expressions they offer, each group of which has more detailed descriptions including the understanding of different politeness levels of expressions. Actually, the proposed levels of politeness depend on the context. However, one of the target BE books (Soresi & Soresi, 2002) says that “trying to comprehend many different kinds of expressions can cause confusion, which will prevent smooth communication” (p. 59, translation mine). This suggests that BE books are also restricted in their variety though the variations are not as limited as those of HS textbooks. The differences in selection criteria between English and Japanese are rarely mentioned in the target books. However, here are some descriptions.
Tsuruta et al. (1988) begin from the assumption that “even if the motivation to deal with people in a polite way is the same, the meaning of “polite” is different. So, Japanese polite behavior is not always polite in English cultures” (p. iii, translation mine); Hamada (2009) says, “for example, when you ask one of your close friends something that can be troublesome, the approach should be as polite and tentative as possible” (p. 31, translation mine); and Critchely (2010, p. 3) points out, “in English, an appropriate wording depends on what you want to mean (p. 3, translation mine),” and presents five kinds of expressions to each specific case based on “status, relationship, situation, and mood” (p. 2, translation mine) throughout the book.
Compared to Table 55, the targeted data of discourse analysis include requests for information, instructions, shopping, eating out, having guests, requests, requests for permission, negotiation, and meeting, five of which are shared with the HS books and seven of which with the learning materials for adults. The HS books mainly introduce the Imperative and Interrogative with modals, whereas the learning materials for adults have not only modal sentences but also other examples, such as the Imperative, want statements, and simple rules. Accordingly, the learning materials for adults can cover a larger range of request forms than the HS books, but the targeted data contain a further wider variety. The reason for this might be because the targeted data include far more diverse situations, and also this can mean that proposed request forms are limited as Soresi & Soresi (2002) point out. The reason could be because speakers try to use every possible strategy beyond those of the strategy theories suggested by researchers.
Obligation, Ability and difficulty, Cost, Benefit, Vertical distance, and Intimacy in American English and Japanese and across male and female genders. The politeness levels of request expressions have been examined and compared based on four sentence forms and their indirectness; those of accompanied preambles/postambles have been observed and compared based on numerical data by timing and category. It was found that the impact of the contextual variables was greater in American English than in Japanese and in male than in female in many cases. It was also found that the politeness level of a request could not be exactly defined by a combination of variable conditions and there could be variations even in one particular context. The reason for this could be because more indirect expressions would be combined with a greater number of preambles/postambles in order to deliver a core message clearly. Moreover, these more indirect expressions could further enhance the politeness level of the whole request.
Firstly, the answer to Research Question 1: “Do contextual variables influence the politeness level of expression in American English and Japanese requests?” is Yes. A basic rule can be formulated that when the condition, or level, of contextual variables to gain yes becomes more disadvantageous, the politeness level of the request expression can increase.
This is consistent with Brown and Levinson (1987), Leech (1983), and other politeness researches, but intentional manipulation can also occur. The reasons for the differences in the impact of each contextual variable can be explained mainly by “individualism and collectivism” and “volition and wakimae” between American English and Japanese and by status and sociability between male and female.
As far as male speakers are concerned, it was found that Urgency, Obligation, Ability and difficulty, and Cost can affect American English speakers more than Japanese speakers, whereas Vertical distance and Intimacy can influence Japanese speakers more than American English speakers. Great urgency could have a significant impact regardless of language or gender, but the other levels could be overcome by other factors in Japanese because the norms are very important for collectivists. Obligation can have a greater impact on American English speakers because individualists’ sensitivity to rights could be reflected in the politeness level while collectivists’ trust in high obligations could allow relatively less forceful expressions and high standards of professionalism may lead to very polite expressions (Holmes, 1995) at the highest level. It should be noted here that rights and obligations could not always be handled together. The reason for this is because according to the remake analysis, it was found that even within the same scene, the levels of variables
might be different between American English and Japanese especially in Obligation. Ability and difficulty and Cost could have a roughly inverse relationship in American English probably because individualists could try to accurately assess their rights to make a request based on his or her own criterion. On the other hand, Japanese speakers could prefer a safer expression within a narrow range in Ability and difficulty but might intentionally choose a more forceful expression to overcome a difficulty in Cost. The former could be also connected to “volition” to take a suitable strategy to each request, and the latter could be connected to “wakimae” closely concerned in the norms and intentional manipulation related to the dutiful feature (Triandis, 1995) or amae (Doi, 2007; Triandis, 1995) of collectivists. Vertical distance can have not only a great impact in Japanese because of dutiful vertical collectivism (Triandis, 1995) but also a particular impact in American English because of vertical individualism in which a contract is valued (Triandis, 1995).
Intimacy could be crucial for Japanese speakers due to the “interdependence” within ingroups of collectivism but might not be so for American English speakers due to the
“self-reliance” of individualism (Triandis, 1995). As a result, it was confirmed that individualism and collectivism can explain the differences in the impact of the contextual variables in American English and Japanese very well.
It was also ascertained that females basically preferred more polite forms than males.
The reason for this could be because of relatively low social status of female speakers as Coates (1993), Holmes (1995), Ide (2006), and Tannen (1993, 1995) pointed out. In addition, it was revealed that female American English speakers might reduce the politeness level only in the situations of great urgency or in very advantageous conditions in Vertical distance and Intimacy while female Japanese speakers might use simple patterns of change in narrower ranges, which could be related to “wakimae” (Ide, 1992), except for Urgency.
