρh; ‘Can you do me a favour?’).

- Apology (e.g. Xíliα σyggnv

Understaters (e.g. lígo ‘a little’, kάpως ‘a bit’)

4.2. Verbal report data

1. What did you notice about the situation?

5.1. DCT results

5.1.1. Head acts

Head acts Situation 1-kitchen Situation 2-money Situation 3-extension

NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3 NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3 NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3

S. Bella / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1917--1947

Query preparatory 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.7 0 0 9 16.1 5 9.4 23 41.8 0 0 4 8 17 34

Hint 2 3.8 16 31.4 1 1.9 0 0 5 8.8 11 22 3 5.4 1 1.9 1 1.8 12 23.5 1 2 0 0

Group Direct CI NCI

NS Mean 0.82 2.30 0.16

(1) Ls1 (use of Want statements)

(2) Ls1 use of NCI requests

(3) [kitchen situation]

(4) [money situation]

(5) [extension situation]

5.1.2. External modification

External modifiers Situation 1-kitchen Situation 2-money Situation 3-extension

NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3 NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3 NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3

5.1.3. Internal modification

184 183 186

Syntactic modifiers Situation 1-kitchen Situation 2-money Situation 3-extension

NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3 NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3 NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3

Negation 14 28.6 0 0 1 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lexical modifiers Situation 1-kitchen Situation 2-money Situation 3-extension

NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3 NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3 NS Ls1 Ls2 Ls3

(16) [money situation]

(17) [extension situation]

5.2. Verbal report results

6.1. Use and development of pragmalinguistic means

6.1.1. Request head acts

6.1.2. External modification

6.1.3. Internal modification

6.2. Developmental stages and sociopragmatic competence

Вам также может понравиться