The trends of frequently choosing relatively high politeness levels of expressions could be reinforced by the findings that females could venture to increase the politeness level by using atakamo [as if] expressions even in advantageous conditions in Ability and difficulty and Cost by American English speakers and in Obligation more frequently by Japanese females than Japanese males. These politeness level enhancement strategies could be preferred probably because of the sociability of female speakers as Holmes (1995) has emphasized.
Secondly, the answer to Research Question 2: “Do contextual variables influence the number, timing, and/or category of preamble/postamble of American English and Japanese
requests?” is Yes. A basic rule can be inferred that when the level of contextual variables to gain yes becomes more disadvantageous, the total number of preambles and postambles can increase. This is consistent with House (1989), Kabaya et al. (1998), Kumagai (2006), Nakagawa (1997), Okamoto (1998), and Sugito (1998). However, it was commonly observed that the number of preambles is greater than that of postambles in many cases both in American English and Japanese. Notable findings are that male Japanese speakers might prefer postambles to preambles in Level 5 of Urgency due to great Urgency, and male American English speakers might frequently add more postambles than preambles in Level 3 of Ability and difficulty to offer more specific support and, in the case of Level 3 of Cost, to make more excuses. The priority of choosing a category could be Calling attention, Reasoning, and then Attaching conditions. In other words, Calling attention can be a common strategy as Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) handle it separately from other preambles and postambles; Reasoning can be helpful as Faerch and Kasper (1989) emphasize its importance; and Attaching conditions can be effective as Blum-Kulka et al.
(1989b) and House (1989) refer to as corresponding supportive moves. The categories added to support a more disadvantageous condition could be more directly related to the expected action. The reason for this could be because it is highly likely that more disadvantageous conditions need more specific supports to comply with the request.
Urgency, Obligation, Ability and difficulty, and Cost can affect the numbers of preambles and postambles and the dependence on Before to some extent. The reason could be because Urgency could directly be related to time; Obligation might be connected to contextualized conventions (Gumperz, 1982) and off record (Okamoto, 1998); Ability and difficulty might need specific instructions (Gumperz, 1982; Okamoto, 1998); and more Cost could need more excuses (Nakagawa, 1997). Frequent use of Repetition and Rephrasing can be observed mainly in relatively disadvantageous conditions, which can increase the dependence on After. Several relatively clear differences were observed between American English male and Japanese male in Urgency, between American English male and American English female in Urgency and Cost, and between American English and Japanese male and American English and Japanese female in Obligation; and stronger tendencies were observed in Ability and difficulty and Cost in American English and Japanese male than in American English and Japanese female.
In the most frequently used combination of conditions of seven variables, which can correspond to an ordinary task, it was found that in American English more
preambles/postambles can be added, but the combinations of number, timing, and category are varied. Furthermore, the combinations of sentence forms and preambles/postambles were varied. This can mean that a variable condition does not decide a suitable number and/or categories of preambles/postambles. It is likely that speakers decide the number and categories of preambles/postambles so that their message can clearly be delivered. The reason for this could be because a high degree of politeness in sentence forms can lead to indirectness, and the increase in the number of preambles/postambles to clarify the speaker’s intention also can correspond to a higher politeness level, which results in a much higher politeness level. The number of possible combinations of number, timing, and category of preambles/postambles can be infinite, which means that no exact combination can be absolutely the best choice under a particular condition.
If intentional manipulation is put aside, a simple and possible but safe strategy of making a request in American English for Japanese native speakers could be to be more sensitive to the change of level and amplify the amount of increase or decrease of the politeness level by considering the features of individualists, and the opposite could be said for American English native speakers. The reason for that is it has been found in this study that most variables can affect both American English and Japanese in similar ways but at different rates in many cases. However, adjusting the politeness level for the opposite gender could be risky and unnecessary. The reason for this could be because ironic effects caused by inappropriately polite forms are warned of by Chinami (2010), Ide (2006), Ito and Shaules (2009), Okamoto (2010), Thayne (2010), Tsuruta et al. (1988), Usami (2002f), and it is well-known that females use more polite forms as Coates (1993), Holmes (1995), Ide (2006), and Tannen (1993, 1995) report.
Therefore, it was confirmed through discourse analysis that contextual factors have a great impact on the politeness level of request behavior and expressions. In addition, as described above, it was found how each variable and their levels impact on male American English speakers, female American English speakers, male Japanese speakers, and female Japanese speakers. It is true that several variations were observed even within one particular context and also the tendencies can keep changing. However, general tendencies were confirmed by this study as reasonable and practical criteria. Demonstrating an anticipated level of politeness can promote smoother and more effective cross-cultural communication.
Such deference can contribute towards a considerable positive influence on negotiations in international business in English and Japanese between English speakers and Japanese
speakers. These implications are not limited merely to contemporary business situations.
Their strategies are also applicable to other fields, such as diplomacy and cultural exchanges. Furthermore, by applying the findings of this study to English education for Japanese speakers and Japanese education for English speakers, future cross-cultural communication can be more fruitful. Consequently, this study can contribute to current and future cross-cultural communications and language education across a wide variety of contexts.